Up to 25 bombings in one week kill over 100 across Iraq

cyberhog

June 16, 2012

BAGHDAD - (AP) -- Two car bombs in Iraq's capital killed at least 26 people Saturday on the last day of a Shiite pilgrimage already hit by multiple bombings. The blasts, one in a heavily guarded area close to a revered shrine, raised the week's death toll to more than 100 and cast further doubt on the divided government's ability to secure the country after the American withdrawal.

...

Three days before, nearly two dozen coordinated bombs around the country killed 72 people. Al-Qaida's Iraqi affiliate on Saturday claimed responsibility for that attack, which marked one of the deadliest days in Iraq since the last U.S. troops left in December.

...

"Those behind the attacks, they've become more determined now and see more of an opportunity because of the dysfunctional political process," said Salman Shaikh, director of the Brookings Doha Center and an analyst on regional politics.

"It's a fairly bleak picture right now," Shaikh said. He added, "This is quite depressing, considering we are approaching a decade since the initial invasion into Iraq."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/26-die-as-last-day-of-iraq-pilgrimage-hit-by-bombs-1.3785830


Prior to the US invasion in 2003 suicide terrorism did not occur in Iraq. By removing Saddam, the US opened the door for terrorists to wreak havoc on Iraqis and 9 years on they show no signs of letting up. It is true that life was not a bed of roses for Iraqis under Saddam, but it was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Toppling the dictator has not brought freedom to Iraqi society. Instead it has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and plagued Iraq with a terrorist campaign that seems to have no end in sight.

Laminations

cyberhog wrote: »

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/26-die-as-last-day-of-iraq-pilgrimage-hit-by-bombs-1.3785830


Prior to the US invasion in 2003 suicide terrorism did not occur in Iraq. By removing Saddam, the US opened the door for terrorists to wreak havoc on Iraqis and 9 years on they show no signs of letting up. It is true that life was not a bed of roses for Iraqis under Saddam, but it was nowhere near as bad as it is now. Toppling the dictator has not brought freedom to Iraqi society. Instead it has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and plagued Iraq with a terrorist campaign that seems to have no end in sight.

Cyberhog, you have lots of these threads criticising any intervention in foreign strife. Is your position that we (the West for simplicity) shouldn't intervene no matter how brutal the regime or dictator and no matter how oppressed the people in case things get worse after??

An intervention being good or bad cannot be judged by its consequences (if these are unforeseen) but only by its intended consequences or the motivation for that intervention.

Example: I see you being attacked, I step in to help, the guy punching you feels outnumbered now so pulls a knife, something that may not have happened had I not intervened. Was my intervention wrong because you ended up stabbed? Or do you judge my actions on my intentions which by all means feel free to do re the Iraq War (or invasion) but that's been done to death.

Eggy Baby!

Cyberhog, you have lots of these threads criticising any intervention in foreign strife. Is your position that we (the West for simplicity) shouldn't intervene no matter how brutal the regime or dictator and no matter how oppressed the people in case things get worse after??

What's the purpose of intervention if it makes things worse? There was no "foreign strife" in Iraq before the Iran-Iraq War, in which America played both sides against each other rather than mediate peace and stability. Not to mention the humanitarian disaster in Iraq after the sanctions of the First Gulf War.

Therefore, America had an indispensable role in creating and perpetuating the problems in Iraq, and then it invaded to apparently sort out these problems, but only made them worse, and created millions more problems in their wake.

Example: I see you being attacked, I step in to help, the guy punching you feels outnumbered now so pulls a knife, something that may not have happened had I not intervened. Was my intervention wrong because you ended up stabbed? Or do you judge my actions on my intentions which by all means feel free to do re the Iraq War (or invasion) but that's been done to death.

This anecdote has little relevance to Iraq. If your intervention caused the person you were saving to be stabbed then it would be a failed intervention.

An intervention being good or bad cannot be judged by its consequences (if these are unforeseen) but only by its intended consequences or the motivation for that intervention.

Considering that the Americans didn't go in to "spread democracy and freedom", the very basis of the intervention is corrupt. It was to disarm Saddam of WMDs, WMDs which didn't exist and this fact was obvious to the Americans et al. It also rode the wave of the general confusion and hatred caused by 9/11. In fact the Americans tried to blame Saddam for harbouring Al-Qaeda but these allegations were very false. If you believe the invasion was to "bring democracy to Iraq" then you have an extremely warped view of how America goes about its business. There are dozens of dictatorships all over the place which America supports, many of which are ten times more oppressive than Iraq (in fact, Kuwait was a brutal dictatorship/monarchy in 1991), but Iraq was a hostile state with great geostrategical importance- of course that is why they invaded. Notice that the Americans have been fixated with the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Southeastern Asia for decades.

This means they are fixated on isolating China and Russia and having friendly oil-rich states in the Middle East. Its so obvious! They don't care about democracies or dictatorships, if their allies are a democracy, all the better, because they won't have to awkwardly explain their support for dictatorships to their citizens later. And Iraq is hardly a democracy. It is one of the most corrupt countries on planet Earth. Added to that people were burning themselves alive during the Arab Spring in protest against the regime there.

But yay for democracy! Where you have the freedom to self-immolation in protest against oppression! Because that happens so often over here :rolleyes:

Laminations

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

What's the purpose of intervention if it makes things worse? There was no "foreign strife" in Iraq before the Iran-Iraq War, in which America played both sides against each other rather than mediate peace and stability. Not to mention the humanitarian disaster in Iraq after the sanctions of the First Gulf War.

Therefore, America had an indispensable role in creating and perpetuating the problems in Iraq, and then it invaded to apparently sort out these problems, but only made them worse, and created millions more problems in their wake.

I said above, by all means criticise America et al. for their motivations for interveneing etc. but I'm arguing that judging whether to intervene in something based on possible unintended consequences leads to non-action and suffering.

This anecdote has little relevance to Iraq. If your intervention caused the person you were saving to be stabbed then it would be a failed intervention.

So we shouldn't intervene because things can go wrong? Or we shouldn't intervene until we work out without any doubt that our intervention will be positive and the consequences will be a better situation, definitely. Fine in the world of clinical trials and painstaking research (where even still certified interventions can have unintended consequences when implemented) - not so fine in emergency situations where a population is being oppressed/slaughtered etc.

Should the UN intervene in Syria? You can wait and think and talk while civilians die until you are sure of your strategy and the outcome (which is impossible) or you can act with an imperfect plan.

Again, it is legitimate to say that America et al. were never interveneing to liberate Iraqis but that is a separate argument. Which you touch on next.

Considering that the Americans didn't go in to "spread democracy and freedom", the very basis of the intervention is corrupt. It was to disarm Saddam of WMDs, WMDs which didn't exist and this fact was obvious to the Americans et al. It also rode the wave of the general confusion and hatred caused by 9/11. In fact the Americans tried to blame Saddam for harbouring Al-Qaeda but these allegations were very false. If you believe the invasion was to "bring democracy to Iraq" then you have an extremely warped view of how America goes about its business.

Initially, I was misled by their intelligence claims, but no I do not think that was their motivation. If easing the pain of the people of Iraq was not the intention of the invasion then why use it as a criteria for the success of the invasion (as per the OP)?

There are dozens of dictatorships all over the place which America supports, many of which are ten times more oppressive than Iraq (in fact, Kuwait was a brutal dictatorship/monarchy in 1991), but Iraq was a hostile state with great geostrategical importance- of course that is why they invaded. Notice that the Americans have been fixated with the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Southeastern Asia for decades.

I have no issue with criticising/condemning the intervention based on its ulterior intentions/motivation - I think you are missing my point.

This means they are fixated on isolating China and Russia and having friendly oil-rich states in the Middle East. Its so obvious! They don't care about democracies or dictatorships, if their allies are a democracy, all the better, because they won't have to awkwardly explain their support for dictatorships to their citizens later. And Iraq is hardly a democracy. It is one of the most corrupt countries on planet Earth. Added to that people were burning themselves alive during the Arab Spring in protest against the regime there.

But yay for democracy! Where you have the freedom to self-immolation in protest against oppression! Because that happens so often over here :rolleyes:

I'll repeat - cyberhog criticises many interventions by the West into what some people may call other countries 'domestic problems'. Medical/social/biological interventions can be judged on their consequences (unintended or not) and then not repeated. Geopolitical/military interventions/invasions cannot be judged the same way, and it is pointless to do so.

As for Iraq being wrong, most people agree with that now.

Eggy Baby!

Initially, I was misled by their intelligence claims, but no I do not think that was their motivation. If easing the pain of the people of Iraq was not the intention of the invasion then why use it as a criteria for the success of the invasion (as per the OP)?

Admittedly a good point. But because that is what they claimed to do, and that is what they failed to do. As a result this makes them look like the hypocrites they are. "In what I have done and what I have failed to do..."

I said above, by all means criticise America et al. for their motivations for interveneing etc. but I'm arguing that judging whether to intervene in something based on possible unintended consequences leads to non-action and suffering.

The Americans et al didn't "intervene" in Iraq- they simply attacked it. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of their actions led to this social and economic quagmire in Iraq.

So we shouldn't intervene because things can go wrong?

No, what I'm saying is if you intervene make sure to do it bloody right and not like Iraq. The war in Iraq failed as the Americans failed to assess what could happen when you usurp a tyrant who has held a potentially explosive sectarian state under his fist for decades. Whether or not the Americans intended to do this is irrelevant- they probably didn't intend for this bloodbath to happen. But as a result of their greed for power Iraq is as it is today. It doesn't matter whether or not they intended it, but it is suspicious that they simply abandoned Iraq in its hour of need to serve their leader's political and electoral desires.

I'll repeat - cyberhog criticises many interventions by the West into what some people may call other countries 'domestic problems'. Medical/social/biological interventions can be judged on their consequences (unintended or not) and then not repeated. Geopolitical/military interventions/invasions cannot be judged the same way, and it is pointless to do so.

I don't really want to get into an argument about morality on a politics forum but for now I'll oblige.

The Americans had subjective teleological concerns. That is, they wanted an outcome which suited themselves and only themselves. They had no concern for deontological ethics, that is, they didn't care what they had to do to achieve their teleological desires. They were willing to kill hundreds of thousands and drive millions into poverty to achieve their aims.

Although the Americans were extremely callous and irrefutably evil in pursuing this teleological desire, I'll agree that it was not their intention to turn Iraq into a sectarian massacre. But, as a consequence of their actions, they must bear the brunt of the blame as if they had not acted, Iraq would not be as bad as it is today. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say this.

What is true is that the Americans were willing to lay waste to Iraq for their own gain. As a result all of the sectarianism happened.

An intervention being good or bad cannot be judged by its consequences (if these are unforeseen) but only by its intended consequences or the motivation for that intervention.

Everything should be judged by both its consequences and its intention! The intervening party exercises its "right" to intervene, but it also has the responsibility to make sure that things don't go tits up. The Iraq War was bad as the intentions were bad and the consequences were bad and the guys waging it were crooked and selfish and corrupt! Therefore it was a bad action through and through.

wes

Iraq is the perfect example of intervention gone wrong. Those involved were simply incompetent.

Also, the entire Humanitarian claims, is utter rubbish, it was at first claimed to be about WMDs, which turned out not to exist, then after it was all about democracy. Basically, they tried to pull a fast one.

Also, the question has to be asked, why wasn't there intervention, when Saddam was ordering his worst atrocities? Of course the reason is rather simple, he was on the side of the US at the time, so what he was doing was ignored.

The ongoing mess in Iraq is very much the fault of the American's. They, to put it simply, messed up and messed up badly, and not a single person is in jail for there crimes.

Eggy Baby!

The ongoing mess in Iraq is very much the fault of the American's. They, to put it simply, messed up and messed up badly, and not a single person is in jail for there crimes.

Simple explanation for that. The "International" Criminal Court was actually made exclusively for African warlords and Serbian Generals. Funny that the West is so "transparent" and "accountable" while at the same time it takes persecuted organisations such as Wikileaks to make them transparent and many of their crimes abroad remain unaccounted for.

czx

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Although the Americans were extremely callous and irrefutably evil in pursuing this teleological desire, I'll agree that it was not their intention to turn Iraq into a sectarian massacre. But, as a consequence of their actions, they must bear the brunt of the blame as if they had not acted, Iraq would not be as bad as it is today. Its easy to look back in hindsight and say this.

I hate this warped thinking. Those who strap explosives to themselves and blow up their countrymen must bear the brunt. Suicide bombings are premeditated attacks.

Laminations

czx wrote: »

I hate this warped thinking. Those who strap explosives to themselves and blow up their countrymen must bear the brunt. Suicide bombings are premeditated attacks.

I agree. While America made a balls of intervention in Iraq, to the point where it can be seen as an invasion, armchair critics tend to demonise them and blame them for all of Iraqis ills. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. And that's the reality once the decision to invade was made, it was never going to end well. What would a good outcome even look like? Are people suggesting they should've stayed? Should never withdraw? Or are they just saying they should never have gone there? Well in most polls Americans themselves acknowledge the initial decision to go into iraq was wrong - there is less agreement on whether the outcome was a success but I reckon that's down to what Americans thought the aim was.

I don't like the idea put forth in the OP that Saddam was a necessary evil. If you can excuse the oppression of his people so easily you could easily be countered with American intervention is a necessary evil which is a lazy argument that lets them off the hook for a botched job. But exaggerating their malice by saying they had no regard for deontological ethics is wrong. They didn't nuke the place or carpet bomb the place. They did show 'some' regard for civilian life and pumped money into training and infrastructure. It's a bit idealist to knock an intervention (invasion) for not being planned out so as to ensure a positive outcome (which is impossible on such a scale with so many factors) while not coming across as slow to react to the plight of a people. Syria is a current example of how political wrangling and failure to act decisively by the UN means Syrians die while people talk. While the Iraq invasion was not similar in terms of intentions to intervene, the OP is judging it as if it had that intention, and criticising its outcome based on the acts of militant radical terrorists. It is not a fair way to judge an intervention. Even if America stabilised Iraq, improved standards of living and education, trained the police and military and made life better for most people but then some mad Islamist gangs started blowing themselves and others up (like what's happening) then even that intervention would be judged a failure because of the actions of others.

Without reference to the initial decision being wrong, we'll take that as an unchangeable given, what was the correct exit for America?

Eggy Baby!

czx wrote: »

I hate this warped thinking. Those who strap explosives to themselves and blow up their countrymen must bear the brunt. Suicide bombings are premeditated attacks.

These type of men would not exist without the meddling of America. First America impoverished and then subsequently radicalised Iraq, which had been primarily secular IIRC. Would those suicide bombers exist if it weren't for American foreign policy drift regarding Iraq? Probably not.

You have to remember that groups such as Al-Qaeda were formed due to perceived American imperialism in the Middle East. Selfish American foreign policy is to blame for their formation. Not that I condone suicide bombings.

9/11 was "inspired" by attacks on apartment blocks during in Lebanon by Israeli jets (Israel being supported by America). So, generally, most of the Middle East is a disaster because of either A; the USA fooling around, particularly during the Cold War or B; former European colonial powers fooling around, particularly after the Ottoman Empire fell.

They didn't nuke the place or carpet bomb the place.

So America showed restraint because it didn't "nuke or carpet bomb the place"? Ridiculous statement. They know they wouldn't get away with nuking or carpet bombing it, but they caused much more damage to Iraq than a nukes could ever have done over a ten year period.

They did show 'some' regard for civilian life and pumped money into training and infrastructure.

The annihilated the nascent Iraqi infrastructure in 1991 without prejudice. So they put a bit of money in after the second invasion, so what? They spent much more money blowing the place up..

Even if America stabilised Iraq, improved standards of living and education, trained the police and military and made life better for most people but then some mad Islamist gangs started blowing themselves and others up (like what's happening) then even that intervention would be judged a failure because of the actions of others.

Thing was, Iraq was stable before the Americans came in. It had had good standards of living and education before the Americans destroyed its infrastructure and caused economic apocalypse with sanctions in 1991.

Without reference to the initial decision being wrong, we'll take that as an unchangeable given, what was the correct exit for America?

The correct exit for America....?

How about next time they keep their noses out of the Middle East and then all the Arabs can live in relative peace.

Speaking in hindsight, there was no correct exit from Iraq. They shouldn't have went in in the first place. All they achieved was to destroy a country. I'm not going to spend my time explaining how evil their policy is in the Middle East as I assume you already get the picture.

I don't like the idea put forth in the OP that Saddam was a necessary evil.

Unfortunately there are a lot of unnecessary evils out there. Saddam killed a lot of Kurds. Turkey killed many also, maybe as many as Saddam did. But they get away scotch-free because they are on the USA's whitelist. The Congo is in a state of pure chaos right now, and the UN (and particularly the USA who is to blame for a lot of the problems there due to Cold War meddling) doesn't seem to care. Its the same in Somalia and Pakistan and in so, so many other places. Too many places.

It's a bit idealist to knock an intervention (invasion) for not being planned out so as to ensure a positive outcome (which is impossible on such a scale with so many factors)

Why intervene then?

I'm not here to discuss the morality of interventionism. What I am here to do is to express my distaste at the recklessness, ignorance, selfishness, hypocrisy and malice of the USA when dealing with others. This was demonstrated in Iraq. Vietnam. Korea. Afghanistan. I could go on.

Laminations

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

These type of men would not exist without the meddling of America. First America impoverished and then subsequently radicalised Iraq, which had been primarily secular IIRC. Would those suicide bombers exist if it weren't for American foreign policy drift regarding Iraq? Probably not.

It was a bubbling hodge podge of religious and tribal tensions with violence controlled by the iron fist of a dictator. It could be argued that the removal of Saddam opened the pandoras box and it had little to do with Americans. Are you trying to say America radicalised iraqis to kill other Iraqis in suicide attacks?

Eggy Baby!

Laminations wrote: »

It was a bubbling hodge podge of religious and tribal tensions with violence controlled by the iron fist of a dictator. It could be argued that the removal of Saddam opened the pandoras box and it had little to do with Americans. Are you trying to say America radicalised iraqis to kill other Iraqis in suicide attacks?

Poverty always radicalises people. America forced Iraq into isolation, paranoia and poverty. It killed Iraqis, destroyed their infrastructure and shattered their country. The Americans put sanctions on Iraq which led to an excess of mortality of millions. Who removed Saddam? The Americans did obviously. That was the purpose of it all. It radicalised them by proxy.

One of the purposes of the sanctions was to increase discontent among Iraqis of Saddam so they would overthrow him. This led to many tribes and religious groups attempting to jostle each other for local superiority. It led to discontent all right; by radicalising Iraqis through poverty. Sanctions increased Iraq's insularity. Iraqis were starving, unemployed and angry. Many youths were recruited into fundamentalist groups that were dormant until Saddam's fall. Whereby they rose up and attempted to seize power or kill their rivals all over the place.

Over a million excess kids died of diseases associated with poverty because medicines weren't reaching them through the embargo imposed by the victorious coalition. The fact that nobody bothered to report this gives an insight both into Iraq's poverty both also its isolation. The country needed nurturing at this time, not ignorance. That is when the seeds of sectarianism were planted.

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Poverty always radicalises people. America forced Iraq into isolation, paranoia and poverty. It killed Iraqis, destroyed their infrastructure and shattered their country. The Americans put sanctions on Iraq which led to an excess of mortality of millions. Who removed Saddam? The Americans did obviously. That was the purpose of it all. It radicalised them by proxy.

The Bush administration and architects of the war bear responsibility for the pre-emptive invasion.

The subsequent insurgency was a mixture of ex-Baathists, Sunni and Shi'ite groups, foreign fighters or local fighters recruited under foreign funding/organisation (including surrounding countries complicit)

To cherry-pick US foreign policy and apportion all blame on the "great satan" is just absolving those guilty of terrible crimes of any responsibility and simplifying the situation beyond reason.

Using your logic, everything the IRA has ever done over the decades is somehow justified because its all the 'fault' of the UK.

Fromthetrees

People don't like to be liberated or freed, they perceive the 'liberators' as conquerors. Countries can only free themselves from a dictator.
Look at the success of the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen ect. versus the American led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The death toll and the end result are the bottom line in judging this and it's plainly obvious that full scale military intervention by a foreign nation is going to do far more damage than letting a country organically liberate itself.

Foreign military intervention should always be used as an absolute last resort but that isn't and probably never will be the case.

Everyone involved in Iraq has a portion of blame to take, it's not black or white, Bush is as responsible as an Imam brainwashing a teenager into blowing himself/herself up. The whole thing is an utter mess.





Percentage of Iraqis who lived in slum conditions in 2000: 17

Percentage of Iraqis who live in slum conditions in 2011: 50

Number of the 30 million Iraqis living below the poverty line: 7 million.

Number of Iraqis who died of violence 2003-2011: 150,000 to 400,000.

Orphans in Iraq: 4.5 million.

Orphans living in the streets: 600,000.

Number of women, mainly widows, who are primary breadwinners in family: 2 million.

Iraqi refugees displaced by the American war to Syria: 1 million

Internally displaced [pdf] persons in Iraq: 1.3 million

Proportion of displaced persons who have returned home since 2008: 1/8

Rank of Iraq on Corruption Index among 182 countries: 175

http://mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Eggy Baby!

Using your logic, everything the IRA has ever done over the decades is somehow justified because its all the 'fault' of the UK.

The British did add fuel to the fire by committing atrocities and by staying in Northern Ireland where I believe they had no business being. When you consider that the IRA fought the British because well, the British had occupied Northern Ireland over the centuries due to their own selfish teleological desires it can be concluded that the Brits have much of the blame. If the British didn't fool around in NI there would be no IRA as the IRA wouldn't have been formed in response to the UK occupation. BUT I do not condone the PIRAs actions (although they did kill a lot of security forces which a nationalist insurgency is supposed to do). Killing civilians, whether accidental or on purpose (the PIRA did both) is an indefensible thing to do.

And I still believe that the insurgency in Iraq was composed of enormous amounts of Iraqi nationalists who wanted to see the Americans go. Its unfortunate that the Ba'athists and the sectarian gangs derailed their cause and made the Americans look better.

To cherry-pick US foreign policy and apportion all blame on the "great satan" is just absolving those guilty of terrible crimes of any responsibility and simplifying the situation beyond reason.

I'm blaming those who are to blame. I feel that America just stands back too often and everyone blames the carnage on "jihadists".

The subsequent insurgency was a mixture of ex-Baathists, Sunni and Shi'ite groups, foreign fighters or local fighters recruited under foreign funding/organisation (including surrounding countries complicit)

As I've explained about five times, America abandoned Iraq when it was convenient and let it slide, just like Afghanistan which they abandoned after it had fulfilled its use in opposing the Soviets. Then Afghanistan slid into civil war, fundamentalism, poverty, backwardness and doom.

Syria is a current example of how political wrangling and failure to act decisively by the UN means Syrians die while people talk.

So your motto is "act rather than consider what you're about to do?" (Acta Non Verba?)

Thanks for the figures btw, Fromthetrees

Jonny7

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

And I still believe that the insurgency in Iraq was composed of enormous amounts of Iraqi nationalists who wanted to see the Americans go. Its unfortunate that the Ba'athists and the sectarian gangs derailed their cause and made the Americans look better.

They also allied with the Americans to fight against other outside elements, its not as simple as "America bad".

I'm blaming those who are to blame. I feel that America just stands back too often and everyone blames the carnage on "jihadists".

Then your thinking on this subject might be flawed, how far back in the blame game do you want to go? the Pilgrims?

Different spokesmen, different media outlets, different administrations, different countries - they say different things, sometimes spot on, sometimes spin, sometimes bull****.

Iraq has been pretty black and white, I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that it was a failed intervention which was deeply unpopular at the time.

As I've explained about five times, America abandoned Iraq when it was convenient and let it slide, just like Afghanistan which they abandoned after it had fulfilled its use in opposing the Soviets. Then Afghanistan slid into civil war, fundamentalism, poverty, backwardness and doom.

So why does the US receive the "blame" from you and not the US and Soviet Union?

Can you not see you are only on one very selective side of the argument?

So your motto is "act rather than consider what you're about to do?" (Acta Non Verba?)

They acted in Yugoslavia and prevented potential genocide, they didn't act in Rwanda and didn't prevent. Each situation is different, there have been mistakes made, and lessons slowly learnt, conversely (incredibly) there have been good decisions. Some administrations have made better foreign policy decisions than others. Some foreign policy has been good in the short-run, bad in the long-run and vice-versa. Some has been largely for self-interest reasons, whilst others has been mainly for humanitarian reasons.

Raking and dragging up old Cold War issues with the intent of blaming one side is generally more to do with the poster being irked by the 'hypocrisy' of one particular side than any objective analysis. I've been there myself.

All that said, Iraq was a bad decision and the administration at time is almost entirely to blame for that decision.

czx

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

These type of men would not exist without the meddling of America. First America impoverished and then subsequently radicalised Iraq, which had been primarily secular IIRC. Would those suicide bombers exist if it weren't for American foreign policy drift regarding Iraq? Probably not.


I'm not here to discuss the morality of interventionism. .

You absolve 'these type of men' of any moral responsibility by suggesting that America forced them to blow themselves up. Do these men not have the power to take a less violent route or are you suggesting that suicide bombing is a natural course of action for Iraqis? Only the West has to act morally or even has the ability to act morally?

Poverty does not radicalise people, religion takes care of that.

Amtmann

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

These type of men would not exist without the meddling of America.

You're right: martyrdom is an entirely new concept in Islam.

Eggy Baby!

So why does the US receive the "blame" from you and not the US and Soviet Union?

The Soviets intended to save the Afghan Communist government. Its destruction of Afghanistan was also definitely to blame. But I was talking about America.

You absolve 'these type of men' of any moral responsibility by suggesting that America forced them to blow themselves up. Do these men not have the power to take a less violent route or are you suggesting that suicide bombing is a natural course of action for Iraqis? Only the West has to act morally or even has the ability to act morally?

So now I condone suicide bombing? Please, try harder.

These sort of lost, unemployed Muslim youngsters drift towards these kinds of gangs.

Poverty does not radicalise people, religion takes care of that.

Nope. In NI Catholic poverty played a large part in mobilising the PIRA. Plus British action gave them the "mandate" to act in a way they perceived to be defending NI. Same in Iraq. Poverty leads bored and hopeless people to do stupid and reckless things as they have no prospects otherwise and cannot improve their lot in life. That's why they put army recruiting stations in ghettos and slums. The young and bored will be attracted to it.

You're right: martyrdom is an entirely new concept in Islam.

Obviously not. But martyrs have no cause to exist if there is not a cause to die for. America forced the youth of Iraq, driven into destitution by war and merciless embargoes, to prostitute themselves to these organisations.

An occupation creates chaos and rebellion in its wake.

I agree that America is not fully to blame. In the end, responsibility lies with the guy who pulls the det cord on his suicide vest. But ask yourself one question, if you were a homeless and starving Muslim teenager without a job or prospects, and you were full of hatred for America, or the Sunnis or the guys across the street or whatever, and a group of jihadists offered you fraternity and food and shelter in return for doing violent acts against the people you hate, ask yourself this- would you do so? These guys specifically target poor teenagers and young adults to do their work. In the end, America created these forlorn teenagers thereby forming masses of potential recruits for these jihadists. If you were in the same situation as a horrifically impoverished teenager, would you make rational moral decisions?

Not to mention the Americans oversaw a massive degeneration in infrastructure and law/order. this contributed to the social and economic climate that created these sorts of individuals.

Desperate situations lead to desperate individuals. I am not absolving the suicide bombers of their crimes but as the focus now is on America's responsibility, you may see me to be ignoring their acts. But really I'm not.

wes

Amtmann wrote: »

You're right: martyrdom is an entirely new concept in Islam.

How many suicide bombing before and after the 2nd Iraq war? Seems to me that something changed before and after, where before there were 0 and after where there have been so many. Now before the Iraq war the people were mostly Muslim and the same was true after. So, why no suicide bombings beforehand? Why this sudden change, oh wait there was a foreign invasion.......

Also, it should be noted that the US deliberately wanted to draw Al Qaeda into Iraq. Its one one of the after the fact justifications for there illegal war. There was even a catch phrase and everything for this policy "We have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.". So for those making excuses for the American's, it was there liberate policy to bring Al Qaeda terrorists to Iraq, where they not only attacked the US and UK, but also the Shia's resulting in a sectarian civil war. So, yes, it is the US's fault. They deliberately set out to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al Qaeda who were deliberately brought there by the US. and then Al Qaeda kicked off a sectarian civil war. So whether people like it or not, the US is at fault with Iraq, and yet not a single one of the Americans behind these policies will ever see the inside of the jail cell.

Al Qaeda are hardly innocent in all this, but seeing as the US brought them there on purpose, and if it wasn't for the US, they would not have been there at all, they share just as much responsibility for the mess.

Laminations

How did America bring Al Qaeda to Iraq? Do you mean in the sense that them being there made Al Qaeda terrorists head there? Or as in the Americans directly bused them in like football supporters.

Anyway Eggy Baby if you read back my initial post was querying the OPs views on interventionism. You're damned if you do and famed if you don't. Act to fast and you get a botched plan where civilians die, act to slowly or fail to act and civilians die, probably in greater numbers. It's far more complicated then you make it with your myopic analysis solely blaming America.

The initial decision to go to iraq was wrong. The current administrations hands were tied with that. You criticise them for their actions in an impossible place - as you said there was no good exit strategy or outcome to be had.

Eggy Baby!

How did America bring Al Qaeda to Iraq?

They created a power vacuum and made the destitute Iraqi youth easy prey for jihadist recruiters.

Anyway Eggy Baby if you read back my initial post was querying the OPs views on interventionism. You're damned if you do and famed if you don't. Act to fast and you get a botched plan where civilians die, act to slowly or fail to act and civilians die, probably in greater numbers. It's far more complicated then you make it with your myopic analysis solely blaming America.

Well you admittedly made some good points about how we see interventionism but in the end, this mess is America's fault, which is exactly the point I am trying to make. And again, as I said earlier, your analysis has no relevance as Iraq wasn't an "intervention".

wes

Laminations wrote: »

How did America bring Al Qaeda to Iraq? Do you mean in the sense that them being there made Al Qaeda terrorists head there? Or as in the Americans directly bused them in like football supporters.

I think if fair to say, you know I didn't mean they bussed them in.

Regardless, It was there stated intention to bring Al Qaeda to Iraq. So whether you like it or not, the American's are to blame for that. They decided to fight a dangerous terrorist group, in a country where they had very little presence before they arrived. It shows the general callous attitude they had toward Iraq, and it security, which once the US were running the place, they were responsible for.