Iraq | 500,000 Flee Mosul As Sunni Jihadists Pose 'mortal Threat' to Nation

[rob666]

Originally Posted by b0g

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0ET11320140618

Speaking on live television to a crowd, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani made the clearest declaration yet that Tehran was prepared to mobilize.

"Regarding the holy Shia shines in Karbala, Najaf, Kadhimiya and Samarra, we announce to the killers and terrorists that the big Iranian nation will not hesitate to protect holy shrines," he said.

He said many people had signed up to go to Iraq to fight, although he also emphasized that Iraqis were prepared to defend themselves: "Thanks be to God, I’ll tell the dear people of Iran that veterans and various forces - Sunnis Shias and Kurds all over Iraq - are ready for sacrifice."

So the end result of this could be Iran occupying Iraq.

Better off without saddam? The trillion dollar question.

[the hawk]

I'm normally not the one to turn a cold shoulder to people in distress, but they just seem so intent on destroying themselves over religion, I think the time has come to just let them fight their war and kill each other. It's the only way they know and a bunch of white 'infidels' ain't gonna change their ways. That is of course assuming the west is actually over there selflessly, which is extremely debatable.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666

So the end result of this could be Iran occupying Iraq.

Better off without saddam? The trillion dollar question.

Better off without Saddam if we had come up with a solid plan for long-term occupation/colonization.

Worse off without Saddam if "America-is-the-Great-Satan Death-to-Israel" crowd running Iran do indeed occupy and take over.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Either way, it's just history repeating itself.

Stupid federal politicians devise self-serving means of installing a dictator in some third-world shit-hole, then overthrow said dictator and watch stupidly as something much worse and virulently anti-Western fills the power vacuum.

Either the powers-that-be will never learn, or they simply don't care. Given our current era's classification as the Information Age, my money is on the latter.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike

Better off without Saddam if we had come up with a solid plan for long-term occupation/colonization.

Worse off without Saddam if "America-is-the-Great-Satan Death-to-Israel" crowd running Iran do indeed occupy and take over.

Colonization is what contributed to this mess in the first place.

Let them sort themselves out, we had to, Europe has to from time to time, it's sad but it's the way it is. All that happens when we get involved is bring their hate towards us.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

Originally Posted by rob666

Colonization is what contributed to this mess in the first place.

Let them sort themselves out, we had to, Europe has to from time to time, it's sad but it's the way it is. All that happens when we get involved is bring their hate towards us.

That last part isn't entirely true. Most Iraq vets (grunts and NCOs, not commissioned politicians in camo) will tell you that they had high hopes for the U.S. presence in their country. If the entire country had been opposed to the occupation, they would have run us out en masse long ago. Strange to think that the Iraqis could have been just as split on the occupation as Americans were.

The real problem arises when we leave them to twist in the wind on their own for the sake of political expediency. Hard-line sectarian militants and extremists will always hate us, but our abandonment of the rank-and-file Iraqi people is what earns us new enemies just as surely as stray cruise missiles and fatal miscommunications at traffic control points.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Metal Mike

That last part isn't entirely true. Most Iraq vets (grunts and NCOs, not commissioned politicians in camo) will tell you that they had high hopes for the U.S. presence in their country. If the entire country had been opposed to the occupation, they would have run us out en masse long ago. Strange to think that the Iraqis could have been just as split on the occupation as Americans were.

The real problem arises when we leave them to twist in the wind on their own for the sake of political expediency. Hard-line sectarian militants and extremists will always hate us, but our abandonment of the rank-and-file Iraqi people is what earns us new enemies just as surely as stray cruise missiles and fatal miscommunications at traffic control points.

The grunts go in and do what they do, part of being a good soldier is never questioning the validity of the mission.
I'm sure that the majority did have high hopes. They had to be considering previous administrations passed on the chance of toppling saddam out if fear that this exact situation would develop.
I doubt that the minority Sunni were ever in favour of saddams removal. The Kurds and Shiite were, because he was keeping them from taking over.

It was never about the better of Iraq for any of these groups. They have no concept of national unity, they are split along tribal and religious lines that go back to the Stone Age. Given the chance, they will happily kill the other to extinction, just like they have tried for the past few thousand years.

[OhJstFkOffAlrdy]

That's exactly why only a century-long occupation would solve such issues. It would take several generations of Western rule and the forceful imposition of democratic principles to instill any sort of first-world mentality among the masses. What's sad is that the tribal mentality didn't exist within Iraq's Christian community; it is an exclusively Muslim thought process.