We were winning when my kid left.

/in 2003
//but not for much longer after that

What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

Those bombing were going on before we "left" too, subby. It never even really stopped entirely, just died down after we borrowed from the Brits' old playbook and bribed the Sunnis into working with us, so the idea that our presence there was ever discouraging this violence would be pretty ludicrous even if not for the fact that the bombings and shootings started up because of us being there in the first place.

So Bush was a Uniter not a Divider after all?

Baghdad was actually pretty safe under Hussein.

yeah, when cut off prostitues heads and hang them in public markets as a warning.......

highbrow45: What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

The attacks were against the US when we were there, because we were in the way. Anyway, most attacks were sectarian Iraqi-on-Iraqi while we were there. That place has been fighting a low-grade civil war since 2003, and nothing changed when we left. Most of the bombs are from Sunni groups or foreign Al Qaeda, against the Shia-dominated government. The shiates tend to use bullets in the middle of the night. In 2006, they were finding a 100 executed bodies a DAY in Iraq, so things have been a lot worse.

/Jihadism is not about the West. It's never been about the West.

SundaesChild: So Bush was a Uniter not a Divider after all?

No, he was the decider. And wouldn't be fooled again.

This was inevitable. If the US stayed in Iraq for a hundred years, the Sunni and Shia would have started killing each other the second the troops were withdrawn.

The solution is either having a strongman take over and keep everyone in line, or partitioning the nation in three, like Biden suggested years ago.

imontheinternet: This was inevitable. If the US stayed in Iraq for a hundred years, the Sunni and Shia would have started killing each other the second the troops were withdrawn.

The solution is either having a strongman take over and keep everyone in line, or partitioning the nation in three, like Biden suggested years ago.

OK, this trope has to stop. There have not been more/worse bombings since we left than when we were there. We were just ignoring them in 2011 (new window) because they didn't fit a narrative.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-iraq-violence-blasts-idU S TRE8040K620120105

Iraq is a monument to the evil capacity of Amerika.

Don't underestimate us. We are right down there with the worst of the worst ( and Iraq is just one country where we have slaughtered masses of people. Google "chronology of American state terrorism" )

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

highbrow45: What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

Settling scores. You've got Sunni Caliphate revivalists calling themselves "al-Qaeda" trying their best to destabilize the gov by killing folks from either side, Sunni nationalists trying to pick off Shias, Shias trying to kill off the Sunni leadership, Kurds out to establish autonomy, Maliki trying to keep the Sunnis marginalized, the Kurds from seceding, and political opposition suppressed, and on top of all of that a State filled with "demobilized" militia men with lots of experience, not enough jobs, and a long list of grudges against various other militias. When you take a stable society, smash it to hell, then do nothing to try and put it back together for four or five years, this is what happens.

highbrow45: What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

It was never about the US. You've just been brainwashed by the media.

You can take the person out of the ghetto but you can never take the ghetto out of the person. Most of these people from the Middle East will always be violent. You can put them in the garden of Eden and they'd kill all the other animals and bathe in their blood.

mbillips: OK, this trope has to stop. There have not been more/worse bombings since we left than when we were there. We were just ignoring them in 2011 (new window) because they didn't fit a narrative.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-iraq-violence-blasts-idU S TRE8040K620120105

American troops started withdrawing from Iraq before 2011. There were less than 50K troops there by September 2010.Link

But regardless, the point stands that a prolonged American presence in Iraq will not deter future violence.

SPOILER ALERT: The same thing is true in Afghanistan.

Yeah...they've been killing each other for thousands of years over there. i really don't think a decade long visit was going to solve much. right back at it again.

Even if you divided up Iraq equally amongst the varying rival factions/religions, each with their own government and soverign power, and just told 'em to stay away from each other, they just couldn't do it. They're completely farked in the heads over there.

mbillips: imontheinternet: This was inevitable. If the US stayed in Iraq for a hundred years, the Sunni and Shia would have started killing each other the second the troops were withdrawn.

The solution is either having a strongman take over and keep everyone in line, or partitioning the nation in three, like Biden suggested years ago.

OK, this trope has to stop. There have not been more/worse bombings since we left than when we were there. We were just ignoring them in 2011 (new window) because they didn't fit a narrative.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-iraq-violence-blasts-idU S TRE8040K620120105

I'd be all for dividing the nation into three if a) I still gave a shiat and b) Turkey wouldn't be ultra, rip-shiat pissed that the Kurds got their own country, which borders on the Turkish Kurd area they've been eyeing for quite awhile. Turkey is a US ally in the area with nukes and an air force base, whose name I cannot spell.

If they want to wreck their nation, let them, it's none of our concern.

Bullseyed: highbrow45: What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

It was never about the US. You've just been brainwashed by the media.

You can take the person out of the ghetto but you can never take the ghetto out of the person. Most of these people from the Middle East will always be violent. You can put them in the garden of Eden and they'd kill all the other animals and bathe in their blood.

You are an idiot, and that you are allowed to waste electrons and air with this sort of ridiculous, ignorant, racist bullshiat is an offense to humanity and economics. One of the best proofs of god's non-existence that can be found is that people like you don't get frequently crushed by falling grand pianos, or randomly mauled by surprise bears.

Bob16: Iraq is a monument to the evil capacity of Amerika Bush.

Don't underestimate us.Bush Corp.

Don't dump us all in that kettle, sparky. Some of us have had friends and family turn against us due to right wing and it's malfeasance, some have lost much more than that fighting them.

Heron: randomly mauled by surprise bears.



You rang?

mbillips:

The solution is either having a strongman take over and keep everyone in line, or partitioning the nation in three, like Biden suggested years ago.

OK, this trope has to stop. There have not been more/worse bombings since we left than when we were there. We were just ignoring them in 2011 (new window) because they didn't fit a narrative.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/05/us-iraq-violence-blasts-idU S TRE8040K620120105

While I agree the "there were no bombings when the US was there" is incorrect, there is something to the suggestion of partitioning Iraq per Biden's suggestion. Peter Galbraith's The End of Iraq (which I believe was the inspiration for Biden's comments) makes the case. And, in fact, the partition has already occurred with Sunni and shiate families moving away from their religious rivals, creating very few areas of any significant mixing--The idea of a partitioned Iraq in some ways is just an acknowledgement of this de facto partition.

The problem areas, as identified in this book, are Baghdad (while segregated much more than before the war into Sunni and Shia neigborhoods, this self partitioning was not done with an eye to making the place easy to split politically) and I believe Kirkuk, with a similarly mixed populace, only with Kurds making up a significant portion of the populace, and oil in the ground to make it lucrative to the politically dominant faction.

Well, its their country. If they want to blow each other up, then wtf.

hooray for religion

Antimatter: If they want to wreck their nation, let them, it's none of our concern.

Unfortunately, it's everyone's concern. There's a sh*tpot of oil under that country, and the world needs it. One way or another, sooner or later, by hook or by crook, someone will have to go back in there and settle their hash so the oil can be produced and sent to market and be used to grow and transport food, make medicines, and all the other stuff it's needed for. I'm not advocating that or endorsing that, but it's the truth and it will happen in the fullness of time.

redmid17: I'd be all for dividing the nation into three if a) I still gave a shiat and b) Turkey wouldn't be ultra, rip-shiat pissed that the Kurds got their own country, which borders on the Turkish Kurd area they've been eyeing for quite awhile. Turkey is a US ally in the area with nukes and an air force base, whose name I cannot spell.

1. I don't think Turkey has nukes. At one time WE based nuke missiles in Turkey (see Cuban missile crisis).
2. I am not sure that the anger of an ally is really a moral justification to prevent a people from self rule.

Yes, thank you George W Bush for pushing a strategy our current president was completely against but is now taking full credit for the success of.

GAT_00: Baghdad was actually pretty safe under Hussein.

Provided you weren't being dragged off to a torture chamber or a young girl visiting one of Saddam's sons rape rooms I suppose.

How about we install a brutal dictator in this country. We'd be so much "safer" that way.

canyoneer: Unfortunately, it's everyone's concern. There's a sh*tpot of oil under that country, and the world needs it. One way or another, sooner or later, by hook or by crook, someone will have to go back in there and settle their hash so the oil can be produced and sent to market and be used to grow and transport food, make medicines, and all the other stuff it's needed for. I'm not advocating that or endorsing that, but it's the truth and it will happen in the fullness of time.

Yet another reason to do what we can to kick the oil habit.

I know, I know, "unrealistic", "pie in the sky", "solar panels kill too"....blah blah blah.

But it sure seems stupid not to try.

randomjsa: Yes, thank you George W Bush for pushing a strategy our current president was completely against but is now taking full credit for the success of.

GAT_00: Baghdad was actually pretty safe under Hussein.

Provided you weren't being dragged off to a torture chamber or a young girl visiting one of Saddam's sons rape rooms I suppose.

How about we install a brutal dictator in this country. We'd be so much "safer" that way.

Wow.

Your words seem to indicate that their author is stupid.

I'm sure that's not so. Can you explain the paradox?

If only we had committed to stay there forever by allowing them to prosecute our soldiers for war crimes, this would be happening slightly less frequently AND Americans would be dying. Stupid Fartbama.

Skleenar: redmid17: I'd be all for dividing the nation into three if a) I still gave a shiat and b) Turkey wouldn't be ultra, rip-shiat pissed that the Kurds got their own country, which borders on the Turkish Kurd area they've been eyeing for quite awhile. Turkey is a US ally in the area with nukes and an air force base, whose name I cannot spell.

1. I don't think Turkey has nukes. At one time WE based nuke missiles in Turkey (see Cuban missile crisis).
2. I am not sure that the anger of an ally is really a moral justification to prevent a people from self rule.

1) Turkey doesn't have nukes. WE have nukes at the air force base we share with them. Sorry that was just bad writing on my part.
2) The Kurds have pretty much been an autonomous region for decades. I'm not saying *we* should prevent it. I'm saying that if they get a sovereign nation, the Turks might just attack them pre-emptively. They were already conducting raids over the border into Iraq when the US army was there.

All in the name of some great invisible spirit in the sky..............morans

jso2897: imontheinternet: This was inevitable. If the US stayed in Iraq for a hundred years, the Sunni and Shia would have started killing each other the second the troops were withdrawn.

The solution is either having a strongman take over and keep everyone in line, or partitioning the nation in three, like Biden suggested years ago.

"Iraq" is in fact three nations - nations that were arbitrarily squished into one by imperialist invaders who wanted to punish the remains of the Ottoman Empire for taking the wrong side in WW1. The results have been predictable, and things will only change when the country separates into it's normal components again - if then.

Ehhh, sort of. "Iraq" can be loosely sorted into three ethnic areas, none of which were ever nation-states; they were just among the many, many different ethnic enclaves in the Ottoman Empire, and before that the Persian Empire. There's a lot of bleedover between Iraq and Iran. The Kurdish "nation" in Iraq is just a fragment of Greater Kurdistan, which includes eastern Turkey and northwest Iran. And a large part of the center of Iraq (especially Baghdad) is 50-50 Sunni/Shia, with a lot of intermarriage. And you've got all of Saddam's deliberate ethnic cleansing to figure out (that's why Kirkuk isn't a Kurdish city any more).

The borders of Iraq had as much to do with the rise of Turkish nationalism as they did with the Brits. The French wanted to expand their empire in the Middle East through direct annexation; the Brits wanted to establish protectorates to ensure stability and to protect their access to India, and the Russians didn't want any of that to happen. And everyone was downsizing their armies and going broke, post-WWI. Creating Iraq wasn't a plot; it was just the best compromise governance that they could come up with. The Arab solution would have been to fight a civil war over who was going to be the king.

That's Maliki's strategy. Just become the new Saddam, only with ties to Iran. He leads just one of three major Shi'ite parties, though; Muqtad al Sadr would prefer an Islamist state like Iran, with himself as Grand Ayatollah (even though he's barely literate and not much of a mullah).

Skleenar: Yet another reason to do what we can to kick the oil habit. I know, I know, "unrealistic", "pie in the sky", "solar panels kill too"....blah blah blah. But it sure seems stupid not to try.

It would be a waste of time to go through all that again. The truth is that no matter what else happens, no matter what we try, that oil will still be needed, and you know it.

Bob16: Iraq is a monument to the evil capacity of Amerika.

Don't underestimate us. We are right down there with the worst of the worst ( and Iraq is just one country where we have slaughtered masses of people. Google "chronology of American state terrorism" )

Cripes you are a retard.

Heron: highbrow45: What's the point behind the attacks now? I thought before that they were attacking the US in Iraq but now the US is gone... I guess they just like blowing people up because it's fun.

Settling scores. You've got Sunni Caliphate revivalists calling themselves "al-Qaeda" trying their best to destabilize the gov by killing folks from either side, Sunni nationalists trying to pick off Shias, Shias trying to kill off the Sunni leadership, Kurds out to establish autonomy, Maliki trying to keep the Sunnis marginalized, the Kurds from seceding, and political opposition suppressed, and on top of all of that a State filled with "demobilized" militia men with lots of experience, not enough jobs, and a long list of grudges against various other militias. When you take a stable society, smash it to hell, then do nothing to try and put it back together for four or five years, this is what happens.

But... but... (insert religion here) is a religion of PEACE! These are just extremists!

Islam... its what's for dinner

/in Sam Elliots voice it sounds funnier

TopNotched: All in the name of some great invisible spirit in the sky..............morans

Actually, I think it's over the cousin/son-in-law of the guy the sky wizard used to talk to. One side thinks the sky wizard liked him a lot, the other side just thinks he was okay, but not great.

redmid17: 1) Turkey doesn't have nukes. WE have nukes at the air force base we share with them. Sorry that was just bad writing on my part.

It happens.

2) The Kurds have pretty much been an autonomous region for decades. I'm not saying *we* should prevent it. I'm saying that if they get a sovereign nation, the Turks might just attack them pre-emptively. They were already conducting raids over the border into Iraq when the US army was there.

I didn't think you were suggesting that we (the US) should prevent it, nor am I sure that there would be any way that we could meaningfully prevent it if we wanted to. I guess I was just speaking more on a philosophical/moral basis. Probably bad writing on my part. See? It happens.

That being said, though, it is not clear why this would jeopardize our relationship with Turkey, if such a partition does not come with a US imprimatur. Which it would have, if it occurred while Bremer was running the country or even while we had a significant military presence there.

I agree that military action by Turkey is a real possibility, but again, I am not sure that is a dis-qualifier to self-rule. And if Turkey were to invade a sovereign nation to prevent its existence, I think they'd find their political future very difficult on the international stage.

At least there were based-in-reality, decide-able points of disagreement between the North and the South. Fighting a war over the question of the legality of slavery and the powers of the federal government has a certain sense to it. Fighting over some obscure question of prophetic succession going back hundreds of years is just retarded. Which leaves partition, relocation, a strongman or genocide as the paths to relative stability. Thank jeebus not to have been born in an Arab nation.

Oh, and this bombing campaign isn't that big a deal. It's not causing a refugee crisis; the government isn't losing control. It's just a bunch of murderers murdering people on a retail scale. Fire sale retail, but retail nonetheless. Now, if you start seeing death squads roaming around in retaliation, the way you did in 2006-07, then you've got something to worry about.

If that idiot Maliki would just pay the Sunnis their bribe money, they'd kill the Al Qaeda assholes the way they did for us.