So Iraq *wants* the USA to come back and deal with this new militant threat
 

Iraq Seek U.S. Strikes on Militants

The Obama administration declined the request by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, because it was reluctant to open a new chapter in a conflict that the White House has insisted was closed.

Are you in the "We should help them, we caused a huge mess, now we're going to leave them in the lurch" camp?

Or are you more in the "Fuck em" camp.

I'm from the "dig him up and pretend camp".

Just dig Sadam out of the grave and tell everybody that he is back in power.
Then get the fuck out.

Let's call it the "weekend at Bernie's" camp.

They are on their own.

The intention here was for the US to play a role in the rebuilding of Iraq, hoping to see results similar to what we have seen in the past with Europe, Japan, and Korea. Clearly this is not working here. We tried this and failed. There is no sense in us continue to put in time, money, and American lives trying to rebuild a country that is not interested in rebuilding.

Let them do it on their own, for better or worse.

Not Iraq but the puppet government there :2 cents:

Nope. You have overthrown their government and set your puppet one. You have destroyed their economics, infrastructure etc. You have turned the whole country into the radial Muslim terrorist nest. And after that you say "they are on their own"? Sorry, but this won't fly. Deal with it now.

furthermore, since there has been so much money given to mercenaries for both Libya and Syria.. isn't this 'our' mess?

are we even able to think about affording what an fundamentalist government, a group that is TOO EXTREME for AQ, would mean for the region, and in extension, the rest of the world?

I suspect the tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees fleeing from the militant invasion might disagree with you there. More than half a million if news reports are accurate.

So the same people that the US is arming in Syria are taking over Iraq right now. What kind of foreign policy is this?

Oh, no, the Syria guys are *another* other, other different chapter of Al Qaeda. They have a different handshake, slightly upturned beards, and they prefer garlic hummus.

Listen to how different their call is:

Al Qaeda in Syria:

Al-Shaytan Al-Akbar "death to the Great Satan (US)"

Al Qaeda now in Iraq:

Al-Shaytan Al-Akbar "death to the Great Satan (US)"

See, they are very different, so it is OK to arm and support one.

thanks bush, cheney and sheep in congress who voted yay

saddam was a huge terrorist deterrent

last 13 yrs iraq wouldnt have even been in the news if saddam was still in power

oh and 2-3 million people would still be alive

go merica

You're freaking insane if you think Saddam Hussein didn't kill more people and have absolutely no idea what you're saying..."2-3 million killed" because of the U.S. - stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

FatPanda - wow, just wow

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

looks like you did an extensive study to nail it like this :thumbsup

Nope, done. Time to wash our hands. We didn't destroy their economics or their infrastructure; They produced more oil in 2012 than ever before and their infrastructure barely existed before the invasion and has only improved since.

Their country is fucked because of religion. They have two sides that will never agree with each other. You elect a Shiite and the Sunni will complain and if you elect a Sunni the Shiites will complain. Toss in a few other regligions and a handful of terrorist groups it's not wonder why these silly countries have all the oil in the world and all the money in the world and still amount to absolutely nothing. You cannot rule this area; Any time one group disagrees they just pull out their weapons all over again.

send canada

If you want to call invading a country for oil, a US dollar threat and to give the arms business a boost to boot 'rebuilding', sure. To me it looks more like... invading?

correct.

But what oil we did take? That oil belonged to the people of Iraq and it's government; That money went to them. And then we invested billions more into it.

Fuck this. We are done. We lost, they lost, fuck it - they deserve this. They allowed a leader to treat them like dog shit for decades, eventually someone came in and removed him and gave them another chance... And they blew it. We are done. They are on their own.

Look out militants - Bieber and Celine Dion are on their way.

Any Qweebekers also wishing to volunteer - we have transportation.

Before Bush and Cheney went charging in there like bulls in a china shop, Iraq was a stable (by Middle East standards) country with a very (by Middle East standards) secular population.

Their leader was a ruthless son of a bitch, but he kept the lid on things internally and he hated both Iran and al qaeda in equal measure.

Now... let's compare that situation with what we have going on there now :disgust

History will not view the Bush era kindly.

I have no use for Bush - but in our condemnation of him it's impossible to overlook the fact that Saddam's regime was responsible for the deaths of at least 250,000 Iraqis and committed war crimes in Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Chemical warfare against the Kurds.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

now where did they get those chemical weapons? or money or desire to invade iran? or.. any of that?

lost in the folds of history

one thing that isn't, is Iran has stated, today, they will protect Shiite shrines.

LoL! Look at you barking shit like you're in charge over here :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

A Jewish one. It's complicated.

The US forces were keeping the Sunnis and Shia apart after the de-facto civil war broke out. Maliki promised to not oppress the Sunnis, but as soon as the US forces left, he did oppress them. Consequently, Maliki has brought this down on himself and IMHO should be told to fuck off.

Saddam was mates with the Rockefellers and Bush, so he's definitely still alive, like Hitler was in South America :2 cents: :thumbsup

meanwhile...

Posting that in this thread makes no sense.

The post is nastier than the middle fingers.

:2 cents:

and WHO provided saddam with the equipment, materials and ingredients to manufacturer chemical weapons?

oh ya reagan and bush sr

GO merica

Send in Vendzilla to sort shit out. He sounds like very knowledgeable man :1orglaugh

They should have left Saddam in charge.

Precisely.

My guess is that the US armed forces needs to renew their ammunition stockpiles soon, they seem to do that every 10 years or so. Besides, they have some new drones that needs testing in an active war zone.

However, if the US stays out of it and IRAN decides to deal with the problem, it will become a war that could affect the entire region.

they have apparently decided:

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5804184...oops-iran-isis

'According to the Journal, combined Iranian-Iraqi forces have already retaken about 85 percent of Tikrit,'

however, this is officially now sunni vs shiite, rather than governments

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


so the decades of US imposed economic sanctions and all the invasions and bombing and looting and "blackwatering" did not leave a scratch on their economy? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

wtf is wrong with some americans? :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

cheap oil from iran and saddam in debt...what a pimp move from the US eh? :1orglaugh ...good ole freedom and democracy

Agreed. However, big oil and israel disagreed.

:Oh crap

A picture is worth a thousand words.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1853134/th...IRAQ-570.jpg?6

Link

If that's the reason for war. Then why aren't we going to war with China?