Our big, fun Iraq discussion thread

[WobblyPossum]

Can you name 1 time "they" attacked the US with absolutely no justification? And even if you think they did, just how many pounds of flesh do you require? 9/11 killed < 3,000. The War on Terror has killed 500,000 just in Iraq, Afghanistan, & Pakistan. Will you not be satisfied until going full Goebbels?

I’ve noticed that you often seem to talk out of your ass. Mostly it’s when you’re participating in discussions about law enforcement, the military or US foreign policy. This post in particular is completely clown shoes ridiculous. One of the reasons, as already noted by another member, is that your implication is that the US government/military is more similar to Nazi Germany than the Iranian government, which is actually made up of holocaust deniers who want to kill all the Jews.

[0ddl0t]

I’ve noticed that you often seem to talk out of your ass.

Do you find this technique persuasive?

your implication is that the US government/military is more similar to Nazi Germany than the Iranian government

I made no such claim.

[GardoneVT]

I sure hope not. For the first time in our history, the average native-born American has lived through more times of war than peace. That is pathetic and sad.

Indeed. Sounds like you’re using a jacked up calendar. If we use the common sense definition of “Americans shooting at someone and being shot at on foreign soil” , we’ve always been at war with someone, somewhere. I don’t buy into the semantic lie that the legion of classified brushfire wars we fight don’t count. The worlds a big place, populated by a lot of assholes. Good men and women have died for the US , and the survivors wont necessarily see their AOR on the VAs menu of “official DoD Campaigns”. Someone should make a “REDACTED Veteran” hat.

Pearl Harbor was provoked by our direct economic warfare against Japan and our indirect support to Japan's enemies. It was not an unprovoked attack. And we provoked the 9/11 hijackers by using them as pawns when it suited us and helping our "allies" repress them at other times.

Thank you for making my point. Even if we don’t put boots on the ground, we’ll find ourselves in a fight anyways. So much for good intentions.

Insofar as 9/11 and Soviet era politics goes, if we only dealt with morally upstanding foreigners we’d have no allies. It’s a matter of numbers- a majority of governments in the world are monarchies or dictatorships or camouflaged equivalents. Not that a democracy can’t do odious shit either (such as Britain’s policies or the French in Africa). Wake up.

[WobblyPossum]

I made no such claim.

You likened JRB, a US military service member trying to explain specific aspects of US foreign policy/military decision making to Goebbels. I took that as likening the US government’s foreign policy/military decision making to the Nazi Germany government’s foreign policy/military decision making. Iran, if it had the power to pull it off, would actually do some of the things the Nazis tried.

[Joe in PNG]

The funny thing about the historical grievance justification is that nobody selling it really believes it, at lest if it's their own life, liberty, or property at stake.

The other is that everyone has historic grievance with everyone else. If you look into the actual implications of "it's okay because historic grievance", you get into some real uncomfortable areas (the German word is 'sippenhaft').

Then, most of your arguement is historically ignorant. The Ottoman Empire as passive victims of the Ebil Whites? Really? Like most radical Leftwing arguments, it has at it's core the usual white-supremacist-are-right-but-that's-bad premise.

[farscott]

I have zero doubts that the US, on its own, would decisively defeat Iranian conventional military forces in battle. It is what comes after the battle that is of concern. For me, the primary historical lesson of WW I and WW II is that it matters how the victors treat the losers. War creates power vacuums and how those vacuums get filled needs to be done properly. Do the Treaty of Versailles and you beget WW II. Do Marshall Plan and you get modern western Europe. Same for Japan. Do nothing and you get modern Iraq.

The primary difference is the WW II losers were stable countries who were well and truly tired of war after years of bleeding, and Iran and Iraq were not and are not. It is impossible to do American-style nation building unless the people are aligned with the idea of being one nation and want to be a nation more than wanting to kill someone/something else.

Nation building requires a multi-decade commitment of armed forces, funding, and political will, and I do not see the willingness of the American people to stay the course for such an endeavor in the Middle East. We want quick solutions, not solutions that will benefit our grandchildren. Unless that changes, we are better off not toppling the Iranians as history has shown that the results are worse than just leaving the bad people in place. The "devil you know" and all that. Saddam Hussein was a POS who deserved his execution, but, when in power, he was fairly (no, not perfectly) well contained and kept Iraq stable and an effective buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Better than the mess we have now. It sucks, but that is the calculus of nation states.

[BehindBlueI's]

I value allies and would support them in defensive endeavors against foreign combatants. I do not agree with "promoting stability" within the country - every man and every country ought to have the right of self determination.

Why did we "occupy" Saudi Arabia? Hint: Supporting our allies against foreign combatants. Why do we "occupy" South Korea: Hint: Supporting our allies against foreign combatants.

Yes, Saudi sucks. Their leadership sucks. So how do we support Jordan, Israel, Bahrain (all of whom I would count as "good" allies) without dealing with Saudi for now?

It's farcical to think that the people of Saudi would have self-determination if we stayed home. How's that working in Syria, or most of the "Arab Spring" nations? How'd it go in Egypt? Let's go back a bit. How'd it work out in Lebanon with nearly 3 decades of civil war? Israel and Syria didn't stay home, nor did Iran. Did the majority of people in Lebanon end up with self determination? Were they better off without those pesky French? Or let's branch out into a different continent and in modern times: How's it going in Hong Kong post-Britain? Do you suppose Hong Kong would have as much self determination if the British had just stayed home? Why is China trying to, and likely going to, crush that self-determination? Maybe if we just stay home so will China, right?

Western civilization has been meddling in the middle east and trying to pick winners and losers sympathetic to us since the Crusades.

You're lack of historical knowledge is showing. The Crusades were a border war at best and it's equally correct to say the Middle East was meddling in Europe. If you want to make such broad claims, might as well go back to Macedonia conquering the Persians under Alexander the Great, spreading Hellenistic notions throughout much of the Middle East (the parts that had anything to offer in his time).. Or point out that at roughly the same time as the later Crusades, the Mongols were (with much greater success) attacking from the east. I suppose Attila would have stayed home if the Europeans had, though.

Now, where you are more right is the Arabian peninsula. That's largely, but not completely, a post WWI creation due to the discovery of oil. The western world, with help from it's Arab allies, did create most of the current boundaries and that has certainly caused problems. Of course, the Turks and the Persians had made the Arab peninsula what they wanted up until about that point, so it's not like we were taking it from insiders. The Ottoman Turks held Saudi Arabia until Ibn Saud defeated them ahead in the WWI era. Again, though, if we'd stayed home do you think everyone else would have to? Ignore the Turks and Persians. The equivalent of the Mongols wouldn't have swooped in from the east for the newly discovered oil? Let's say you get your fantasy and the west stays out. What, exactly, do you think our economy and industrial base would have looked like without Standard Oil?

Here's a good read for you: https://www.amazon.com/Seven-Pillars...dp/197959550X/ if you'd like to explore that era.

[BehindBlueI's]

You're alleging that if we stop fighting people halfway around the world who don't want us there that they will continue to attack us. I submit that if we vacate lands that aren't ours, those same people won't be that motivated to attack us.

Pearl Harbor was provoked by our direct economic warfare against Japan and our indirect support to Japan's enemies. It was not an unprovoked attack. And we provoked the 9/11 hijackers by using them as pawns when it suited us and helping our "allies" repress them at other times.

So, if we stay home they won't attack us but they will if we don't also temper our economy?

Remember this:

. I do not agree with "promoting stability" within the country - every man and every country ought to have the right of self determination.

Why, exactly, were we engaged in "direct economic warfare" against Japan? Was Japan perhaps threatening the right to self determination in Korea and China and using goods under our control to do it? Japan occupied Korea from roughly WWI to WWII. Were they the good guys in your worldview? We should keep supplying their military so they could invade and occupy their neighbors? Do you suppose that by doing so we might make enemies in the nations they were occupying? That by continuing to supply the Japanese war machine the Koreans and Chinese might harbor a bit of resentment toward us?

You keep ignoring this question. What of our economy and culture are you willing to surrender to be what you think the good guy looks like?

[EPF]

I have zero doubts that the US, on its own, would decisively defeat Iranian conventional military forces in battle. It is what comes after the battle that is of concern.

This. We would steam roll Iran as easily as we did Iraq. It would just look a little different because of terrain etc. That’s not even a question. It’s what comes after that’s the problem. Rather than just leave like we should, our western idea of empathy gets the best of us. George H.W. Bush gets the prize for being smart enough to leave Baghdad alone, realizing the nightmare it would be. He just mowed the grass and split. Leaving Iraqi’s to deal with what they started.

As for the WW2 references I think the main point is that Germany and Japan were modern industrial societies that both had an incredible work ethic. None of that describes the Middle East. I’m against War with Iran because we can’t leave well enough alone, not because my heart is bleeding over whatever happens to them or some historical “it’s our fault” narrative. No, we would stay and “help”. Last time I checked the score is 0-2 at “re-building” in the region.

[blues]

Doesn't seem to be any good options...just less bad options. (If we can accurately assess them and their ramifications.)

Let's see, the Crusades dragged on for about 400 years or so. We may not have to worry though, global warming or AOC will probably do us in before then.