U.S. to Iraq: If Russia helps you fight ISIS, we can't

[Keys]

[QUOTE=sgman91;48955171]This seems like a great way for Russian to assume all leadership in Iraq from this point forward. I'm sure the leadership in Iraq would love support from the Russians over support from the US. As far as they're concerned the US wants to leave while the Russians seem pretty all in. The Russians also wouldn't care if another dictator would be put into place after ISIS is removed.[/QUOTE]

Coming from the Blair thread, fresh with the readings of the Afghanistan War and all that has happened since, I can easily see why Iraq is interested in Russia helping.

What a childish response to an international affair CAUSED by US intervention. "If you want him to help you, then I'm not going to give you any help!" For over 10 years the United States has FAILED to establish a concrete military and democratic system in Iraq. For over 10 years this nation has purely profited from Iraq's suffering through Natural Resource Exploitation and Strategic Bases of Operation. For 3 years the United States has been covertly and overtly involved in the Syrian Civil War. For this last year they have lost nearly all control of the situation, wasted billions, and have blatantly funded and/or supported conflicting sides.

In ONE month Russian forces were able to devastate, push back, and put the fear of God [sp]Err- Allah[/sp] into large forces of ISIS throughout the nation.

Fuck, I'd be dropping the US and knocking on Russia's door like an eager school girl too if I were Iraq.

Now we just have to wait and see if Russia handles any of this better than the US's last decade of fuck up. =/ (Where's the rainbow rating???)

[FlashMarsh]

They're sending air strikes onto the more moderate rebels (ie. not ISIS) for the sake of propping up a brutal regime, and you claim that ISIS are terrified of them? Barely any strikes have hit ISIS from Russia AT ALL. What's your news source? Russia Today? InfoWars?

[QUOTE]What a childish response to an international affair CAUSED by US intervention. "If you want him to help you, then I'm not going to give you any help!" For over 10 years the United States has FAILED to establish a concrete military and democratic system in Iraq. For over 10 years this nation has purely profited from Iraq's suffering through Natural Resource Exploitation and Strategic Bases of Operation. For 3 years the United States has been covertly and overtly involved in the Syrian Civil War. For this last year they have lost nearly all control of the situation, wasted billions, and have blatantly funded and/or supported conflicting sides.[/QUOTE]

If the US were SO interested in simply extracting resources, why the fuck would Blair and Bush bother to try and impose democracy, spending millions, rather than propping up a pliant dictator? I mean, its been done before. You simultaneously accuse the US of profiting from 'Iraq's suffering through Natural Resource Exploitation and Strategic Bases of Operation' whilst saying that they wasted billions? Do you even read through what you write and see how contradictory it is? For sure, oil may have been an influence on the war. But every other action during the war and the aftermath opposes the view that it was the key motivator. If it was, none of the other decisions made would make any sense.

Isn't it cool hating your own country so much that you support a homophobic, nationalistic dictatorship?

[Sgman91]

Simply put, this seems like another one of Obama's "red lines" that he hopes no one actually tries to pass because he won't follow up on the threat even if they do. There's no way he'll be willing to let Russia take over leadership in Iraq.

[FlashMarsh]

[QUOTE=sgman91;48982868]Simply put, this seems like another one of Obama's "red lines" that he hopes no one actually tries to pass because he won't follow up on the threat even if they do. There's no way he'll be willing to let Russia take over leadership in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

US foreign policy has been atrocious under Obama. I don't know why people aren't bashing Clinton more for it rather than stupid crap about Benghazi. I mean, the entire record is very poor (Iraq and Syria in chaos, Russian invasion of Ukraine, cold relationship with the UK and rest of EU, spying scandals being broken, Guantanamo promise broken, disaster in Libya), so why do they focus on such a tiny aspect of her record, and one which she can refute most easily? Makes no sense to me.

[joes33431]

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;48982882]US foreign policy has been atrocious under Obama. I don't know why people aren't bashing Clinton more for it rather than stupid crap about Benghazi. I mean, the entire record is very poor (Iraq and Syria in chaos, Russian invasion of Ukraine, cold relationship with the UK and rest of EU, spying scandals being broken, Guantanamo promise broken, disaster in Libya), so why do they focus on such a tiny aspect of her record, and one which she can refute most easily? Makes no sense to me.[/QUOTE]

they're silent because at least half of the fires that the obama administration has failed to put out were in part started, exacerbated, or blocked from being put out by the GOP, both in the past and the present.

there's also the fact that you can hardly fault any leader from failing to make decisive action on these issues. with regards to ukraine, half a century of cold war experience tells us that bad things happen when you escalate tensions with another superpower, so sanctions and fingerwaggling are the only tools that the united states has at its disposal without far-reaching consequences. similarly, decisive gung-ho hard-power action has been essentially refuted as an effective tool of foreign policy by the years spent in vietnam, iraq, and afghanistan, which makes both the public and policymakers very hesitant to accept immediate hard-hitting action in iraq and syria. spying scandals and freezing relations with european nations can hardly be blamed on the obama administration in full, either, as both were in part the result of actions carried out with bipartisan support under the bush administration. pair this with the fact that a cabal of defense contractors wield massive influence at both the executive and legislative level, and you get a perfect storm of immobility.

in short, in the wake of a crisis, the bush administration was pressured into acting too quickly and too decisively, and then when it was realized how badly that action had failed, the obama administration was pressured into acting too [I]slow[/I]ly and too [I]in[/I]decisively.