Back to Iraq?

Sometimes it's a bit of a curse to know history. I hear the statements that are being made from the administration about not having to go back to Iraq (I started a thread last week about that "no boots" thing I've often heard and usually turned out to be a falsehood) but the annals of history tell the real story.

Anyone else starting to sense a pattern here... like history repeating itself? I hope I'm wrong.

And if you're in UK or other places that were there for the Gulf War, what's the buzz in your country about this issue?

 

When the puppet government set up by the US/NATO is about to fall, there is no doubt the puppet master will go in to back it up. However, I doubt the US/NATO governments want to spend tons of money again... the war is supposed to be profitable, not a money sink.

There is a lot of information out there from all kinds of media sources. But we should not expect to hear the truth from mainstream media. At this point, nobody knows what's going on. Except for the fact the current Iraqi government is losing control of some of its territories...

 

How right you are, vashstampede... I gave up listening to the spin from *all* sides years ago. There are clues to help us form opinions, though, I think... case in point, the USS George H. W. Bush just arrived at the Persian Gulf. It was already in the region, but not that close.

I realize of course, that it could just be a tactic of intimidation. What do you think? Gearing up for something or showing military prowess?

 

I'm just puzzled. I totally agree that media does not give us the entire real picture of the things happening. That's why I prefer posting on forums than just totally depending on what I hear in news. My concern is that why does US intervene in the Iraqi war? I believe there is a deeper reason than just the desire to help the Iraqis. Could you shed some light on this?

 

I can only shed the light of how I understand things, so if I'm wrong, feel free to throw rotten tomatoes at me. But seriously, I know that many people (mostly those who are idealistic and under 30) think that a feeling of "we shouldn't be there" is good enough and that the world would be ideal if everyone lived in "la la land" and ignored ugly issues.

*BUT* after I checked into this I found out about ISIS. Do you know what ISIS is? It's a new terrorist group so horrid that (according to reliable sources) even Al Qaeda doesn't want to align with them. That's what is going on in Iraq.

Personally I hate having our nose in places it doesn't belong... but then I realize that a group more dangerous and extreme than Al Qaeda... well I don't think I'm willing to see which major U.S. city they'll strike first if they're allowed to gain more and more power. 9-11 was much too close for me on a personal level.

Having a blind eye to this group and pretending they won't get bigger and bigger until they start striking outside of Iraq doesn't seem to be the wisest option.

What you're calling "The Iraqi War" isn't just two sides shooting each other like our daddy's wars and grandpa's wars... in that scenario of course no one should intervene. (And it's *NOT* just the U.S.!) Check up on ISIS and you'll see what I mean. This isn't a "war" per se.

Just my 2 cents. Feel free to give change.

 

I respect your opinion. I hear of ISIS from the news. From what I get from the news, this is really a great threat to the security of the Iraqi government and to the world in general. What I am not sure of is what the aim of ISIS really is. Do they wage only terror or do they have a deeper fire that drives them into combat? I hope you could give some words on this. That would really help. I sense that you have more knowledge on this. As I said, I don't entirely believe what I read or hear in the news. What I mean is that I always place some doubt on them since history shows that propaganda comes in many different ways. The voice of those who are not in power and in media counts a lot to me. My gratitude to you.

 

Does it matter? I'm thinking it doesn't matter because of their threat level.

So anyhow, I can't answer your question because I don't know the answer. Haven't studied terrorism. I'm sure they all have what they think is a good reason. Whether they have an "aim" or not, the results are the same and it's a terrorist group. Maybe their aim is to save cute little puppies... that's what I mean by "does it matter?" They're deadly any way you look at it.

You sense incorrectly. Maybe someone reading this will be able to help you and answer.

 

I agree this is what will happen... at first. But as my emotion indicator icon says, I'm cynical today. I remember more than once in the past when the "no boots" statements came out when it was thought politically prudent. What it meant in the end was... well basically nothing.

So you really think we can keep all those boots off Iraqi soil, aghart? (Considering someone dear to me is deployed to the region, I'm asking with genuine interest to hear your opinion/thoughts.)

 

This is what I also have in the back of my mind. Looking at the map of the places where war is taking place, we could see a pattern. This scary pattern is that these countries under war right now either has a rich supply of oil or it's where oil pipelines are located. Could this also be a reason why the US government is so interested with Iraq rather than just stopping 'terrorist' activities.

 

I know that U.S. bashing is all the vogue in some countries now, but I have a question. Of course it's about oil on some or all levels (I believe that the terrorists that could cause as much damage as Al Qaeda just happen to be there)... but what would the people so anxious to bash have the U.S. or other countries *DO* to protect economic and financial interests in the region? Tuck tail and run like little sissies?

I don't understand why you said "could this also be a reason why the US government is so interested with Iraq"... I've never heard anyone dispute that oil is involved. Wherever you live, Miguel, would *your* country give up an economic interest like oil supply and go back to chopping wood for heat and horse and buggy for transportation just to avoid conflict and/or people bashing your country's decisions? The strongest countries have to *make* decisions that may be fodder for the bashers... always been like that, always will be.

There has not been much (if anything) this administration has done that I agree with or am proud of... in fact, I'm usually up in arms about one ludicrous decision or another. But I'm also wise enough to know that tucking tail is not an option sometimes.

I have to change my emotion icon now.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we managed to wage a war in Iraq with no boots on the ground. The way that drone technology is advancing, as well as other airstrikes means that when there is no imminent threat, we really have no need to involve soldiers on the ground. Of course we still might anyway, who knows? We don't always make the logical decision as a country.

 

No More War in Iraq.
We withdrew from Iraq. We should no longer interfere with their internal challenges. Let their army take up arms and either keep the country as one, or break up into 3 countries.

 

Who knows what might happen though? Those all sound like good reasons to not go to Iraq in the first place but we did that anyway! It's very hard to predict this sort of thing but history does tend to repeat itself.

 

Yes, one hears a lot about ISIS in the News and the Blogisphere, much of it untrue. ISIS, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is comprised mostly of Sunni Muslims. It is the re-formed Ba'ath Party, the institution which kept the region stable for many years. It used to be clients of the US, especially Dick Cheney and Donald Rumstad under the Reagan regime. For some reason the US Neo-cons got upset with the Ba'ath under Saddam Heusein (at least as far back as 1989) which was at the root of the American lead invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq.

One hears a lot of disturbing rhetoric in the Blogisphere as to the dangers of ISIS. Much of this comes from BAD translations of sermons regarding their faith, which is cast in a bad light anway. ISIS is not distinctly hostile to the US, as a whole, but is wanting only to defend their people and territory against such violations as drone strikes.

 

I don't think that neither the US or the UK want to go back to Iraq, mainly because it's a huge expense and they don't want to support it, not for humanitarian reasons.

 

Currently, our nation can no longer afford to return to Iraq. I read that we have spent just over one trillion dollars on those wars since 2003. Now, we have a border crisis to deal with. That will take hundreds of millions to help those seeking help from the US. Then there is Putin. Who knows what he will attempt next. Whatever it will be our troops may eventually get involved.

 

Actually going into Iraq in 2003 on the side of the Shi'ite Iraqi is proving to have been a BIG mistake. But this was done because the Neo-cons wanted a new deal for the OIL contolled by the Iraqi regime. This was learned from an open letter to the US President (B. Clinton) which was posted, as early as 1998) on the web-site "Project for the New American Century".

When Junior Bush got appointed to the White House his goal and that of his "advisers" was to drag the US into an invasion of Iraq. This needed to be AGAINST the Sunni regime then in power, meaning we had to ally with the Shi'ite Muslims, even though these were themselves allied with Iranian Shi'ites. To this end the Junior Bush administration started planting all sorts of horror-stories about WMDs, so as to manipulate the American people into going to war against a nation which actually had no WMDs. (BTW, were any ever found?)

And what ever happened to that clear and immanent threat posed by ISIS?