Another obama "foreign policy success"

netanyahoo · Dec 27, 2011

Want to eat the cake and have it too....

DodgeFB said:
Well they will be okay now with their new friends in Iran. They can now be mistress to the Iranian government. But that is now their choice. We will see how they like being Iran's bitch.

First got (Sadam Hussain) Sunni's in power to fight Shiite Iran. When Mistress complained, killed Sunnis and brought Shiite to power who are friendly to Shiite Iran which is not acceptable also. Now we have to make sure neighbor's live in hostility (Divide and Rule).

Next, we have to bring down Shiite in Iraq and the cycle will continue.
Let us check with our Mistress for their desire which dictates US foreign policy in Middle East.

DodgeFB · Dec 27, 2011

netanyahoo said:
First got (Sadam Hussain) Sunni's in power to fight Shiite Iran. When Mistress complained, killed Sunnis and brought Shiite to power who are friendly to Shiite Iran which is not acceptable also. Now we have to make sure neighbor's live in hostility (Divide and Rule).

Next, we have to bring down Shiite in Iraq and the cycle will continue.
Let us check with our Mistress for their desire which dictates US foreign policy in Middle East.

Nothing anyone can do now.

Official: Iran stands ready to expand defensive ties with Iraq

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/27/world/meast/iran-iraq-military/

Patrick · Dec 27, 2011

RoccoR said:
Stability is an unreasonable outcome given the decision that were make in the very beginning;

How so?

and the trend/chaos of today is a natural outcome and consequence of the political and military decisions made in 2003/2004.

What decisions?

The disbanding of the Iraqi Military and the early end to Occupation in June 2004 are mistakes that cannot now be repaired. The damage was done.

The disbanding of an officer corps up to its ears in torture and murder and loyalty to saddam hussein was absolutely necessary.

That squarely rests on the shoulders of the Bush Administration, Congress, an inept Diplomatic Corps, and the PNAC Leadership that ran around inside the halls of power.

Nonsense.

RoccoR · Dec 29, 2011

Patrick, et al,

When I first arrived in Iraq, I thought much the same. Emotionally I have to agree. Intellectually I have to agree to disagree; a conclusion I came to about 2006.

Patrick said:
RoccoR said:

Stability is an unreasonable outcome given the decision that were make in the very beginning;

Click to expand...

How so?

(COMMENT)

The stability was influence by several factors. The big three were:

First was the unemployment rate.
The second was loss of critical infrastructure services.
The third was a loss in public order and control.

Patrick said:
RoccoR said:

and the trend/chaos of today is a natural outcome and consequence of the political and military decisions made in 2003/2004.

Click to expand...

What decisions?

(COMMENT)

It was the US that decided to dump the entire Iraq Army into the unemployment line; along with most of the other civil servants.
It was the US that decided to impose the US GAAP on untrained administrators that had little or no knowledge, skills and abilities in running government agencies and civil services.
It was the US that decided to allow the Iraqi Constitution to be Islamic oriented.

The list just goes on and on.

Patrick said:
RoccoR said:

The disbanding of the Iraqi Military and the early end to Occupation in June 2004 are mistakes that cannot now be repaired. The damage was done.

Click to expand...

The disbanding of an officer corps up to its ears in torture and murder and loyalty to saddam hussein was absolutely necessary.

(COMMENT)

The US did not have the numbers to maintain law and order in Iraq. The military already had a sound command structure. It should have used it and monitored it. Not turn it completely lose, in an unrestrained environment. THEN, try to rebuild one from scratch.

Patrick said:
RoccoR said:

That squarely rests on the shoulders of the Bush Administration, Congress, an inept Diplomatic Corps, and the PNAC Leadership that ran around inside the halls of power.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

(COMMENT)

Say what you will, but the PNAC was the Prime Mover in the push to establish a Regional Hegmony>

Elliott Abrams
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard L. Armitage
John Bolton
Richard Perle
R. James Woolsey

Just to name a few. All of them had considerable influence over the conduct of the war and were the Prime Movers of the invasion starting as far back as May 29, 1998.

PNAC Letter said:
-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.

Most Respectfully,
R

Patrick · Dec 29, 2011

It was the US that decided to dump the entire Iraq Army into the unemployment line; along with most of the other civil servants.

Why don't you get it that the existing military was a tool of the Baathists, and would simply have re-instituted the status quo ante, with another "Saddam", at the earliest opportunity, if they hadn't been disbanded?

It was the US that decided to impose the US GAAP on untrained administrators that had little or no knowledge, skills and abilities in running government agencies and civil services.

They no choice.

It was the US that decided to allow the Iraqi Constitution to be Islamic oriented.

The country is a democracy - you can't tell them what to do, and there is very little "islamic" in it - e.g., they don't impose sharia law.

David · Dec 30, 2011

Patrick said:
The country is a democracy - you can't tell them what to do, and there is very little "islamic" in it - e.g., they don't impose sharia law.

No, they just kill each other for heresy.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 30, 2011

David said:
He fought (and won) the real war, that's the opposite of doing nothing. Nation building was never the objective anyway, overthrowing the Taliban and Bath'hits and dismantling al Qaeda was. We only stayed in Iraq so nobody could say we didn't clean up our mess.

Obama won the real war? He didn't do shit. That would be Bush who slapped the Iraqis around. Give credit where it is properly due. Bush overthrew the Taliban. Bush overthrew Saddam Hussein. Cut the crap about Obama having had anything to do with anything.

Fascist Canuck · Dec 30, 2011

The entire world knows that Iraq was destroyed to please the Jews of Israel who were becoming nervous about Saddam's growing military. The Jews ordered the Americans to invade. Willing sheep of the Jews, the Americans complied.

RoccoR · Dec 30, 2011

Patrick, et al,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Patrick said:
Why don't you get it that the existing military was a tool of the Baathists, and would simply have re-instituted the status quo ante, with another "Saddam", at the earliest opportunity, if they hadn't been disbanded?

(COMMENT)

I think you are confusing the Republican Guard with the Regular Army. None the less, it was a catalyst that gave rise to the insurgency in Iraq.

But despite that, the Baathist Party used military activity to further sectarian ends. That is no less as bad as the current concern that Nuri al-Miliki is doing the same thing - in reverse with US supplied armaments.

Patrick said:
They (had) no choice.

(COMMENT)

Certainly we had a choice. We didn't have to change their practices and we didn't have to directly infuse large amounts of cash, or initiate large US (nation building) programs. This all lead directly to an environment conducive to corruption.

The country is a democracy - you can't tell them what to do, and there is very little "islamic" in it - e.g., they don't impose sharia law.
[/QUOTE][/INDENT]
(COMMENT)

This is a ticking time bomb.

Article (2): 1st - Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:

(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
(b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
(c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms
outlined in this constitution.
2nd - This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.

Legislation is exactly how laws are made. All it will take is a Islamic Fanatic to come to power and he will have the Constitution behind him. Already, anti-US cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is working his way through the chairs. It will not take too many years before the Iranian influence takes hold. At that point, not that we are benefiting from any return on our investment now, the US will become a pariah and Tehran will be the major influence.

Most Respectfully,
R

Another obama "foreign policy success"

Similar threads