What It Takes To Defeat Islamic State's Ideology

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lots of Iraqis did want Saddam deposed, almost certainly most of them. After all, between the two phases of the war, he gassed Kurds and strafed Shiites with helicopter gunships. They hated him.

“Justifiable” is a complex thing. He started two wars, one being practically a world war if one counts the participants. He killed about a million people. His intention to conquer the Middle East could not have been more obvious. Between the phases, he didn’t have the power to do it, but only because of Phase I. Did that mean he could never regain the strength to give it another try?

Just because he intended to be the “Hitler of the Middle East” instead of Europe, it made him no less a vicious aggressor. He paid parents to induce their children to suicide bomb Israelis. He shot at American and Brit planes in violation of the truce after Phase I. He violated the “no fly zone” agreement when he went after the Shiites.

If deposing him wasn’t “justifiable” then nothing ever was or ever will be.

The present chaos there is entirely due to Obama’s decision to abandon Iraq. The Kurds, Sunni tribal leaders and Sistani Shia all begged us to stay awhile longer in force. The Joint Chiefs, the Secretary of Defense and the CIA all advised Obama not to pull out, and predicted exactly what has happened if we did.

But having made it a campaign promise, Obama declared a “victory” he knew needed further guarding to be real, and pulled out.

Call it “Bush’s war” if you wish, but you have to also call what we have now “Obama’s senseless betrayal”.

And Iraq was certainly not stable under Saddam Hussein. Hated as he was by the majority, his rule was no more “stable” than that of Assad.
First question: Probably they would have. 165,000 or so casualties, including combatants on both sides and an anticipated end to Saddam’s rule does not equal a million killed and no end to it. After all, all sorts of people are dying in Syria (and not just at the hands of ISIS) under Assad, because Assad is hated by the majority. In the American Revolutionary War, there were about 50,000 casualties, a massively larger percentage of the whole than those suffered in Iraq. Sometimes an oppressed people are willing to take casualties to rid themselves of a hated dictator.

And the current refugees are not related to the Iraq war. They are the product of the war between ISIS and other rebel groups and the Iran/Russia/Alawite alliance.

One is not surprised at Kofi Anan’s statement, given that his son was bribed in terms of millions of dollars by Saddam Hussein. So were many others in the UN, by money that was supposed to feed the Iraqi people, but didn’t.

WMD were part of the basis for the war. Repeatedly broken terms of the truce were as well. In any event, Saddam did have WMD. Americans disposed of the last known chemical weapons just this year. In 2013 the Brits did as well. Probably they’ll be found for years. Saddam’s crimes against humanity were not limited to WMD.

There was a good chance of stability in Iraq, but we left too early to ensure it.
Thanks for taking the time to go through the history. I wear myself out against the memes trying to rewrite history into the equivalent of bumper stickers. I salute your fortitude. Keep at it.

Although, I’d amend that there was stability in Iraq and more to come before it was thrown away. The reason I don’t support such actions in the future is not because their unjust, but because we cannot guarantee a feckless leader will be elected and ruin any stability achieved through force of arms or diplomacy. The US has become a world leader who cannot lead and that’s a problem for all freedom loving people around the world.
 
One is not surprised at Kofi Anan’s statement, given that his son was bribed in terms of millions of dollars by Saddam Hussein. So were many others in the UN, by money that was supposed to feed the Iraqi people, but didn’t.
.
It has also been said that oil was a motivation for America to go to war.

So Saddam’s WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on “energy security” - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase “US and global vulnerability to disruption”, and leave the US facing “unprecedented energy price volatility.”

theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy
WMD were part of the basis for the war.
If Mr Bush was looking for some sereously big WMDs, he should have looked in his own back yard first,
 
Saddam was convicted of genocide, we should not stand by while genocide happens, it be Iraq or in Syria by Assad or ISIS. Then, comes the dilemma of who fights, they should come from that country or surrounding areas if need be, eventually, if fighting drops, some sort of Arab coalition army may need to go in and mop things up in Syria.
 
It has also been said that oil was a motivation for America to go to war.

So Saddam’s WMD was not really the issue - and neither was Saddam himself.

The real issue is candidly described in a 2001 report on “energy security” - commissioned by then US Vice-President Dick Cheney - published by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James Baker Institute for Public Policy. It warned of an impending global energy crisis that would increase “US and global vulnerability to disruption”, and leave the US facing “unprecedented energy price volatility.”

theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

If Mr Bush was looking for some sereously big WMDs, he should have looked in his own back yard first,
Pretty underwhelming.

I don’t think anyone can seriously doubt that the first phase (1991) of the Iraq War was about oil in an important way, though it was not entirely about oil. Saddam had seized Kuwait and was threatening Saudi Arabia. Had he taken Saudi Arabia, that certainly would have put vast reserves in his hands and the power to determine a lot in world politics. So should we have done nothing and waited for China to drop a nuke on Baghdad?

But there was also the fact that he was a military aggressor in seizing Kuwait and in his threat to also seize Saudi Arabia. No small thing.

Regardless, and while I understand Cheney and others rightly had concerns about Saddam’s territorial and political ambitions, the reality is that the U.S. was not dependent on Iraqi oil. Not in 1991 and not in 2003. But a good part of the rest of the world was dependent on Middle East oil. As the article points out, 2/3 of it was going to the Far East at the time.

I realize some feel the U.S. should never intervene in anything militarily unless it directly threatens the U.S. physically. But we live in a more cohesive world than that, and can’t rely on a “fortress America” view of things anymore.

In reading the very little that was attributed to either Cheney or Baker, one has to realize that all sorts of cautions are written by those in a position to advise leaders. Oil price instability (and we’re seeing it now, but in the other direction, accompanied by plenty of concern) is always a concern, as is price instability in all kinds of things. Remember how Greenspan reduced interest rates to zero because he thought cheap goods from China were the harbinger of wordwide deflation and depression? The U.S. had certainly experienced oil price shocks worse than anything Saddam might have threatened. But most of the article is just an expression of the writer’s own ideological view of things.

Undoubtedly there are articles somewhere attributing the Gulf War to some nefarious objective of the Illuminati too. And probably some believe them.

I have never maintained that Gulf War, Phase II was about only one thing, and consider that view simplistic.

It does strike me as ironic that so many now want Russia or Iran or somebody; even the U.S. to go in and take out ISIS. ISIS is nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein was, and certainly not in military capability.

And yet, those very same people, it seems, don’t think the U.S. should have taken out the far bigger threat that Saddam Hussein amply proved himself to be.
 
By 16 February 2007, António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said that the external refugee number fleeing the war reached 2 million and that within Iraq there are an estimated 1.7 million internally displaced people

There are some 1.4 million Iraqi refugees living in Syria, most having fled the extreme sectarian violence sparked by the bombing of the Golden Mosque of Samarra in 2006.

unhcr.org/pages/49e486426.html
The UN is always worthy of one’s doubts about nearly anything, particularly when, as in the article you cited, the UN agency is wanting to increase its 2015 budget over its 2014 budget.

The article is not about 2007. The article is about the years 2014 and 2014, with small reference to 2013; all of them years in which the ISIS/Iran war was raging, displacing many people. It doesn’t reference the Golden Mosque at all.

But the Golden Mosque is a Shia shrine, and refugees from that event who went to Syria (if any did) would have subsequently fled from ISIS, which kills Shiites wherever found.
 
ALL large Arab or Pakistani Muslim neighborhoods in Europe have increased the local rates of crime, violence, and rape. Many Muslims sexually harass European women, and most Muslims believe it is right and honorable to do so; it’s part of their cultural heritage. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Birmingham, etc. are just the tip of the iceberg of the molestation and rape of thousands–I would guess over 10,000–white girls, mostly underage, and that’s just in Britain alone. But what about the poor innocent Muslims who don’t harass European women, you ask? They tacitly approve of it, and will do nothing to stop it. Even the UK police are obstructing the attempts to wrest underage girls back from their rape gangs. The more Muslims we import, the more defenseless our women and children will be against the worst ones, and the more average Muslims will decide that they can grab at some European woman too.

While only a few Muslims commit actual terror acts in the west, the entire Muslim community is behind them lending religious and material support, especially the mosques. Many or most Muslims believe in jihad, not just the minority who has the guts to carry it out. ALL of Islam is REQUIRED by their religion to support the jihad and the new caliphate, and for the most part they quietly do. If anyone read history any more, they would know that for 1,300 years ALL Muslim groups who reach a critical mass of people have waged war against their neighbors; there aren’t many exceptions to this rule, except for brief quiescent periods when freshly-thrashed Muslims regained their strength. Once the Muslim population is large enough, they WILL fight periodic wars to establish a caliphate under Sharia Law. Roughly once or twice per century, these wars will escalate to Yugoslav-style, genocidal, total wars. But the enemy won’t be in the neighboring state; he’ll be in the neighboring house, like in Rwanda, waiting to kill you and your family while you sleep.

Arabs, Pakistanis, and Africans will ALWAYS have sub-90 average IQs (excepting a few minorities like the Igbo), and will ALWAYS be extremely clannish, because it is in their genes, which their many, many great great grandchildren will inherit, turning all of Europe into third-world countries. For this reason and because of Islam itself, the community of European Muslims will ALWAYS be a net tax drain, taking far more money in services and welfare than they pay in taxes. As Europe ages, elderly whites will have to live in poverty so Muslims can receive their welfare jizya, and every young European white will be working to support two third-worlders through their taxes, while getting raped by their beneficiaries on the way home from work because there’s no money left for policing.

There are NO innocent Muslims. Bringing Muslims into your country is like bringing hungry lions onto your city streets and claiming they’re “innocent victims” because they haven’t eaten any children yet.

There should be a strong emphasis on protecting the ones we love. Liberals who are willing to accept a few rapes and maybe an early death for Team Diversity will think twice when confronted by the likelihood that their wives and female descendants will be gang-raped, quite possibly on a frequent schedule, that their sons will go through life without wives or girlfriends because of the 4-to-1 male-to-female ratio among the migrant youth, and that their great grandchildren will fight occasional genocidal wars and live in a Brazil-like third-world country consisting mostly of great squalor surrounding tiny islands of white productivity.

P.S. Some color commentary: UK: City that covered up Muslim rape gangs wants to ban anti-child rape protests. Choice quote: “All the taxi drivers in my city are members of the Muslim rape gangs. I change my hair color frequently and do everything I can to try to keep them from recognizing me.”
 
There are NO innocent Muslims. Bringing Muslims into your country is like bringing hungry lions onto your city streets and claiming they’re “innocent victims” because they haven’t eaten any children yet.
Sounds very similar to Herman Goering at the Nuremberg Trials, and the ideology behind the Holocaust.

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.” --Goering
 
It does strike me as ironic that so many now want Russia or Iran or somebody; even the U.S. to go in and take out ISIS. ISIS is nothing compared to what Saddam Hussein was, and certainly not in military capability.

And yet, those very same people, it seems, don’t think the U.S. should have taken out the far bigger threat that Saddam Hussein amply proved himself to be.
America needs a leader like Nelson Mandela, world leaders mourned his death, they admired his achievements but do not have the courage themselves to work towards peaceful solutions as he did.

Jesus was more about loving and praying for our enemies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top