• 'The civil war in Iraq has already begun': Politician claims conflict has started and warns it will
    31 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Iraqi leaders fear that the country is sliding rapidly into a new civil war which “will be worse than Syria”. Baghdad residents are stocking up on rice, vegetables and other foodstuffs in case they are prevented from getting to the shops by fighting or curfews. “It is wrong to say we are getting close to a civil war,” said a senior Iraqi politician. “The civil war has already started.”[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-civil-war-in-iraq-has-already-begun-politician-claims-conflict-has-started-and-warns-it-will-be-worse-than-syria-8601732.html"]Source[/URL]
Can't ya'll just get along.
[QUOTE=Clavus;40514665]Can't ya'll just get along.[/QUOTE] NNNNNNNNnnnnnope. As long as people are going to argue over trivial bullshit, we're going to have wars like this. And since arguing over trivial bullshit is in human nature, enjoy constant sorrow and suffering until we wipe ourselves out. and mind you, I'm using "trivial" loosely.
Please don't...
I'm skeptical to the last part of the title, mostly because [QUOTE]Politician claims[/QUOTE]
"Steam" Icon? Either way I am pretty worried. Why does this have to keep happening.
Didn't we have a war with them? Im surprised the country is still functioning after that. but it had a good run, time to return to instability.
[QUOTE=mac338;40515020]I'm skeptical to the last part of the title, mostly because[/QUOTE] Yes i'm sure the government loves some PR in the form of "we're about to go to war with ourselves". It just brings in the tourism and money.
at first I thought this was some short of game because of Icon
America's biggest failure just keeps failing.
You mean 2nd civil war...
This has been obvious for a while, but not widely reported on in the West because we want to maintain the idea that Iraq was stable. How much do you really hear about Iraq anymore? We have some 60,000 American soldiers recently (4 or so months back) stationed at the Iraq border in Kuwait waiting for shit to go down. But this is what happens when a weak puppet government with inability to grant safety, security, and the basic needs of its populace who are overall sympathetic to a different ideology.
This is what happens when you put three different groups who hate each other into the same country.
And right now Bush is thinking "Phew, at least I won't be blamed for [i]this[/i] Iraqi civil war." [sp]Except yes, yes it is your fault.[/sp]
Iraq needs to buy more killing machines. [editline]3rd May 2013[/editline] Also the US needs to not arm the Syrian rebels because considering Iraqi Al-Qaeda is in Syria it will only fuck over Iraq in the end.
[QUOTE=laserguided;40517096]Iraq needs to buy more killing machines. [editline]3rd May 2013[/editline] Also the US needs to not arm the Syrian rebels because considering Iraqi Al-Qaeda is in Syria it will only fuck over Iraq in the end.[/QUOTE] Also it hurts Russia's influence and we couldn't possibly have that now.
[QUOTE=Truckasaurus1;40517505]Also it hurts Russia's influence and we couldn't possibly have that now.[/QUOTE] Iraq is more Iranian influence.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40517000]And right now Bush is thinking "Phew, at least I won't be blamed for [i]this[/i] Iraqi civil war." [sp]Except yes, yes it is your fault.[/sp][/QUOTE] Yes, of course, let's blame all of the problems in one nation on our previous president. It's not like there were already issues to begin with. He may have caused some, but it's silly to say it's entirely his fault.
[QUOTE=Doctor Death921;40517705]Yes, of course, let's blame all of the problems in one nation on our previous president. It's not like there were already issues to begin with. He may have caused some, but it's silly to say it's entirely his fault.[/QUOTE] If we believe to lay the blame for World War I on the actions of a single Bosnian, then the invasion of the Middle East can be blamed on Bush as well.
So does this mean that our 10 years in Iraq meant absolutely nothing?
Gee that good old American intervention sure helped liberate the Iraqi people.
What a shame, seems power in the region only works if you rule with an iron fist and constantly murder your enemies (Saddam, the Taliban), otherwise everyone's on equal footing and they just keep fighting until one gets enough of an edge to start ruling with an iron fist. I guess it can't be helped.
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;40517789]If we believe to lay the blame for World War I on the actions of a single Bosnian, then the invasion of the Middle Easy can be blamed on Bush as well.[/QUOTE] You really shouldn't blame one person for WWI, or WWII, or hell, any war.
[QUOTE=Ogris;40515067]Yes i'm sure the government loves some PR in the form of "we're about to go to war with ourselves". It just brings in the tourism and money.[/QUOTE] Have you heard some of the things American politicians say about America? :v:
great now all we need is the kurds from syria(whom are now heavy armed) to join in with the kurds on iraq. :suicide:
[QUOTE=Da Big Man;40517789]If we believe to lay the blame for World War I on the actions of a single Bosnian, then the invasion of the Middle Easy can be blamed on Bush as well.[/QUOTE] But it was a group dude: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29[/url] More specifically: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Bosnia[/url]
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;40516827]This is what happens when you put three different groups who hate each other into the same country.[/QUOTE] No, this is what happens when a colonial power comes in, whether it's the British/US/whoever, and draws a map saying "This is the country" without regard for the historic ethnic and/or religious history of the area. The Taliban go back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan because that border is a Western invention. The people(Pashtun) have lived on both sides since forever. To them it's one country. It's like this in many areas of the world. Yugoslavia was like this, then it broke apart. This kind of thing only really works if a strongman(dictator) takes over and forces it to work. Saddam did the job in Iraq. The only problem is of course having a dictator means no democracy and no freedom, and if the dictator turns out to be malicious then the people really suffer. So the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds are facing one of two outcomes: Iraq breaks up into three sections, and each section will likely fight with the other over control of the oil. Or some Iraqi is able to put together a strong enough force to take over Iraq and keep everyone in line by whatever means necessary.
It's a shame all those lives lost and money spent just being worthless. I just don't get this world sometimes..
[QUOTE=spiritlol;40518913]But it was a group dude: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_%28Serbia%29[/url] More specifically: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Bosnia[/url][/QUOTE] They did not cause WWI. The rise of imperialism, colonialism and nationalism and all three clashing together made WWI happened. The Black Hand was a catalyst, and barely even one at that. War nearly broke out in 1912, two years before the Archduke was killed. And when he was killed, most of Austria didn't even care. It wasn't until a week or so later some policy makers in Vienna realized, "Hey, let's blame Serbia for this so we can invade them!"
Welcome to the effects of rampant interventionist policy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.