Top 10 explanations from the left as to why Iraq is falling to terrorists –

[as seen on tv]

10 – If we’d left Saddam there, this wouldn’t be happening
9 – McCain, if president, would have made it worse
8 – Gas prices were too low anyway. This is a good thing. People will drive less
7 - More good news – the stock market is nearing an all time high too.
6 – This all started with the CIA intrigue that brought the Shah of Iran to power 60 years ago. The tribal intrigues and religious schism of the past 800 years have no bearing on current events.
5 – Israel’s settlements in occupied territories are a destabilizing influence
4 – Dubya Bush may not have actually deserted, but his military service was iffy . . .
3 – I wasn’t proud to be an American until Obama was elected president
2 – What does it matter?
1 – Judging Taliban behavior (jihad, beheadings, kidnapping schoolgirls, etc) by American standards is a form of cultural elitism

 

[middleview]

10 – If we’d left Saddam there, this wouldn’t be happening
9 – McCain, if president, would have made it worse
8 – Gas prices were too low anyway. This is a good thing. People will drive less
7 - More good news – the stock market is nearing an all time high too.
6 – This all started with the CIA intrigue that brought the Shah of Iran to power 60 years ago. The tribal intrigues and religious schism of the past 800 years have no bearing on current events.
5 – Israel’s settlements in occupied territories are a destabilizing influence
4 – Dubya Bush may not have actually deserted, but his military service was iffy . . .
3 – I wasn’t proud to be an American until Obama was elected president
2 – What does it matter?
1 – Judging Taliban behavior (jihad, beheadings, kidnapping schoolgirls, etc) by American standards is a form of cultural elitism

Top Ten republican explanations for what is happening:
10- Obama is a friend of the Islamic radicals (except the ones he has killed).
9- Obama is weak. The terrorists aren't scared enough of US power.
8- Obama shouldn't have withdrawn all the troops from Iraq (he could have ignored Bush's status of forces agreement.....)...What could the Iraqi government do if we just said..."We ain't leaving"?
7- Michelle Obama....mumble, mumble (fill in your own complaint with Michelle...she's fat, she wears clothes that a first lady shouldn't wear...doesn't matter)
6- Barack Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate working towards the establishment of the caliphate.
5- Bush won the war in Iraq and Obama lost it because.....well, just because.
4- Because Obama sent guns to the Syrian rebels.
3- Because Obama didn't send guns to the Syrian rebels.
2- Benghazi....
1- Because Obama is a democrat.

 

[PhilFish]

spoiler alert... do not read below the line if you dont want your Iraq war views ruined

****************************************

We never rid Iraq of terrorism. But we sure as shit made a whole lot more of them.


do carry on...

 

[as seen on tv]

Top Ten republican explanations for what is happening:
10- Obama is a friend of the Islamic radicals (except the ones he has killed).
9- Obama is weak. The terrorists aren't scared enough of US power.
8- Obama shouldn't have withdrawn all the troops from Iraq (he could have ignored Bush's status of forces agreement.....)...What could the Iraqi government do if we just said..."We ain't leaving"?
7- Michelle Obama....mumble, mumble (fill in your own complaint with Michelle...she's fat, she wears clothes that a first lady shouldn't wear...doesn't matter)
6- Barack Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate working towards the establishment of the caliphate.
5- Bush won the war in Iraq and Obama lost it because.....well, just because.
4- Because Obama sent guns to the Syrian rebels.
3- Because Obama didn't send guns to the Syrian rebels.
2- Benghazi....
1- Because Obama is a democrat.

as i've posted infinite times on PJ - i don't believe obama favors islam, or christianity, or any other religous system. he favors income redistribution, more government power, and a "surveillance state" monitoring private citizen behavior.

he famously said a few years ago that he understood and agreed with israels' response to palestiniann rocket attacks on their shopping centers and apartment buildings. i think he also understands the horrors of jihad, mass beheadings, etc.

he just doesn't know what to do about it, after advancing the meme for the past 6 years that the US has no role to assist in human rights and democracy beyond its borders.

 

[as seen on tv]

spoiler alert... do not read below the line if you dont want your Iraq war views ruined

****************************************

We never rid Iraq of terrorism. But we sure as shit made a whole lot more of them.


do carry on...

agreed - and we haven't rid the USA of terrorism either. but it is a game changer to have the taliban - within the space of 3 days -

• capture a half dozen iraqi cities
• loot the banks of all currency (a half billion at least)
• seize rockets, tanks, and artillery from fleeing iraqi soldiers
• conduct mass beheadings in the streets

this is evidently iraq's "krystalnacht"

 

[PhilFish]

agreed - and we haven't rid the USA of terrorism either. but it is a game changer to have the taliban - within the space of 3 days -

• capture a half dozen iraqi cities
• loot the banks of all currency (a half billion at least)
• seize rockets, tanks, and artillery from fleeing iraqi soldiers
• conduct mass beheadings in the streets

this is evidently iraq's "krystalnacht"

this was a foregonc conclusion...whether today...tomorrow..or ten years hence..

however we arrived here...we are culpable for all that transpires...

 

[middleview]

as i've posted infinite times on PJ - i don't believe obama favors islam, or christianity, or any other religous system. he favors income redistribution, more government power, and a "surveillance state" monitoring private citizen behavior.

he famously said a few years ago that he understood and agreed with israels' response to palestiniann rocket attacks on their shopping centers and apartment buildings. i think he also understands the horrors of jihad, mass beheadings, etc.

he just doesn't know what to do about it, after advancing the meme for the past 6 years that the US has no role to assist in human rights and democracy beyond its borders.

1. Income redistribution is a problem how? The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were all about income redistribution....and it has worked. Lots of income went to the top earners....
2. Surveillance state? WTF? If anything he has rolled back some of the things that the Bush regime was doing. No more warrantless wiretaps. I've worked for a major phone company. I managed the people responsible for the software that created your phone bill. The info that you all are up in arms about....that the NSA is currently collecting...has been available at least since my experience and that was in the late 80s.
We siphoned that data off to a computer system that was set up for government agency access. It consisted of the called number, the calling number, the date and time of the start of the call and the elapsed time of the call....that is all.
3. When did Obama ever say that the US has no role in human rights or democracy in other countries?

 

[middleview]

agreed - and we haven't rid the USA of terrorism either. but it is a game changer to have the taliban - within the space of 3 days -

• capture a half dozen iraqi cities
• loot the banks of all currency (a half billion at least)
• seize rockets, tanks, and artillery from fleeing iraqi soldiers
• conduct mass beheadings in the streets

this is evidently iraq's "krystalnacht"

Why are those Iraqi soldiers running away? If they don't want to fight for their country and their government.....should US soldiers want to?

 

[trapdoor]

1. Income redistribution is a problem how? The Reagan and Bush tax cuts were all about income redistribution....and it has worked. Lots of income went to the top earners....

Key word there "earners" -- they didn't take anyone's income, they just kept what they had EARNED. I know you think that's redistribution, but it isn't.

2. Surveillance state? WTF? If anything he has rolled back some of the things that the Bush regime was doing. No more warrantless wiretaps. I've worked for a major phone company. I managed the people responsible for the software that created your phone bill. The info that you all are up in arms about....that the NSA is currently collecting...has been available at least since my experience and that was in the late 80s.
We siphoned that data off to a computer system that was set up for government agency access. It consisted of the called number, the calling number, the date and time of the start of the call and the elapsed time of the call....that is all.

Agreed -- both sides hands are dirty when it comes to the NSA and other spying-on-us operations.

3. When did Obama ever say that the US has no role in human rights or democracy in other countries?

Who said he had to say anything -- actions speak louder than words (or in his case, inaction).

 

[as seen on tv]

this was a foregonc conclusion...whether today...tomorrow..or ten years hence..

however we arrived here...we are culpable for all that transpires...

i'm not sure i agree. i think we were "obligated" - after Saddam invaded 3 nations, and gassed his own ethnic minorities - to "do something". how does history judge those who look the other way in such atrocities?

what happens after you remove a demonic tyrant from power isn't always easy to predict. were we "lucky" in west germany after the armistice? do we bear any responsiblity for what the communists did in east germany? would they have been better off under nazi-ism?

italy has had its up and downs after world war 2. who bears responsibility for THEIR dysfunctional "government of the month", lagging standards living, crime rate, etc? they didn't get the same outcome as France or Belgium or perhaps even (liberated, nato member) Poland.

we are responsible for what happens to arms we ship to dictators - like mubarak, saddam when he was our friend, musharaff when he was in power, and the stuff we left behind for the Iraqis to use. I view Maliki as a low grade dictator. He's worked hard to marginalize the political participation of Sunni's and Kurds, and built an "all shi'ite" government. As part of that strategy he's had extensive outreach to the oppressive government of Iran, which is also shi'ite, and has signed a number of "mutual defense" and "intelligence" agreements with them. Why isn't Iran helping Maliki now? For that matter, since the Saudi's want regional stability, why don't they put some skin in the game?

This region has 800 years of blood feuds, tribal warfare, religous sect atrocities, jihad, and general violation of human rights on a wholesale level. I don't think the US led effort to stop Saddam was the tipping point for any of this.

 

[as seen on tv]

Why are those Iraqi soldiers running away? If they don't want to fight for their country and their government.....should US soldiers want to?

i gave this a like. in a related thread (reasons not to help iraq) by another poster i made the identical point. if the iraqi army won't fight for its own nation, there's no way should be involved, or can win it alone.

 

[middleview]

Key word there "earners" -- they didn't take anyone's income, they just kept what they had EARNED. I know you think that's redistribution, but it isn't.



Agreed -- both sides hands are dirty when it comes to the NSA and other spying-on-us operations.



Who said he had to say anything -- actions speak louder than words (or in his case, inaction).

There are many instances of legislation which favored corporations vs consumers. Do you really need chapter and verse? Much of the rules setup related to credit cards cost consumers money...and that money went to those who ran those companies or invested in them. Rules related to derivatives (or lack of rules) moved a lot of pension money to wealthy investment bankers.....etc...etc...

I don't know of anything Obama has done which rises to the level of warrantless wiretaps....let me know if you do.

Actions? You mean like helping the Libyans overthrow Gaddafi? How about telling the Egyptian military that if they opened fire on the crowds that we'd cut off aid?
Seemed to be more pro-democracy than not.

 

[PhilFish]

i'm not sure i agree. i think we were "obligated" - after Saddam invaded 3 nations, and gassed his own ethnic minorities - to "do something". how does history judge those who look the other way in such atrocities?

what happens after you remove a demonic tyrant from power isn't always easy to predict. were we "lucky" in west germany after the armistice? do we bear any responsiblity for what the communists did in east germany? would they have been better off under nazi-ism?

italy has had its up and downs after world war 2. who bears responsibility for THEIR dysfunctional "government of the month", lagging standards living, crime rate, etc? they didn't get the same outcome as France or Belgium or perhaps even (liberated, nato member) Poland.

we are responsible for what happens to arms we ship to dictators - like mubarak, saddam when he was our friend, musharaff when he was in power, and the stuff we left behind for the Iraqis to use. I view Maliki as a low grade dictator. He's worked hard to marginalize the political participation of Sunni's and Kurds, and built an "all shi'ite" government. As part of that strategy he's had extensive outreach to the oppressive government of Iran, which is also shi'ite, and has signed a number of "mutual defense" and "intelligence" agreements with them. Why isn't Iran helping Maliki now? For that matter, since the Saudi's want regional stability, why don't they put some skin in the game?

This region has 800 years of blood feuds, tribal warfare, religous sect atrocities, jihad, and general violation of human rights on a wholesale level. I don't think the US led effort to stop Saddam was the tipping point for any of this.

how bout the killing of some hundreds of thousands of iraqis.

any residual anger brewing there?

 

[middleview]

i'm not sure i agree. i think we were "obligated" - after Saddam invaded 3 nations, and gassed his own ethnic minorities - to "do something". how does history judge those who look the other way in such atrocities?

what happens after you remove a demonic tyrant from power isn't always easy to predict. were we "lucky" in west germany after the armistice? do we bear any responsiblity for what the communists did in east germany? would they have been better off under nazi-ism?

italy has had its up and downs after world war 2. who bears responsibility for THEIR dysfunctional "government of the month", lagging standards living, crime rate, etc? they didn't get the same outcome as France or Belgium or perhaps even (liberated, nato member) Poland.

we are responsible for what happens to arms we ship to dictators - like mubarak, saddam when he was our friend, musharaff when he was in power, and the stuff we left behind for the Iraqis to use. I view Maliki as a low grade dictator. He's worked hard to marginalize the political participation of Sunni's and Kurds, and built an "all shi'ite" government. As part of that strategy he's had extensive outreach to the oppressive government of Iran, which is also shi'ite, and has signed a number of "mutual defense" and "intelligence" agreements with them. Why isn't Iran helping Maliki now? For that matter, since the Saudi's want regional stability, why don't they put some skin in the game?

This region has 800 years of blood feuds, tribal warfare, religous sect atrocities, jihad, and general violation of human rights on a wholesale level. I don't think the US led effort to stop Saddam was the tipping point for any of this.

Here is where you are wrong about exactly what the US did in Iraq which laid the groundwork for what is happening now:

1. We disbanded the Iraqi army. That created the insurgency and a hundred private armies. We put 250,000 men out of work and sent them home with their ak-47s and rpgs. The replacement army is not nearly as prepared as the old one was.
2. We dismantled the Iraqi government. Anyone who had been a member of the Baath party was not allowed to work for the government....that was a huge number of Sunnis....so we left behind a government with tens of thousands of trainees.....
3. We have supported the wrong people in creating the new government....If Malaki had support from the people of Iraq the ISIS insurgents wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[MrMike]

Ignoring all of that (which is pretty accurate), I'd say the reason things are devolving in several fronts now at an escalating rate is:

1) We lack a clear and decisive POTUS who understands and shows leadership
2) Our POTUS is essentially a pussy
3) Other countries/groups do not respect our POTUS (see items 1 & 2)

 

[as seen on tv]

Here is where you are wrong about exactly what the US did in Iraq which laid the groundwork for what is happening now:

1. We disbanded the Iraqi army. That created the insurgency and a hundred private armies. We put 250,000 men out of work and sent them home with their ak-47s and rpgs. The replacement army is not nearly as prepared as the old one was.
2. We dismantled the Iraqi government. Anyone who had been a member of the Baath party was not allowed to work for the government....that was a huge number of Sunnis....so we left behind a government with tens of thousands of trainees.....
3. We have supported the wrong people in creating the new government....If Malaki had support from the people of Iraq the ISIS insurgents wouldn't stand a chance.

we also disbanded the wehrmacht and waffen SS when nazi germany was defeated. are you saying we shouldn't have, and the way to curry favor with downtrodden civilians is to adopt a policy of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"? remember, saddam killed people by the hundreds of thousands during his time in power. nobody wants to see the samee smirking sunni thug walking the beat as before, after saddam is gone.

i agree we supported "the wrong people". but those people had "majority support" of the population in an election that was approximately as fair as what happens in italy, mexico, or brazil. more fair than what happens in russia or egypt. are you suggesting we immeidatly start funding and support an opposition government if democratic elections bring to power Maliki types who we have policy differences with?

 

[as seen on tv]

how bout the killing of some hundreds of thousands of iraqis.

any residual anger brewing there?

no doubt. but the average iraqi will probably tell you he would have wanted MORE american boots on the ground after saddam left, to deter the hatfield and mccoy revenge killings that took place, not less.

 

[PhilFish]

no doubt. but the average iraqi will probably tell you he would have wanted MORE american boots on the ground after saddam left, to deter the hatfield and mccoy revenge killings that took place, not less.

I dont know. What we know and see is that the shiite / sunni cycle of hatred and slaughter is alive and well.. throw in there some revenge killing , terrorist activity, and retribution for supporting or being trained by americans..

theres a lot of killing coming..

 

[middleview]

Ignoring all of that (which is pretty accurate), I'd say the reason things are devolving in several fronts now at an escalating rate is:

1) We lack a clear and decisive POTUS who understands and shows leadership
2) Our POTUS is essentially a pussy
3) Other countries/groups do not respect our POTUS (see items 1 & 2)

1. His orders to our military to focus on killing Bin Laden make your 1 & 2 out to be so much partisan whining.
2. Putin gambled on seizing Crimea and has created a mess. Are you saying the voters of Crimea should have been afraid of what Obama might do when they voted to rejoin Russia?
3. The reason for the mess in Iraq has to do with centuries old animosity between religious groups. No number of US troops would make them love each other. The reason why this kind of violence didn't happen as much while Saddam was in charge was precisely because of things like the gas attack on the Kurds. Are you suggesting we should have been just as brutal?

 

[middleview]

no doubt. but the average iraqi will probably tell you he would have wanted MORE american boots on the ground after saddam left, to deter the hatfield and mccoy revenge killings that took place, not less.

We had 100,000 troops on the ground and couldn't stop the Sunni vs Shiite violence.