• The US is rushing to find ways of halting increased violence in Iraq.
    11 replies, posted
[QUOTE](Reuters) - The United States is quietly expanding the number of intelligence officers in Iraq and holding urgent meetings in Washington and Baghdad to find ways to counter growing violence by Islamic militants, U.S. government sources said. A high-level Pentagon team is now in Iraq to assess possible assistance for Iraqi forces in their fight against radical jihadists from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a group reconstituted from an earlier incarnation of al Qaeda, said two current government officials and one former U.S. official familiar with the matter. The powerful ISIL, which seeks to impose strict sharia law in the Sunni majority populated regions of Iraq, now boasts territorial influence stretching from Iraq's western Anbar province to northern Syria, operating in some areas close to Baghdad, say U.S. officials. Senior U.S. policy officials, known as the "Deputies Committee," met in Washington this week to discuss possible responses to the deteriorating security outlook in Iraq, said a government source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject matter. The source did not know the outcome of the meeting.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/25/us-usa-iraq-security-idUSBREA3O1YZ20140425[/url]
this is what happens when you make the amount of stabalizing troops we have deployed in a country a political issue... also the goverment of iraq is too focused on reprimands instead of moving forward, which has lead to a lot of this suni/shia tension
1. Build a time machine and go back to 2003. 2. Don't invade Iraq. 3. People aren't pissed at foreign invaders being in their country.
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44646430]1. Build a time machine and go back to 2003. 2. Don't invade Iraq. 3. People aren't pissed at foreign invaders being in their country.[/QUOTE] The current conflict in Iraq isn't about fighting foreign invaders in any significant way, that was relevant a few years ago
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44646430]1. Build a time machine and go back to 2003. 2. Don't invade Iraq. 3. People aren't pissed at foreign invaders being in their country.[/QUOTE] Uhh, no. Maybe if you knew anything about anything and you happened to just so grasp even a fraction of the concept that is the tensions that have ALWAYS been around between Suni and Shia Muslims, you'd understand this conflict a little better.
[QUOTE=draugur;44646642]Uhh, no. Maybe if you knew anything about anything and you happened to just so grasp even a fraction of the concept that is the tensions that have ALWAYS been around between Suni and Shia Muslims, you'd understand this conflict a little better.[/QUOTE] Does it help to have foreign invaders in the midst of religious warfare? I must've missed the memo..
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44646722]Does it help to have foreign invaders in the midst of religious warfare? I must've missed the memo..[/QUOTE] All those US Army soldiers in Iraq.
[QUOTE=Berque-IL;44646722]Does it help to have foreign invaders in the midst of religious warfare? I must've missed the memo..[/QUOTE] You missed the calendar as well. We haven't had troops there in years. You know, after leaving when they told us to? Last I checked, the American armed forces wasn't comprised of mostly Sunni or Shia Muslims.
Uh yeah, go back in time. Stop the implementation of Sadam and his regime (ca. 1970's), back away from the country, and let it develop under its' own accord. The shit the US has done to that country... no wonder there is widespread unrest. circa 2003, the United States accuses the country of harboring terrorism and its' leaders WMD. Although NOTHING was found, the U.S. bombed the living shit out of multiple large cities. Namely Baghdad. Targeting commercial sectors, government buildings, and transportation hubs (Baghdad Airport). Essentially decimating the Country's economy and ability to self-operate. In light of this, the US sent over thousands and thousands of troops to try and "Quell the unrest and violence" in the country. But instead ended up carving a bad-name for US troops due to their behavior and lack of consideration in dealing with the people. Big-name development corporations such as Halliburton (See Dick Cheney) swept in and promised to rebuild the country in the shadow of all that had happened. After rebuilding the airport, a few government buildings, and US-operated military bases, we largely dropped them off on the street. We left their power plants destroyed (To this day the country exists in periods of "black outs" where power is only available for a few hours a day), their water treatment facilities in havoc (The locals often resort to local reservoirs rather than what SHOULD be a clean water treatment system), and the populus essentially worse off than when we arrived. To make matters worse, these multi-national companies who "[i]aided[/i]" in the reconstruction of the country suddenly demanded repayment for all the "help" they did. Iraq, a country brought to its knees economically as well as socially, had no means to repay them. So they struck a bias deal, privatize your (Iraq's) natural resources (Namely Oil and Clean Water) in partnership with foreign multi-nationals. Essentially selling them at dirt-cheap value that is more-or-less costing Iraq more than it would if it kept the resources for its' own country. And then! After all is said and done, we leave their security and military forces (which we were supposed to make top-notch) in disarray before being told to just leave already. So we did. We packed up, left a SMALL group to defend the bases we have, and GTFO. So hell fucking yes that country is going to be in political/social distress. US media just doesn't report on it enough because it'd become clear what we (the US) did over there, so they shift the focus to Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, and whoever is next.
[QUOTE=Keys;44650020]US media just doesn't report on it enough because it'd become clear what we (the US) did over there, so they shift the focus to Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, and whoever is next.[/QUOTE] the news media doesn't report on it because iraq (as a political topic) is a dead horse that wouldn't generate much controversy or discussion if brought up. the news media thrives on creating controversy and then reporting on the controversy, and then reporting on the expansion of the controversy. a recursive loop, even. there isn't really too much to be said here, since we don't even have troops in iraq anymore. it's kind of like 'oh, that country is still crappy. oh well.'
snip
[QUOTE=Keys;44650020]Uh yeah, go back in time. Stop the implementation of Sadam and his regime (ca. 1970's), back away from the country, and let it develop under its' own accord. The shit the US has done to that country... no wonder there is widespread unrest. circa 2003, the United States accuses the country of harboring terrorism and its' leaders WMD. Although NOTHING was found, the U.S. bombed the living shit out of multiple large cities. Namely Baghdad. Targeting commercial sectors, government buildings, and transportation hubs (Baghdad Airport). Essentially decimating the Country's economy and ability to self-operate. In light of this, the US sent over thousands and thousands of troops to try and "Quell the unrest and violence" in the country. But instead ended up carving a bad-name for US troops due to their behavior and lack of consideration in dealing with the people. Big-name development corporations such as Halliburton (See Dick Cheney) swept in and promised to rebuild the country in the shadow of all that had happened. After rebuilding the airport, a few government buildings, and US-operated military bases, we largely dropped them off on the street. We left their power plants destroyed (To this day the country exists in periods of "black outs" where power is only available for a few hours a day), their water treatment facilities in havoc (The locals often resort to local reservoirs rather than what SHOULD be a clean water treatment system), and the populus essentially worse off than when we arrived. To make matters worse, these multi-national companies who "[i]aided[/i]" in the reconstruction of the country suddenly demanded repayment for all the "help" they did. Iraq, a country brought to its knees economically as well as socially, had no means to repay them. So they struck a bias deal, privatize your (Iraq's) natural resources (Namely Oil and Clean Water) in partnership with foreign multi-nationals. Essentially selling them at dirt-cheap value that is more-or-less costing Iraq more than it would if it kept the resources for its' own country. And then! After all is said and done, we leave their security and military forces (which we were supposed to make top-notch) in disarray before being told to just leave already. So we did. We packed up, left a SMALL group to defend the bases we have, and GTFO. So hell fucking yes that country is going to be in political/social distress. US media just doesn't report on it enough because it'd become clear what we (the US) did over there, so they shift the focus to Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, and whoever is next.[/QUOTE] Would you say that those factors caused by the U.S. could've led to violence further down the line?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.