The largest ethnic cleansing in 60+ years in taking place today in Iraq

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

What nonsense is this? As bad and terrible as Iraq was under Hussein....

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties, a man who invaded Kuwait to achieve regional hegemony, a man who's regime cost Iraq up to a million lives and sent the country into poverty.

Screw the average Iraqi, don't give a **** about them. All that matters is my ideological pureness and self righteousness. Sure Kim Jong il is a great guy for stabilising North Korea, Stalin had his virtues too didn't he? Look at how he kept all those republics in toe. We can be sure that there would be no mess in Ukraine now if he was in charge! Things would be a lot simpler in the world with a few strong men like him in charge....then I can be left in peace in my sunny back garden to write my letters to the Irish Times blaming the west for all that is wrong in the world, ah bliss.

comongethappy

wendell borton wrote: »

We had a program for Vietnamese refugees in the 70's that was very successful, don't see why we can't do It again.
If the Iraqi minorities move across the border to the neighboring countries they will face the same discrimination. They'll habe no rights and no chance of getting citizenship.

Depopulating areas of Iraqi citizens won't fix Iraq though.

If anything it would give impetus to ISIS

Sierra Oscar

Deleted User wrote: »

It was more of a rhetorical question but I don't think that's where they're getting their funding. :P

Mainly from rich families involved in the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. More recently they have been seizing resources and using them to drive their growth. They are exporting / smuggling oil out of oilfields that they have captured in Syria and Iraq.

Apparently ISIS is paying its fighters quite well.

Sierra Oscar

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Mainly from rich families involved in the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. More recently they have been seizing resources and using them to drive their growth. They are exporting / smuggling oil out of oilfields that they have captured in Syria and Iraq.

Apparently they are paying their fighters quite well.

Like I said, rhetorical.

jank

jank wrote: »

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties, a man who invaded Kuwait to achieve regional hegemony, a man who's regime cost Iraq up to a million lives and sent the country into poverty.

Screw the average Iraqi, don't give a **** about them. All that matters is my ideological pureness and self righteousness. Sure Kim Jong il is a great guy for stabilising North Korea, Stalin had his virtues too didn't he? Look at how he kept all those republics in toe. We can be sure that there would be no mess in Ukraine now if he was in charge! Things would be a lot simpler in the world with a few strong men like him in charge....then I can be left in peace in my sunny back garden to write my letters to the Irish Times blaming the west for all that is wrong in the world, ah bliss.

Yup that guy is the entire left.

Putin

jank wrote: »

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties.

A man who was given the blessing of the US and many Western nations in his day. Nations who turned a collective blind to him, when it suited them of course. So maybe you should remove your selective blinkers there, because it might help you see the whole picture.

Saddam was a scumbag, and good riddance to him. But I advise you to look at the death toll in Iraq after the US invented invasion. You might notice that toll and the amount of death and suffering went up. Ironic how the Americans bring their ‘freedom’ and death and suffering shoots through the roof.

But since it was them that created the conditions for the s**t storm that’s now happening in Iraq. Perhaps they should now resolve it. The complete elimination of ISIS would be the right and proper thing to do. And if they do it? Then they deserve no slaps on the back for cleaning up their own mess.

Awkward Badger

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

LorMal

FTA69 wrote: »

LorMal wrote: »

What are you on about? I never said that for a second. I said that smashing a society to pieces and plunging it into the chaos of protracted war allows for these sort of groups to emerge and gain traction. That's just a plain fact. It has happened in Iraq, Libya and a multitude of other countries. When you dismantle existing society and replace it with f*ck all it stands to reason that dystopic mental groups will emerge because there is nobody to stand up to them. If Irish society was plunged into instability and poverty for years and then invaded we'd probably have loopy groups emerge too. It has p*ss all to do with the nationality in question so please stop inferring I'm patronising people in the Middle East, I have more experience of the gaff and its people than most.



I'm advocating that the Yanks shouldn't have invaded the place to begin with. However, we are where we are now and they probably have a duty to help clean up the mess they created. They won't be getting praise from me in doing so however.



Wartard nonsense. Death and destruction should never be cheered.

Of course it should. There is no reasoning with these people. Live by the sword, die by the sword

Cantremember

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

Is there anyone different from "any of the rest of them"? The answer is no. In the grown up world it generally comes down to choosing the least of the many evils available.

Iwasfrozen

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

Awkward Badger

Cantremember wrote: »

Is there anyone different from "any of the rest of them"? The answer is no. In the grown up world it generally comes down to choosing the least of the many evils available.

That doesn't mean the least of those evils is beyond reproach.

Awkward Badger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

I don't blame Americans, I certainly don't blame them for the existence of fanatical Muslims . I just accept that their war in Iraq was motivated purely out of self interest and that the end result of that war is a very unstable region where there are currently a lot of people suffering.

Given it happened very recently I don't think its anti US or out of line to bring such things up.

Iwasfrozen

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I don't blame Americans, I certainly don't blame them for the existence of fanatical Muslims . I just accept that their war in Iraq was motivated purely out of self interest and that the end result of that war is a very unstable region where there are currently a lot of people suffering.

Given it happened very recently I don't think its anti US or out of line to bring such things up.

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billions to remove Saddam?

America does hold responsibility for creating the conditions that allowed fanatical muslims to gain power but the majority of the blame lies with ISIS itself. America is our best chance of removing ISIS.

Cantremember

Awkward Badger wrote: »

That doesn't mean the least of those evils is beyond reproach.

That is true. It is also true that I realised that. What it implies is that in determining the least of all evils one component to weigh is the open ness to the expression of reproach, the willingness and capacity to reform and let it be said an open debate with the reproachee. Sometimes reproach is offered from an impractical and naive view of humanity. Just my opinion of course. You understand.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billion to remove Saddam?

Some people made an awful lot of money.

Iwasfrozen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some people made an awful lot of money.

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

Where do you think the money that was spent went? Who had loads of connections to those companies? It's really not complicated.

bumper234

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

That was all down to."God"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Awkward Badger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billions to remove Saddam?

Question is why did they remove Saddam. And the answer isn't because they wanted to help the Iraqi people.

America does hold responsibility for creating the conditions that allowed fanatical muslims to gain power but the majority of the blame lies with ISIS itself. America is our best chance of removing ISIS.

I agree, ISIS seem to be the problem and if the US help deal with the problem and stabilise the region then good.

Sound of Silence

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

The US certainly shouldn't take all the blame.

But saying that, however, it's clear that the Americans went into Iraq without any semblance of a clear exit strategy, let alone any real objectives. It was a long and pointless War which chewed up people and resources and flung an entire population into even greater disarray - All for a Government which essentially toppled the moment it was challenged. They then dropped the Country like a hot potato for ISIS to collect, and who would blame them.

They should have taken the opportunity to split the Country three ways to ensure stability rather than invest in the false notion of a unified Iraq for the sole purpose of countering Iran. Now all they can do is some damage control in the form of surgical strikes and hope that the tide of ISIS reaches it's peak and the Middle-East can settle into an uneasy calm.

RustyNut

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

America is our best chance of removing ISIS.

Your havin a laugh aren't you.

These lads started off as a few hardcore religious nutcases with AK47's living in caves in Afghanistan, then America went to war with them, spent billions of dollars, slaughtered countless people and destroyed two countries.

Now these guys are in control of major parts of a country, have access to heavy military weapons and massive funding.

If America is our best hope we are fcuked.

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do you think the money that was spent went? Who had loads of connections to those companies? It's really not complicated.

I suggest you stop with the innuendo. If you believe that America went to war in Iraq to make Chaney and Bush and their supports money then say so.
You may need to consider that they were already insanely rich anyway and that there are far easier ways to make money than invading countries. But if that is what you believe then say it.
Personally I think it was ego and arrogance and that Bush wanted an easy victory after the humiliation of 9/11.

LorMal

RustyNut wrote: »

Your havin a laugh aren't you.

These lads started off as a few hardcore religious nutcases with AK47's living in caves in Afghanistan, then America went to war with them, spent billions of dollars, slaughtered countless people and destroyed two countries.

Now these guys are in control of major parts of a country, have access to heavy military weapons and massive funding.

If America is our best hope we are fcuked.

And what is your suggestion?

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

I suggest you stop with the innuendo. If you believe that America went to war in Iraq to make Chaney and Bush and their supports money then say so.
You may need to consider that they were already insanely rich anyway and that there are far easier ways to make money than invading countries. But if that is what you believe then say it.
Personally I think it was ego and arrogance and that Bush wanted an easy victory after the humiliation of 9/11.

It's not just a handful of people, it's a whole class of people. Bush was probably less to blame than others.

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not just a handful of people, it's a whole class of people. Bush was probably less to blame than others.

Again the innuendo.Who?

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Again the innuendo.Who?

Well there's Dave and Steve and Mary for a start. Or were you looking for another kind of "innuendo".

RustyNut

LorMal wrote: »

And what is your suggestion?

I dont know what the answer is but I know that its not bombing a population back to the stone age.
These guys will hide away when the bombing goes on and the innocent people will again suffer giving them even more recruits and support from whatever f**ked up regime who want to use them to suit there cause.

The americans do the least damage when they stay at home.

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

Well there's Dave and Steve and Mary for a start. Or were you looking for another kind of "innuendo".

Huh?

On a serious note, I am not trying to pick at you. I do agree that the Arericans handled Iraq appallingly and had no justification for invading Iraq and we are left with a terrible mess.

But I do hate the constant America bashing on here. I am pretty sure your average US soldier is a decent enough person. Yes they are arrogant and crass but I think they are in the main decent enough people.

These ISIS f..kers are unbelievable. Beheading, crucifying, raping - filming it all on their camera phones. They want to kill us all, no exceptions. By their own decree - this is their policy.

So, who do I want to condemn? ISIS. Not 'the west', not the US and the Brits,
not Israel....but the actual bastards who are doing this. End of.

LorMal

RustyNut wrote: »

I dont know what the answer is but I know that its not bombing a population back to the stone age.
These guys will hide away when the bombing goes on and the innocent people will again suffer giving them even more recruits and support from whatever f**ked up regime who want to use them to suit there cause.

The americans do the least damage when they stay at home.

So no suggestion for saving the 70,000 people huddled up a hill, surrounded by murdering thugs and rapists then.
Okay. good plan

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Huh?

On a serious note, I am not trying to pick at you. I do agree that the Arericans handled Iraq appallingly and had no justification for invading Iraq and we are left with a terrible mess.

But I do hate the constant America bashing on here. I am pretty sure your average US soldier is a decent enough person. Yes they are arrogant and crass but I think they are in the main decent enough people.

These ISIS f..kers are unbelievable. Beheading, crucifying, raping - filming it all on their camera phones. They want to kill us all, no exceptions. By their own decree - this is their policy.

So, who do I want to condemn? ISIS. Not 'the west', not the US and the Brits,
not Israel....but the actual bastards who are doing this. End of.

In this particularly case ISIS are the bad guys, along with those pulling the strings. The knock-on effects of some of the west's actions both recently and a few decades ago have contributed to what's happening now. Be nice if the yanks and the rest did do something in this case for the benefit of innocent civilians, they've done it at times in the past, hopefully they will this time again.

RustyNut

LorMal wrote: »

But I do hate the constant America bashing on here. I am pretty sure your average US soldier is a decent enough person. Yes they are arrogant and crass but I think they are in the main decent enough people.

These ISIS f..kers are unbelievable. Beheading, crucifying, raping - filming it all on their camera phones. They want to kill us all, no exceptions. By their own decree - this is their policy.

I agree, these ISIS people are savages of the worst kind and need to be dealt with, I just dont think America are the people to deal with them.


NSFW

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

In this particularly case ISIS are the bad guys, along with those pulling the strings. The knock-on effects of some of the west's actions both recently and a few decades ago have contributed to what's happening now. Be nice if the yanks and the rest did do something in this case for the benefit of innocent civilians, they've done it at times in the past, hopefully they will this time again.

Yes that's a contributing factor. But people have free choice. It takes some amount of hate to cut some poor boys head off with a knife because he does not follow your religious code.
I don't blame anyone for that but the man holding the knife.
Let's not excuse or somehow justify these actions because of America. That's where we go wrong.
I remember when Russia invaded Afghanistan in the 80s. The mujaheddin were all hailed as heroic freedom fighters by us in the west. we blamed the Russians.
Look how that turned out.
I hope ISIS and their ilk are totally destroyed by the Americans. But I fear it won't happen and that they will continue to grow internationally.

LorMal

RustyNut wrote: »

I agree, these ISIS people are savages of the worst kind and need to be dealt with, I just dont think America are the people to deal with them.


NSFW

Thats whataboutery. Never gets anyone anywhere.

Shakespeare's Sister

Magaggie wrote: »

the "You're 100 per cent with us or else you're agin' us" crowd

porsche959 wrote: »

Do you favour ISIS?

.

Sound of Silence

RustyNut wrote: »

I dont know what the answer is but I know that its not bombing a population back to the stone age.
These guys will hide away when the bombing goes on and the innocent people will again suffer giving them even more recruits and support from whatever f**ked up regime who want to use them to suit there cause.

The americans do the least damage when they stay at home.

What is happening now is essentially the redrawing of the old colonial borders in the Middle-East, something which was inevitably going to happen in the region if given the chance.

Now, whilst I certainly wouldn't condone another US ground invasion in Iraq, I feel that the Americans have a certain obligation to the Iraqi people to ensure that the region doesn't descend into utter chaos. If that means conducting air strikes against overzealous and outright brutal ISIS forces, then so be it. The best thing that can be done at this point is to ensure that this new transition is tempered and conducted with as little blood-shed as possible.

Shakespeare's Sister

old_aussie wrote: »

I'm sick of hearing from muslims that it's only a few bad muslims giving islam a bad name...That line don't cut it anymore.

Well you have posted fairly islamophobic stuff so you would think that. The fanatics are pretty sizeable in number, to be fair, but still a minority, and still not something moderate muslims should be blamed for - especially when a lot of people who suffer under the fanatics are moderate muslims.

Rightwing wrote: »

To be fair to them, the world is in crisis at the moment. I can't remember a geopoliticial crisis ever as bad as now.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/humanity-marks-ww1-anniversary-with-wars-2014080589290

mad muffin wrote: »

The difference between Irish forums and American…

90% Of Irish posters-won't no one think of the terrorists…

90% of American posters-bomb them all to hell, let god sort them out…


:pac:

"90%"?
Link please to the posts where people say "Won't no one think of the terrorists". Otherwise, your edginess is utterly awe-inspiring.

LorMal wrote: »

Thats whataboutery. Never gets anyone anywhere.

Still a lot of fans of it though, particularly on the right.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Let's not excuse or somehow justify these actions because of America. That's where we go wrong.

Who is doing that?

LorMal

Magaggie wrote: »

Well you have posted fairly islamophobic stuff so you would think that. The fanatics are pretty sizeable in number, to be fair, but still a minority, and still not something moderate muslims should be blamed for - especially when a lot of people who suffer under the fanatics are moderate muslims.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/humanity-marks-ww1-anniversary-with-wars-2014080589290

"90%"?
Link please to the posts where people say "Won't no one think of the terrorists". Otherwise, your edginess is utterly awe-inspiring.

Still a lot of fans of it though, particularly on the right.

Who is the right and who is the left in this one? Surely those old divisions are meaningless in situations like this

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

Who is doing that?

Those who blame the US for what's happening

Iwasfrozen

Deleted User wrote: »

Where do you think the money that was spent went? Who had loads of connections to those companies? It's really not complicated.

I asked you. So far you're answering a question with a question.

Who made an awful lot of money? How did they make it? And do you have proof that if these people did make money they actually influenced Bush's decision rather than just profit from it?

bumper234 wrote: »

That was all down to."God"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Bush speaks to his audience. Obviously he doesn't believe God told him to invade Iraq.

Awkward Badger wrote: »

Question is why did they remove Saddam. And the answer isn't because they wanted to help the Iraqi people.

I agree, ISIS seem to be the problem and if the US help deal with the problem and stabilise the region then good.

That's what I asked you. You claimed America only invaded Iraq for their own self interest. Ok. What self interest? What did America gain from removing Saddam? If they didn't gain anything then obviously they weren't motivated by self interest.

I would be surprised if America wasn't working on Bagdadi's assassination as we speak.

Karl Stein

LorMal wrote: »

But I do hate the constant America bashing on here.

I think you might be confusing criticism of US foreign policy with 'America bashing'. I don't think anyone has anything against the regular American people. A lot of Americans are critical of US foreign policy - are they America bashing?

US foreign policy has been an utter disaster for the hundreds of thousands of dead or misplaced people in Iraq and it's not very unreasonable to say that Iraq was a less dangerous place under the murderous dictator Saddam.

Oh and you asked earlier who benefited financially from the Iraq war? Here's the biggest profiteer:

Private or publicly listed firms received at least $138 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for government contracts for services that included providing private security, building infrastructure and feeding the troops.

The No. 1 recipient?

Houston-based energy-focused engineering and construction firm KBR, Inc. (NYSE:KBR), which was spun off from its parent, oilfield services provider Halliburton Co. (NYSE:HAL), in 2007.[/URL]

That $138Bn ignores the money that flows from the US tax-payer to the US war complex. The Iraq war is thought to have cost the US public €2 trillion.

LorMal

LorMal wrote: »

Those who blame the US for what's happening

They are partly to blame for the situation arising.

Shakespeare's Sister

porsche959 wrote: »

But hey, this is boards.ie, the Irish are a nation of competitive what abouters, so fair enough.

What nationality are you?

LorMal

Karl Stein wrote: »

I think you might be confusing criticism of US foreign policy with 'America bashing'. I don't think anyone has anything against the regular American people. A lot of Americans are critical of US foreign policy - are they America bashing?

US foreign policy has been an utter disaster for the hundreds of thousands of dead or misplaced people in Iraq and it's not very unreasonable to say that Iraq was a less dangerous place under the murderous dictator Saddam.

Oh and you asked earlier who benefited financially from the Iraq war? Here's the biggest profiteer:



That $138Bn ignores the money that flows from the US tax-payer to the US war complex. The Iraq war is thought to have cost the US public €2 trillion.

American bashing is a term I used to describe the tendency of some to blame everything on the US.
I did say the invasion was a crime and an abomination, so no need to set me straight there.
I also acknowledged that the US had no strategy beyond victory and an ego trip.

I did not ask who benefitted financially. I know who did - Halliburton is owned in part by Chaney if I'm not mistaken? I questioned the opinion given that money making was the reason behind the war- and you have just supported me in that. The US did not profit from the invasion - it cost them billions. Thanks.

LorMal

Deleted User wrote: »

They are partly to blame for the situation arising.

Indeed partly. But they are not doing the beheading

RustyNut

LorMal wrote: »

American bashing is a term I used to describe the tendency of some to blame everything on the US.
I did say the invasion was a crime and an abomination, so no need to set me straight there.
I also acknowledged that the US had no strategy beyond victory and an ego trip.

I did not ask who benefitted financially. I know who did - Halliburton is owned in part by Chaney if I'm not mistaken? I questioned the opinion given that money making was the reason behind the war- and you have just supported me in that. The US did not profit from the invasion - it cost them billions. Thanks.

The American people sent their sons and daughter to die in Iraq and Afghanistan and profited not one iota.

America only lost. It lost its sons,daughters and reputation so that Chaney and his ilk could reap the financial rewards and ISIS is the result of their actions.

The American people are good people.

Donkey Oaty

Let's save time by blaming Christopher Columbus for all things America-related, and then we can concentrate on the issue at hand - saving lives.

Karl Stein

LorMal wrote: »

The US did not profit from the invasion - it cost them billions.

The US is not a person. Some Americans profited from the war; the hundreds of billions doesn't just disappear, it ends up in someone's pocket down the line.

LorMal

Karl Stein wrote: »

The US is not a person. Some Americans profited from the war; the hundreds of billions doesn't just disappear, it ends up in someone's pocket down the line.

Okay, so what are you arguing? That the 'down the line' people caused the war? Really?
Can it not just be that Bush wanted to look strong, had 'Father' issues and the hawks in the administration wanted blood and glory?
Do you really think it was just profiteering?

Anyway, that's all I the past now. Let's hope they spend another few billion wiping out these ISIS vermin before this stuff starts happening here.

Karl Stein

LorMal wrote: »

Okay, so what are you arguing? That the 'down the line' people caused the war? Really?

Wars of that magnitude rarely happen for any one single reason.

chicken hawks in the administration wanted blood and glory?

Definitely played its part.

Do you really think it was just profiteering?

It would have played its part too, for sure.

Anyway, that's all I the past now. Let's hope they spend another few billion wiping out these ISIS vermin before this stuff starts happening here.

I don't think these whack-jobs can be stopped by air-power - hindered maybe but not stopped. I think the regional actors should be the ones sorting the problem out, principle among them the Iraqis themselves.