If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Mechanics)   Four things you need to know about the collapse of Iraq. None of which answer the question, "Why is this article in Popular Mechanics?"   (popularmechanics.com) divider line 362
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

6001 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jun 2014 at 7:20 AM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



362 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-13 12:43:40 AM
FTFA: Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance.

The status of forces agreement in place required full withdrawal by January 1st, 2012. al- Maliki was in no mood to keep inviting the Americans to stay and neither was his power base. What was the U.S. supposed to do? It would have turned into an unwanted occupation the next day with all the shiat that would have come with it. Without al-Maliki's cooperation, there is nothing that the Americans could have done while respecting the elected government.
 
2014-06-13 12:54:29 AM

Somacandra: FTFA: Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance.

The status of forces agreement in place required full withdrawal by January 1st, 2012. al- Maliki was in no mood to keep inviting the Americans to stay and neither was his power base. What was the U.S. supposed to do? It would have turned into an unwanted occupation the next day with all the shiat that would have come with it. Without al-Maliki's cooperation, there is nothing that the Americans could have done while respecting the elected government.


that
 
2014-06-13 01:06:22 AM
In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II
 
2014-06-13 01:21:29 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II


It was already broken, we just took a hammer and blowtorch to it in an attempt to fix it without knowing how it worked.

Is it our job to provide a stable state for the Iraqis?   I don't think so.  The invasion was to remove an external threat to ourselves, and we accomplished that.  We should have left long before we did.

Iraq needs to be fixed by the Iraqis.  Any government we try to prop up will be viewed with suspicion if not outright derision by the extremists over there.  Whatever happens next needs to come from the people who live there.
 
2014-06-13 01:24:38 AM
Well, it was nice being greeted as liberators while it lasted. Enjoy your descent into sectarian violence (again).
 
2014-06-13 01:42:46 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II


Didn't Biden suggest splitting Iraq in three? I remember much hilarity about his naïveté.
 
2014-06-13 02:47:53 AM
Maybe we can back Iran this time.
 
2014-06-13 04:10:35 AM

TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk: In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II

It was already broken, we just took a hammer and blowtorch to it in an attempt to fix it without knowing how it worked.

Is it our job to provide a stable state for the Iraqis?   I don't think so.  The invasion was to remove an external threat to ourselves, and we accomplished that.  We should have left long before we did.

Iraq needs to be fixed by the Iraqis.  Any government we try to prop up will be viewed with suspicion if not outright derision by the extremists over there.  Whatever happens next needs to come from the people who live there.


There was no threat. Everyone who was paying attention knew that.
 
2014-06-13 04:26:36 AM
President Bush was willing to risk a new strategy in Iraq during his famous surge there, probably because his legacy was on the line. It worked.

Well, it clearly didn't long term, otherwise you wouldn't be writing an article about how shiatty Iraq is becoming.

And why IS this in Popular Mechanics?
 
2014-06-13 05:26:31 AM
2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.
Good thing we didn't get involved in Syria. Because things like that never spread.
 
2014-06-13 05:41:08 AM
What do you know?  We lost that war too!

Guess Biden and Obama were wrong about this too.
 
2014-06-13 06:56:28 AM
Its in Popular Mechanics because our "news" is so bad that they won't address the issue beyond "Which ISIS jihadi are you? Take the quiz!" and "21 things Nouri Al-Maliki said that are totally ratchet!"
 
2014-06-13 07:24:21 AM
Whar Mission Accomplished????

Whar?!?
 
2014-06-13 07:27:01 AM
that's because you're reading Populist Mechanics
 
2014-06-13 07:27:05 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: //otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II


No one could have ever possibly seen this coming--

thumbs3.ebaystatic.com
 
2014-06-13 07:27:34 AM
There's only one thing Republicans need to know about the collapse of Iraq: it's another opportunity to bash Obama.
 
2014-06-13 07:27:37 AM
Man, Republicans care so much about Iraqis that they're willing to sacrifice Americans for them. So noble.
 
2014-06-13 07:28:42 AM
What you are seeing happen in Iraq is a direct result of the US's failure to support the moderate opposition in the Syrian Civil War. The groups that got support were Jabat al Nusra and other Islamic radicals. Now they're making every American death in Iraq have been for vain. Thanks Bush/Cheney.
 
2014-06-13 07:30:18 AM
I'm so glad we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives destabilizing that country.  USA!  USA!  USA!
 
2014-06-13 07:30:19 AM
I already heart this thread so much already, and I haven't even mocked a thing! :-D
 
2014-06-13 07:30:55 AM

TuteTibiImperes: Is it our job to provide a stable state for the Iraqis?   I don't think so.  The invasion was to remove an external imaginedthreat to ourselves, and we accomplished that.


Fixed it for ya.
 
2014-06-13 07:31:15 AM
Four things you need to know about the collapse of Iraq, conservative edition:

1) A bad thing happened/is happening somewhere on the planet.
2) The president is still black.
3) Therefore, outrage.
4) BENGHAZI!!
 
2014-06-13 07:31:55 AM
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.  Iraq is one of those, "we should never have gotten involved in the first place" things.  If Bush really thought Saddam's WMD were real, then fine, take him out.  But that is where we should have ended involvement.  Critics like me of the whole Iraq involvement were practically called traitors back in the day.  Good times.
 
2014-06-13 07:33:39 AM
I like that we'll be providing military support to Iraq even as they barrel bomb their own people.

It's also neat how was essentially gave ISIS US military hardware
 
2014-06-13 07:33:42 AM

uttertosh: I already heart this thread so much already, and I haven't even mocked a thing! :-D


enough of the already, already.
 
2014-06-13 07:34:01 AM

propasaurus: MaudlinMutantMollusk: In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II

Didn't Biden suggest splitting Iraq in three? I remember much hilarity about his naïveté.


Yes, he was dismissed as old crazy Joe and the Republicans have been laughing at him for years for it
 
2014-06-13 07:35:25 AM

propasaurus: Didn't Biden suggest splitting Iraq in three? I remember much hilarity about his naïveté.


Yeah, that was an idea that was completely and totally kookoo bananas, and not at all based on the historical ethnic distribution of the region.  Again, you'd have to be some sort of loony, like Peter Galbraith or something, to have ever suggested such a ridiculous idea.  Good thing that we decided the best course of action was to defend the historical borders of this nation, because everyone knows that borders are sacred and never change--Any deviation from the map we grew so fond of from CNN graphics would have been a total failure.


Actually, even that idea really didn't have any good solution to Baghdad, but ethnic strife through the war and occupation was doing a pretty good job to split the city along ethnic divisions, which maybe could serve to keep some of the Iraqi on Iraqi violence down, no matter how or if the city was politically partitioned.
 
2014-06-13 07:35:29 AM

Wyalt Derp: There's only one thing Republicans need to know about the collapse of Iraq: it's another opportunity to bash Obama.


Convenient, considering that none of them really want the war to end.

We defeated the Axis powers worldwide in under 5 years.  We pacified both the Japanese and Germans and facilitated the rebuilding of their economies.  But we couldn't do the same in Iraq because why?  "It's too hard".  "Those people are animals!".  "They just don't understand democracy!"

Right. Meanwhile, the wheels of the MIC keep grinding.
 
2014-06-13 07:36:15 AM
Is barry aware of what's going on in Iraq? He usually doesn't find out about things like this until reading about it in a newspaper. Maybe the NY Times or USA Today should print something so obama can at least be brought up to speed on another of his failures.
 
2014-06-13 07:36:28 AM

The Bestest: Somacandra: FTFA: Republicans will point out, rightly, that the Obama administration made a major error by leaving Iraq without a security agreement in place. This left Iraq without vital assistance.

The status of forces agreement in place required full withdrawal by January 1st, 2012. al- Maliki was in no mood to keep inviting the Americans to stay and neither was his power base. What was the U.S. supposed to do? It would have turned into an unwanted occupation the next day with all the shiat that would have come with it. Without al-Maliki's cooperation, there is nothing that the Americans could have done while respecting the elected government.

that


And:

Colin Powell's famous Pottery Barn rule about invasions-"you break it; you buy it"-assumes there are people in D.C. who feel obligated to make good on that promise.

The point of Powell saying that was because we weren't supposed to engage in invading countries in the first place unless there was a really good reason.

And every time we intervene or reinforce our interventions in the reason we inevitably create animosity and future issues.  Half of our problems in that region stem from TP-AJAX and overthrowing the government of Iran in 1953, and the other half from giving Israel a blank check for the last 50 years.
 
2014-06-13 07:40:06 AM

Launch Code: Is barry aware of what's going on in Iraq? He usually doesn't find out about things like this until reading about it in a newspaper. Maybe the NY Times or USA Today should print something so obama can at least be brought up to speed on another of his failures.


He'll read about it in a newspaper after it's all said and done, I'm sure of it.
 
2014-06-13 07:40:54 AM

Close2TheEdge: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.  Iraq is one of those, "we should never have gotten involved in the first place" things.  If Bush really thought Saddam's WMD were real, then fine, take him out.  But that is where we should have ended involvement.  Critics like me of the whole Iraq involvement were practically called traitors back in the day.  Good times.


Practically?
 
2014-06-13 07:41:14 AM

Close2TheEdge: If Bush really thought Saddam's WMD were real


2.bp.blogspot.com
"Aw, hell! I was just dealing with daddy issues and securing mah legacy!"
 
2014-06-13 07:44:33 AM

born_yesterday: Wyalt Derp: There's only one thing Republicans need to know about the collapse of Iraq: it's another opportunity to bash Obama.

Convenient, considering that none of them really want the war to end.

We defeated the Axis powers worldwide in under 5 years.  We pacified both the Japanese and Germans and facilitated the rebuilding of their economies.  But we couldn't do the same in Iraq because why?  "It's too hard".  "Those people are animals!".  "They just don't understand democracy!"

Right. Meanwhile, the wheels of the MIC keep grinding.


Actually, our rebuilding of Germany worked because we stayed in that country for more than 3 generations,  You have to remain in the occupied country at least until the youngest enemy private dies of old age.  once there is no one left alive who remembers the war, you can go.

we are still in Germany as we speak.
 
2014-06-13 07:45:59 AM
Iran 2: Islamic Boogaloo. We will never learn. GTFO.
 
2014-06-13 07:48:30 AM
Iraqis Who Fled Mosul Say They Prefer Militants to Government

So clearly the prudent thing to do is air strike the shiat out of their city.
 
2014-06-13 07:48:57 AM
"Why is this article in Popular Mechanics?"

Because it blames both sides and therefore no "hard news" or politically oriented outlet will touch it
 
2014-06-13 07:49:06 AM
2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn't like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.

[...]

3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.


Which is it, article? ISIL or ISIS?
 
2014-06-13 07:54:33 AM
4. This will inspire a Vietnam-esque narrative of failure

For me, it did from the very beginning.
I support our military, but not the politicians getting them killed for profit.
 
2014-06-13 07:57:30 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: In the simplest terms; we broke it

/Iraq was only held together as a singular nation by Saddam
//otherwise it was always just three tribal regions pasted together into a country after WW II


Partitioning into three countries  or autonomous states was suggested after the 03 invasion and seemed to me the best solution.  The big sticking point was how to make sure all three got a share of the oil revenue.since the Sunni would have come out on the short end oilfield wise.
 
2014-06-13 07:57:43 AM

TuteTibiImperes: The invasion was to remove an external threat to ourselves, and we accomplished that.


Wouldn't there have to have been an external threat to ourselves for us to have removed it?
 
2014-06-13 07:58:40 AM

EvilEgg: TuteTibiImperes: MaudlinMutantMollusk:

Is it our job to provide a stable state for the Iraqis?   I don't think so.  The invasion was to remove an external threat to ourselves, and we accomplished that.  We should have left long before we did.

There was no threat. Everyone who was paying attention knew that.


Some in Israel felt that Iraq was a threat to Israel and by Neo-Con logic that is the same as a threat to the USA.
 
2014-06-13 07:58:42 AM

Close2TheEdge: Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do something.  Iraq is one of those, "we should never have gotten involved in the first place" things.  If Bush really thought Saddam's WMD were real, then fine, take him out.  But that is where we should have ended involvement.  Critics like me of the whole Iraq involvement were practically called traitors back in the day.  Good times.


No, if you thought the WMDs were real (I did), you take the WMDs out.

Which was the actual international plan until Bush/Cheney got involved.

And with hindsight, it had worked.
 
2014-06-13 08:00:50 AM

born_yesterday: We pacified both the Japanese and Germans and facilitated the rebuilding of their economies


We didn't pacify them.  In Japan and in West Germany, we took over and ran the country long enough to make certain the Imperial Forces and Nazis had indeed given up.  We restored order and oversaw the development of a Constitution and made obeisance to the rule of law one of the unalterable criteria.  At the same time, we did, indeed, facilitate the rebuilding of their economy with a view toward economic freedom and security for the majority of people hand in hand with political freedom and security.  Note that both Japan and Germany are long-time, staunch allies.

Somewhere between WW II and Vietnam, the intelligentsia in this country decided that we shouldn't impose our form of government on other countries.  And that is why we haven't won a war since.  We can win any battle on the field.  We do not have the will to win the war.  That is certainly not an Obama problem.  It didn't start with Bush.  It started with LBJ but both parties have been galvanized toward defeat for the last 50 years.  I, for one, cannot understand what is wrong with imposing some form of representative democracy and rule of law on a country.  Germany and Japan both seem better off with their current government than what they had during WW II.  Different cultures, different histories, different parts of the world but similar philosophy of governance is successful in both places.

Look at Korea.  Compare North, where China and communism have been in control, and South, where the U.S. had a strong influence in the development of the government.  In which country would most people rather live?  Which is more successful, stable, and secure?

There is certainly an added degree of difficulty in dealing with an enemy for whom death is a promotion.  But if we would stick around long enough that the masses of the country tasted the benefits and the security in a free economy, rule of law, separation of religion and government, we wouldn't need to be fighting terrorists.  The people themselves would.
 
2014-06-13 08:01:05 AM

Fluid: 2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn't like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.

[...]

3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.

Which is it, article? ISIL or ISIS?


ISIS = ISIL
 
2014-06-13 08:01:55 AM

EyeballKid: Close2TheEdge: If Bush really thought Saddam's WMD were real

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 232x273]
"Aw, hell! I was just dealing with daddy issues and securing mah legacy!"


cdn2-b.examiner.com
"I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it's gonna be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're gonna see 90,000 American troops come marchin' home by the end of the summer. You're gonna see a stable government in Iraq that is actually movin' toward a representative government. I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months, three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed, how they have been deciding to use the political process, rather than guns, to settle their differences."
 
2014-06-13 08:02:01 AM
Because mechanics fix things.

"You're gonna need a bigger mechanic."
por-img.cimcontent.net
 
2014-06-13 08:02:10 AM
So the neocons are cranking up the Iraq Murder Party war machine again.  I'm saddened to say that I won't be surprised if we do the whole thing all over again, because Freedum 'N Shiat F*ck Yeah.  Now with 30% More Tax Cuts For The Wealthy During Wartime!  Get those marching uniforms cleaned and pressed, and get ready to do the Texas Goosestep!  Somebody get started on the Mission Accomplished banner, and don't forget to add "Totally the Navy's Idea" this time!

My only answer to anyone who thinks we should be over there:

1. Strap on a parachute
2. Grab a rifle
3. GO

And don't expect to suck at the gubbmint's teat with your whiny claims about missing limbs, PTSD, and weird rashes and tumors when you get back, we know all about your libby lib games.  You knew what you signed up for, soldier.  Your claims are invalid until the next libby lib president.

I'm also saddened to say that the outcome this time will be even worse than last time, as hard as that might to believe.
 
2014-06-13 08:02:43 AM

Fluid: 2. This is linked to a wider mess in the Middle East, particularly Syria.

ISIL was founded in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Iraqis didn't like their bloodthirsty methods (even Al Qaeda complained against ISIL brutality) and thought the group was made of meddling foreigners. After some notable high ranking deaths, and flashes of political progress, the ISIL drifted into war-torn Syria to fight the regime of Bashar Assad.

[...]

3. The collapse of Iraq puts ISIS on the map. And they may not like how it feels.

Which is it, article? ISIL or ISIS?


Both Levant=Syria. The side we were supporting in Syria.
 
2014-06-13 08:02:51 AM

TheGregiss: What you are seeing happen in Iraq is a direct result of the US's failure to support the moderate opposition in the Syrian Civil War. The groups that got support were Jabat al Nusra and other Islamic radicals. Now they're making every American death in Iraq have been for vain. Thanks Bush/Cheney.


                                           i1.wp.com
 
Displayed 50 of 362 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report