Collateral Murder

[Bismillah]

Look Kai.

I am not interested in looking at every recent bombing from Baghdad to Kerbala.

I know that there is an insurgency.

And I know that Iraq has been destabilized over the years because of a brutal dictator.

The Arabs are just as bad, even worse in my eyes.

The King of Saudi Arabia funded Saddam with 25 billion dollars in the war against Iran. Think of what that money was used to do. It is absolutely sickening to me that so many Muslims died such a horrible death and the world did nothing but applaud. That is the point of moral depravity that I will always call out.

The U.S didn't provide the most support and it wasn't unconditional. But it was there and it was apparent.

And then they imposed sanctions.

And then they invaded Iraq and couped Saddam.

For this reason and this reason alone they are responsible for the insurgency. They are responsible for what has become such a fractured Iraq and everything it entails.

Maybe the price was worth it because I would say more than a Million Iraqis have died under Saddam's rule and post-Saddam.

Maybe their democracy will lead to something new, but you don't decide. It's the Iraqis, all that is apparent now however is the cost for this so called democracy.

 

[dallas1125]

We have been playing a blame game when both sides are guilty.

 

[darkendless]

For this reason and this reason alone they are responsible for the insurgency. They are responsible for what has become such a fractured Iraq and everything it entails.

So its the fault of Americans that the Taliban are killing their own by bombing fruit markets and public baths?

For some reason it seems as though it is easier to blame the USA and allies for a much deeper set issue. I don't think the newer generations of Iraqee people know what peace is, they were born into, have lived previously and still live in violence.

 

[kai]

Kai, let's be frank. There is no Ummah. If I had to pick one country that had destroyed the concept of fraternity among Muslims it would be Iraq.

The reason for this insurgency is because of Saddams own rule of course. He repressed the Shias. He repressed the Kurds.

After Saddam brutally crushed the Shia and Kurdish rebels that were abandoned by coalition forces, they now take their revenge. And the Sunnis likewise fight for dominance, while all three groups, except maybe the Kurds, despise the U.S presence that has managed to play a hand in destroying their country so thoroughly.



Because years of repression along ethnic lines does that to people.



Please. Of course they are "religiously" divided but it was Saddam who exploited this and Saddam who punished them.

And of course we know the breadtrail of Western support follows Saddam wherever he goes.

Because when the Kurds were being gassed in Halabja, a German arms company was profiting. An American president was silent and the West thoroughly praised Saddam as the Middle East's savior.

It really isn't that hard.

Saddam targeted minorities.

Said minorities now target the Sunnis

Sunnis continue to target the minorities that they had repressed and the "coalition forces" in Iraq.

Of course if the American government had attempted to release a count in the first years of the invasion you would have a point...

Really? Tell me how much sectarian violence there was in Iraq before Saddam. How many Shia Sunni bomb blasts was Baghdad rocked by.

You can try and deny it, but the truth is that the West supported a brutal murderer.

It's pasted in newspapers in every Western language hailing him.

You want to minimize it that's fine, but know this before the 2003 invasion there had never been a suicide bomber in Iraq.

The first suicide bomber was a Shia Iraqi reservest, Ali Hammadi al-Naman, who had fought in the Iran-Iraq war.

His target was the American invading force.

Not much sectarian violence in Saddams Iraq Abibi because he held everyone under subjugation once he was gone all the sectarian differences were able to come out in the open.. and the Truth is Abibi that sectarian difference goes a lot wider than Iraq the Arab governments also supported the brutal dictator . because it suited them .

and i will tell you this in 1980 a 13-year old Iranian Hossein Fahmideh detonated himself as he ran up to an Iraqi tank. so dont tell me Martyrdom was invented to fight those Americans.

 

[kai]

Look Kai.

I am not interested in looking at every recent bombing from Baghdad to Kerbala. well i respectfully say you should be if your going to blame the west for it

I know that there is an insurgency.

And I know that Iraq has been destabilized over the years because of a brutal dictator.

The Arabs are just as bad, even worse in my eyes.

The King of Saudi Arabia funded Saddam with 25 billion dollars in the war against Iran. Think of what that money was used to do. It is absolutely sickening to me that so many Muslims died such a horrible death and the world did nothing but applaud. That is the point of moral depravity that I will always call out.

The U.S didn't provide the most support and it wasn't unconditional. But it was there and it was apparent.

And then they imposed sanctions.

And then they invaded Iraq and couped Saddam.

For this reason and this reason alone they are responsible for the insurgency. They are responsible for what has become such a fractured Iraq and everything it entails.

Maybe the price was worth it because I would say more than a Million Iraqis have died under Saddam's rule and post-Saddam.

Maybe their democracy will lead to something new, but you don't decide. It's the Iraqis, all that is apparent now however is the cost for this so called democracy.

I am not deciding anything Abibi, Iraqis are trying to when there own countrymen arnt trying to kill them that is.

so explain to me how the Americans are responsible for the Muslim on Muslim violence other than toppling a dictator that held them all under his jack boot and setting them loose. or is that it?

 

[kai]

We have been playing a blame game when both sides are guilty.

Everybody carries some guilt for Saddam , lets be fair about it, .And yes there is a case for criticising the west but lets have some objectivity here the Arab world didnt exactly shun him did they.

 

[Bismillah]

So its the fault of Americans that the Taliban are killing their own by bombing fruit markets and public baths?

For some reason it seems as though it is easier to blame the USA and allies for a much deeper set issue. I don't think the newer generations of Iraqee people know what peace is, they were born into, have lived previously and still live in violence.

1. The history of Iraq and Afghanistan are different so it is not easy to construct parallels between the two.

2. However, the dominance of the Taliban could have easily been avoided by American authorities at a fraction of the price they had been paying for the armaments of the resistance fighters. America does then have some share of the blame for the dominance of the Taliban and the failure to actually promote those Afghanis that did resist the Taliban and then manage to establish in Afghanistan if you will "the worst of the worst".

3. Suicide bombings had been happening prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, but to the extent that you see now is a direct result of the deposition of Taliban rule.

 

[Bismillah]

so explain to me how the Americans are responsible for the Muslim on Muslim violence other than toppling a dictator that held them all under his jack boot and setting them loose. or is that it?

Because they toppled Saddam! It's a pretty simple case. Saddam was the authority. He was toppled. Death was the result of the power vacuum and the blame lies squarely on the people who toppled him.

The same people who had first supported him unabashedly, despite his repression of his own countrymen, and only came to oppose his rule when oil came into the picture.

And yes there is a case for criticising the west but lets have some objectivity here the Arab world didnt exactly shun him did they.

Was it the Saudis and Kuwaitis who invaded Baghdad in 2003? They play a part, but then again they weren't the people who let Iraq fall into pieces.

and i will tell you this in 1980 a 13-year old Iranian Hossein Fahmideh detonated himself as he ran up to an Iraqi tank. so dont tell me Martyrdom was invented to fight those Americans.

Sorry should have been clear. The first case of suicide bombers used in the case of Iraq. Isn't it interesting to see that the sole representation of destabilized Iraq, the suicide bomber, came into the picture only when U.S troops were invading Iraq.

Because it paints one picture to me, this insurgency has been the result of Americans breaking the dam and releasing the years of sectarian hatred.

To me the invading forces never cared about a "new democratic Iraq". They cared for the oil fields in Basara not the thousands of years old history of Sumerians and Assyrians that was stolen or the ancient Islamic jurisprudence papers and Qur'ans that went up in flames.

Of all the ministries in Iraq, including education agriculture and just about any other domestic facet of rule, the Americans protected two.

The ministry of oil.

And the ministry of interior which, of course, was the papers of Saddam's Gestapo like police and files of known insurgents and anarchists.

So tell me with a straight face kai that the Americans and British cared for Iraq. Look at the lives lost and look at the national heritage lost, something on a scale of Genghis Khan's invasion of Baghdad and almost the same level of brutality.

This war is a representation of imperialism at its finest.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Abibi, Kai.
I think it should be remembered that the Iraqi borders, as drawn up by the British Foreign Office under the authority of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, have greatly contributed to the ethnic tensions in that country.
Sunni, Shia and Kurd were pressed into a single 'nationality' against their will by a line drawn on a map in London. The line was drawn in order to maximise the oil resources to be controlled by the British client monarch of the newly created State.
　
The Kurds wanted their own State, and had been promised that by Britain.
The Shia had strong ethnic and religious ties and affiliations with Persia, not with the Sunnis of the north.
Much of the political energies of the rulers of Iraq, Saddam included, were devoted to forging (or imposing) a unified State where no 'unity' was in evidence.
　
The 'new' arrangement appears doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past because the underlying fractiousness of the State of Iraq remains unchanged.
The antics of the Iraqi Parliament would seem to confirm this.
And the violence between Sunni, Kurd and Shia seems to be that fractiousness working itself out on the streets.
　
Perhaps the US can impose a federatation of states type solution and birth a viable unified and democratic country out of the ruins of Iraq.
Even though this might be the best longterm solution, which is arguable, it will remain an imposed solution and requires the historical impediments of ethnicity, religion and familial associations to be suppressed.

 

[darkendless]

1. The history of Iraq and Afghanistan are different so it is not easy to construct parallels between the two.

I think i may have confused myself. The Taliban are somewhat restricted to Afghanistan? Excuse my ignorance but aren't their issues in Iraq with the ****e vs. Sunni factions?

2. However, the dominance of the Taliban could have easily been avoided by American authorities at a fraction of the price they had been paying for the armaments of the resistance fighters. America does then have some share of the blame for the dominance of the Taliban and the failure to actually promote those Afghanis that did resist the Taliban and then manage to establish in Afghanistan if you will "the worst of the worst".

America seems to support the side they stand to gain the most from.

3. Suicide bombings had been happening prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, but to the extent that you see now is a direct result of the deposition of Taliban rule.

Something i do not understand is why innocent people get attacked by insurgents and how if at all this relates to the American invasion. Once again please excuse my ignorance but is this an attempt to somewhat place blood on American hands or something of that nature?

 

[kai]

Because they toppled Saddam! It's a pretty simple case. Saddam was the authority. He was toppled. Death was the result of the power vacuum and the blame lies squarely on the people who toppled him.

The same people who had first supported him unabashedly, despite his repression of his own countrymen, and only came to oppose his rule when oil came into the picture.

Was it the Saudis and Kuwaitis who invaded Baghdad in 2003? They play a part, but then again they weren't the people who let Iraq fall into pieces.

Sorry should have been clear. The first case of suicide bombers used in the case of Iraq. Isn't it interesting to see that the sole representation of destabilized Iraq, the suicide bomber, came into the picture only when U.S troops were invading Iraq.

Because it paints one picture to me, this insurgency has been the result of Americans breaking the dam and releasing the years of sectarian hatred.

To me the invading forces never cared about a "new democratic Iraq". They cared for the oil fields in Basara not the thousands of years old history of Sumerians and Assyrians that was stolen or the ancient Islamic jurisprudence papers and Qur'ans that went up in flames.

Of all the ministries in Iraq, including education agriculture and just about any other domestic facet of rule, the Americans protected two.

The ministry of oil.

And the ministry of interior which, of course, was the papers of Saddam's Gestapo like police and files of known insurgents and anarchists.

So tell me with a straight face kai that the Americans and British cared for Iraq. Look at the lives lost and look at the national heritage lost, something on a scale of Genghis Khan's invasion of Baghdad and almost the same level of brutality.

This war is a representation of imperialism at its finest.

I can tell you with a straight face Abibi that the Americans and British and the UN cared for Iraq, but in my opinion the Iraqis hated each other more than they loved Iraq.

the Oil ministry would i have no doubt been the most important to any future Iraq without oil Iraq is nothing.

the British have left and the Americans are leaving Abibi and the Killing goes on more and more its the Iraqis themselves being killed not Americans.

We had the "they invaded to steal the oil" cry for years but that's now quite blatantly obviously not true just take 5 minutes to look where the oil is going.
http://www.iraq-enterprise.com/


The wholesale looting of antiquaries is a national industry in Iraq the Iraqis systematically looted themselves
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11099647


Oh i am sure you have some instances of US or British soldiers stealing something but by far and wide Iraqi antiquities property and valuable assets were looted or destroyed by Iraqis.

I agree that the coalition freed Iraq from the dictator Saddam and if there was an overwhelming national movement to form some kind of stable country the Americans would have left years ago the fall of Saddam wasnt taken up and ran with to build a new Iraq where the people could have a bright new future or started a brand new era for Iraq and all Iraqis , unfortunately for everyone Iraq decided to shaft itself.

 

[kai]

Abibi, Kai.
I think it should be remembered that the Iraqi borders, as drawn up by the British Foreign Office under the authority of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, have greatly contributed to the ethnic tensions in that country.
Sunni, Shia and Kurd were pressed into a single 'nationality' against their will by a line drawn on a map in London. The line was drawn in order to maximise the oil resources to be controlled by the British client monarch of the newly created State.
　
The Kurds wanted their own State, and had been promised that by Britain.
The Shia had strong ethnic and religious ties and affiliations with Persia, not with the Sunnis of the north.
Much of the political energies of the rulers of Iraq, Saddam included, were devoted to forging (or imposing) a unified State where no 'unity' was in evidence.
　
The 'new' arrangement appears doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past because the underlying fractiousness of the State of Iraq remains unchanged.
The antics of the Iraqi Parliament would seem to confirm this.
And the violence between Sunni, Kurd and Shia seems to be that fractiousness working itself out on the streets.
　
Perhaps the US can impose a federatation of states type solution and birth a viable unified and democratic country out of the ruins of Iraq.
Even though this might be the best longterm solution, which is arguable, it will remain an imposed solution and requires the historical impediments of ethnicity, religion and familial associations to be suppressed.

sure but the the Sykes-Picot Agreement was along time ago and the truth is no one wants a seperate state Kurd,Shia or Sunni if one has more oil fields than the other.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Point being that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a mechanism arbitrarily imposed upon the people to suit the interests of a foreign power.
People who thought of themseves as Kurds were told No, you are Iraqis; people who thought of themselves as Shia were told No, you are Iraqis; and the Sunni of the north were told No, you are Iraqis and can have the dominion as long as the oil flows.
The problem is, after all those years Kurds still think of themselves as being Kurds, Shia as Shia and the Sunni as Sunni with the right to rule.
　
From 1919 to 2003 the Kurds were in a state of virtually permanent revolt against their imposed overlords, their stated aim was to create an independent Kurdistan. The current arrangement allows for enough autonomy within a federated Iraq to forestall that consistent desire. However, when a sufficiently strong man arises in Baghdad it can be reasonably expected that the Kurdish revolt will begin anew.
　
From the very first the Kurds were denied their own state to forestall similar smoldering claims coming from the Shia in Basra. They too, have national aspirations.
　
Three states, three peoples have been arbitrarily shoe-horned into one country and against their wills.
That is as true today as when the region was a British Mandated territory, or a British client-Monarchy, or the pre-war US client-Republic of Iraq.
　
You should be able to see the rich ironies and parallels to the current situation.
And you should not be surprised by a persistent and violent insurgency where Iraqi kills Iraqi.

 

[kai]

Point being that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a mechanism arbitrarily imposed upon the people to suit the interests of a foreign power.
People who thought of themseves as Kurds were told No, you are Iraqis; people who thought of themselves as Shia were told No, you are Iraqis; and the Sunni of the north were told No, you are Iraqis and can have the dominion as long as the oil flows.
The problem is, after all those years Kurds still think of themselves as being Kurds, Shia as Shia and the Sunni as Sunni with the right to rule.
　
From 1919 to 2003 the Kurds were in a state of virtually permanent revolt against their imposed overlords, their stated aim was to create an independent Kurdistan. The current arrangement allows for enough autonomy within a federated Iraq to forestall that consistent desire. However, when a sufficiently strong man arises in Baghdad it can be reasonably expected that the Kurdish revolt will begin anew.
　
From the very first the Kurds were denied their own state to forestall similar smoldering claims coming from the Shia in Basra. They too, have national aspirations.
　
Three states, three peoples have been arbitrarily shoe-horned into one country and against their wills.
That is as true today as when the region was a British Mandated territory, or a British client-Monarchy, or the pre-war US client-Republic of Iraq.
　
You should be able to see the rich ironies and parallels to the current situation.
And you should not be surprised by a persistent and violent insurgency where Iraqi kills Iraqi.

Oh i am not surprised by it ,and your post aids me in defining the reasons for it, But I think they can all face a very successful future in some kind of interaction of a state if they are given the chance but there are other influences that dont want that, and aid and abet the sectarian murdering because it suits them not the Iraqis ,Sunni,Kurd or Shia.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Yes, you hit on another complicating and contributing factor to the violence.
Outside, non-western, influences that have an interest in a permanently weakened or fragmented Iraq.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria have traditional interests in this regard. But Iran is, of course, apparently the major player in this foreign agitation; at least it is the State we hear most of in the West.

 

[Bismillah]

I can tell you with a straight face Abibi that the Americans and British and the UN cared for Iraq, but in my opinion the Iraqis hated each other more than they loved Iraq.

LOL! (leave aside for the moment how U.N humanitarian headquarters were among the places to be ransacked)

Ignore how Bush had plans to invade Iraq six months prior to 9/11 justified, of course, by the neccesity to secure oil

Or that Saddam had eyes on the Strait of Homruz that made the defense analysts in the Pentagon tremble.

Or the internal debates within the Pentagon on how to effectively cripple OPEC via the invasion of Iraq

Or the many American firms that vied in line to profit from foreign contracts once the invasion was done.

We can look at the humanitarian aspects of the war... which are nonexistent?

the Oil ministry would i have no doubt been the most important to any future Iraq without oil Iraq is nothing.

How pessimistic. Without oil a country is nothing? Good thing the Japanese didn't take that attitude in the reconstruction of their shambled country.

Of course the rest of the ministries had no impact on the future of Iraq, you've got to be kidding.

The ministries of Trade, Agriculture, Industry, Electricity, Water Resources, Finance, Health, and Housing as well as the rest played no part in the rebuilding of Iraq? Astounding because these are just as important.

Of course, you also forgot about how the military choose to save the Ministry of Interior.

the British have left and the Americans are leaving Abibi and the Killing goes on more and more its the Iraqis themselves being killed not Americans.

They are leaving after the damage is done. They are leaving an insecure and unstable Iraq and shortly hereafter a similarly insecure and unstable Afghanistan.

They are leaving after toppling the authority of Iraq and now you look and say that the chaos that follows is not a direct response to this?

That this would still happen if Saddam were in power, unlikely.

The wholesale looting of antiquaries is a national industry in Iraq the Iraqis systematically looted themselves
BBC News - Iraq 'bleeding antiquities' as instability continues

I know that, but then again I also know that it is, under international law, the duty of the invading forces to police and protect these sites.

That it was the failure of U.S troops to halt the systematic looting and destruction of Baghdad and every other city.

That U.S troops would merely gaze as priceless antiques were smashed and loaded in trucks, that once told of the burning of an ancient library they took 30 minutes to send a patrol and confirm it.

They were the police. It was their failure that resulted in this destruction.

And it isn't a coincidence that a large chunk found their way in the private collection of some wealthy Americans.

Oh i am sure you have some instances of US or British soldiers stealing something but by far and wide Iraqi antiquities property and valuable assets were looted or destroyed by Iraqis.

Uggh you dismantle the police and then you don't enforce law and order. What!

I agree that the coalition freed Iraq from the dictator Saddam and if there was an overwhelming national movement to form some kind of stable country the Americans would have left years ago the fall of Saddam wasnt taken up and ran with to build a new Iraq where the people could have a bright new future or started a brand new era for Iraq and all Iraqis , unfortunately for everyone Iraq decided to shaft itself.

How many Iraqis want to even be Iraqis.

By taking Saddam out of the picture the country threatens to crumble around its ethnic lines.

Don't give me this let's all work together and pitch in rubbish. The Americans and British knew full well the implications of destabilizing the country.

America and the British had a beautiful window to help Iraqis in the first Gulf War. When they encouraged Shias and Kurds to rebel, that was the moment to assist their effort.

But to let those rebels and their families die. And then to invade years after, it only seems like the most ignorant would expect a happy welcome among these men who had been betrayed so many times.

 

[Bismillah]

Yes, you hit on another complicating and contributing factor to the violence.
Outside, non-western, influences that have an interest in a permanently weakened or fragmented Iraq.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Syria have traditional interests in this regard. But Iran is, of course, apparently the major player in this foreign agitation; at least it is the State we hear most of in the West

I think it is thoroughly evident that the war has only weakened the U.S's position in the M.E and allowed various groups to infiltrate and encourage factions that are, in principle, hostile to the aims of the U.S.

The irony that after years of supporting Saddam's gassing of the Iranians, it would be by their own hand that the U.S would allow the Ayatollahs of Iran to gain leverage in Iraq.

 

[dmgdnooc]

OK, Yes to this too.
And I add that the Ayatollah's most probably wouldn't have come to power in Iran if not for the reaction of the people to the vicious oppressions of the autocratic US client-Shah.
No Islamic revolution without that bit of interference, what a different world it would be.
US forreign policy seems, so often, to be all about shooting itself in the foot.
　
The US is the Republic that refused to be an Empire; and that always has to count towards its good.
But it can't wholly give up the idea. It can't stop itself from inteferring with and arranging other peoples lives, for what it sees as US interests. The US is not a mature person, it is a State.
　
Its that simple and its much more complex as well.
Left to themselves all States behave with the considered maturity of 4 year olds. Me, me, me, me, mine is the limit of their sphere of interests and actions.
The fact is that Governments also have to be governed, someone/something must guard the guards, and the mechanisms in place (even the best of them) appear to have very limited effectiveness.
　
And the overt marriage between Government and Business interests in the US doesn't help. The US Goverment can do enough damage by itself without all that prompting for and chasing after private interests.
Corporations are every bit as selfish as children also, but because their focus is on the next quarterly report everything is elevated to emergency urgency status.
Everything must be done Now! so it can get onto the balance sheet before the next stockholder's meeting.
That emergency/urgency status may be good for business, but it does not make for good government, it invites too many monolithic mistakes that cannot be reversed once the wheels have begun to grind.
　
It seems that the overriding uniqueness of human beings is not the ability to laugh or murder our own kind or our intellect or use of tools. Human uniqueness appears rooted in our ability to be hypocrites, an ability I don't find mirrored in nature.
In a person hypocrisy may not always be evident but in Governments its generally the first thing I notice, and I suspect you share the trait.
　
OK, that's enough of nooc's theory of everything. You go again.

 

[kai]

LOL! (leave aside for the moment how U.N humanitarian headquarters were among the places to be ransacked)
how so?and by whom?
Ignore how Bush had plans to invade Iraq six months prior to 9/11 justified, of course, by the neccesity to secure oil
I am sure they had a plan i mean Saddams brinkmanship was going on long before 9/11
Or that Saddam had eyes on the Strait of Homruz that made the defense analysts in the Pentagon tremble.
Sure did!

Or the internal debates within the Pentagon on how to effectively cripple OPEC via the invasion of Iraq I am sure the Pentagon has internal debates about all sorts of scenarios thats their job

Or the many American firms that vied in line to profit from foreign contracts once the invasion was done. As well as the European ,Chinese,Russian,Turkish,Lebanese. etc etc

We can look at the humanitarian aspects of the war... which are nonexistent?
We can look at the humanitarian aspects of post war if you like ,i mean the actual war was over very quickly
How pessimistic. Without oil a country is nothing? Good thing the Japanese didn't take that attitude in the reconstruction of their shambled country. you dont think oil and gas are paramount to the iraqi economy ?

Of course the rest of the ministries had no impact on the future of Iraq, you've got to be kidding. Of course they do! but you were talking about the very first few days or weeks after the fall of the Baathist regime not an ongoing or systematic failure to secure other ministries

The ministries of Trade, Agriculture, Industry, Electricity, Water Resources, Finance, Health, and Housing as well as the rest played no part in the rebuilding of Iraq? Astounding because these are just as important. Yes thats why they are supported by the US and others to the tune of millions of dollars. dont you know that?

Of course, you also forgot about how the military choose to save the Ministry of Interior. I havnt forgot anything do you think there was enough troops to gaurd everything in Iraq

They are leaving after the damage is done. They are leaving an insecure and unstable Iraq and shortly hereafter a similarly insecure and unstable Afghanistan. and theres me thinking you wanted them to leave ? do you think they should stay longer?

They are leaving after toppling the authority of Iraq and now you look and say that the chaos that follows is not a direct response to this? It is a direct response to the toppling of Saddams authority but at the end of the day its the Iraqi response isnt it.

That this would still happen if Saddam were in power, unlikely. Very unlikely or under his sons who i presume would have taken over at his death or retirement

I know that, but then again I also know that it is, under international law, the duty of the invading forces to police and protect these sites. Sure if they have anough troops Iraq is huge and the Insurgency was huge.

That it was the failure of U.S troops to halt the systematic looting and destruction of Baghdad and every other city. Yep it was a failure to predict that this may happen, no one predicted the absolute chaos that would prevail in Iraq, and i agree that was a failure

That U.S troops would merely gaze as priceless antiques were smashed and loaded in trucks, that once told of the burning of an ancient library they took 30 minutes to send a patrol and confirm it. And yet you fail to condemn those that actualy did it, Iraqis themselves did it . i am sure you would have cried foul if the Americans started shooting looters straighatawy in all honesty it would have been a thousands upon thousands it was a free for all all Iraq descended into lawlessness.

They were the police. It was their failure that resulted in this destruction.Again a failure to predict they would have to maintain law and oreder to such an extent

And it isn't a coincidence that a large chunk found their way in the private collection of some wealthy Americans. Yes it is i am sure Iraqi antiquaties are all over the world

Uggh you dismantle the police and then you don't enforce law and order. What! unfortuantely the police in Iraq started taking sectarian sides it took a ong while to address that very often the police were so corrupt that they were just another malitia

How many Iraqis want to even be Iraqis. No idea

By taking Saddam out of the picture the country threatens to crumble around its ethnic lines. I dont think so i think left alone and without interference they could form somekind of agreement

Don't give me this let's all work together and pitch in rubbish. The Americans and British knew full well the implications of destabilizing the country. No i dont think so ,not to the extent Iraq exploded its unprecedented

America and the British had a beautiful window to help Iraqis in the first Gulf War. When they encouraged Shias and Kurds to rebel, that was the moment to assist their effort.

But to let those rebels and their families die. And then to invade years after, it only seems like the most ignorant would expect a happy welcome among these men who had been betrayed so many times.

so you think as i do that the invasion should have happened in the first gulf war.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

They are leaving after toppling the authority of Iraq and now you look and say that the chaos that follows is not a direct response to this?

It is a direct response to the toppling of Saddams authority but at the end of the day its the Iraqi response isnt it.

I think it has to be conceded that toppling Saddam was a necessary but insufficient condition for sectarian violence in Iraq. A sizable minority of extremists from different sides had to be present, too. Other regimes have been toppled in the 20th century without the magnitude of consequences we have seen in Iraq, no? And does this mean the U.S. policy was correct and appropriate when the U.S. did not support the uprisings of Kurds and Shiites? After all, if the U.S. had supported them Saddam would have been toppled with just as much if not more revenge and sectarian violence as we see today. Undoubtedly this would have resulted in a new government of Iraq which is friendly to the U.S., perhaps another dictator. So when the Kurds and later the Shiites rose against Saddam, not helping them was in fact the right policy, even though many liberals criticize the U.S. for this?