Senate Extremists take control of most of Iraq, part of Syria (U.S. to perform limited airstrikes)

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    So, before 2003, Al Qaeda and similar extremists were nonexistent in Iraq. Then the war happened. But when we left, stability had mostly returned... then the civil war in Syria exploded, with nothing to counter it, and the conflict there began to spread into Lebanon and Iraq.

    Now, terrorists who were kicked out of Al Qaeda for being too extremist (they were crucifying people, among other things) have control of most of Iraq, including its second-largest city.

    [IMG]

    Maliki is somehow still the Prime Minister, and he's asking the U.S. to conduct airstrikes. There' s a fear that they may be on the move towards Baghdad... its ultimate goal is a new Islamic state that encompasses at least parts of both Iraq and Syria.

    Should anything by the U.S. or other foreign powers be done at this point?
    Last edited by Ghost, Jun 11, 2014
  2. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    Malaki is "somehow still the prime minister" because the State of Iraq still exists and the capital and various other regions are still under state control.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  3. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    ...because Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own people, had kept them cowed, chiefly by dint of being a brutal dictator who practiced genocide, largely aided and abetted by the West in its continuing, quixotic campaign against Iran. At the time of his death he was being tried over the An-Anfal massacre, where nearly 200,000 Kurds were slaughtered. Let's not forget that rather significant contextual point here.
    Last edited by Saintheart, Jun 11, 2014
  4. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I was commenting that he's been PM for awfully long.

    I never said Hussein wasn't a dictator or responsible for mass deaths, or that the U.S. didn't support him previously to counter Iran...
    Last edited by Ghost, Jun 11, 2014
  5. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Not our business. We don't belong there and should stay well away.
  6. Saintheart Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2000
    star 6
    No, but the way your comment reads is to imply that Iraqi extremism suddenly popped into life Because The War To Remove Saddam. That's not the case. Saddam, like a number of dictators prior to the end of the Cold War, had a "peaceful" country because he kept everyone, and especially the Shi'ite cultural group he wasn't a part of, repressed by police state tactics. Shi'ite extremism predated Saddam. I trust you are not saying that Saddam's way of keeping extremist groups down was appropriate.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Saintheart, I honestly don't see how your comment connects to anything. Yes, Saddam was repressive to the Shia, but that has little to do with why the primarily Sunni-aligned Al-Qaeda was never a presence in the country. That was because there was a firm, stable government in power that was largely unfriendly to them. The same was the case in most every other country in the region where they don't exist, and still is today. Throughout their whole history, they've only ever really existed in places where friendly regimes would host them (Sudan, Afghanistan) or in places where a vacuum of power allowed them to thrive. Iraq falls neatly into the secondary category as a direct and sole consequence of the American invasion. What are you arguing?
    Ghost likes this.
  8. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    8 years is awfully long for a head of government?
  9. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 5
    I bet Putin is laughing his *** off right now.
  10. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    These extremists are Sunni, who feel that the Maliki government has excluded and repressed them, and are coming home from fighting in Syria.

    It's only been 8 years? He's the only PM of Iraq I can remember since the invasion.
  11. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    You're forgetting that the rather long period where the US ruled by fiat under Ryan Crocker, before--thanks to significant pressure from Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani--transitioning to the idea that maybe the citizens of Iraq should have some say in the governance of their own country. There was then a transitional government prior to the elections, and only after that point was Maliki's government seated.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Jun 12, 2014
  12. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    That's correct, but the handover took a few years to happen. There was a provisional US military governor (effectively) for a couple years.


    Missa ab iPhona mea est.

    Edit: Wocky, are you suggesting that there was even a capable civil authority in Iraq after deBaathification?
  13. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    No. I was doing two things:

    1. Criticizing George Bush in an admittedly unfair fashion by making unkind implications about the situation. Though, again, given the way the whole invasion developed in the first place. I'm not terribly bothered by him taking some extra flack.

    1b. For instance, many of the things that helped destabilize the country, like the excesses of the de-Baathification program or the disbandment of the army, were decisions made by Crocker. It seems rather crass to (even unintentionally) set up something for failure and then claim no one can go forward with it because it's likely to fail. I mean, that may be the most reasonable move left, but it's also quite reasonable to blame you for it.

    2. Pointing out the very real, substantive fact that prior to Sistani's intervention, the Bush Administration intended to go with an entirely appointed Iraqi government that didn't really have any democratic validation or popular legitimacy.
  14. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Are you confusing Crocker with Afghanistan and Iraq? Ryan Crocker was special ambassador to Afghanistan and then ambassador to Pakistan when the Iraqi elections took place. He didn't take over Iraq until a couple of years after the 1st Iraqi election.

    And what do you mean long period? The US invaded Iraq in 2003. The interim council was installed, and then dissolved in 2004. Allawi was the interim Prime Minister for 11 months, followed by al Jaafari, who was elected Prime Minister in January 2005. The transitional government lasted literally months long while the infrastructure was put in place to have elections. Al-Jaafari was going to run again, but withdrew his name after clashing with Kurdish tribes. Al-Maliki was then elected and is serving his second term as PM.

    EDIT: Or maybe you're not confusing Crocker's countries, but confusing the person? Are you thinking of General Jay Garner, who was chief of the Coalition authority in the beginning? Or maybe Paul Bremer? At any rate, Crocker was in Pakistan at the time.
    Last edited by Mr44, Jun 12, 2014
  15. Kiki-Gonn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 26, 2001
    star 6
    Stupid internet, a rare 1st dbl post
    Last edited by Kiki-Gonn, Jun 12, 2014
  16. Kiki-Gonn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 26, 2001
    star 6
    GWB is losing a lot of sleep over this I'm sure.
  17. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Bremer.

    I guess that's what happens when you try to go from memory. Anyway, my key points, as I outlined in my follow-up post, were about the failures of US management in Iraq, and the pretty broad extent to which they weren't looking to involve the Iraqi people as a whole.
  18. I Are The Internets Game Winner

    Game Winner
    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 7
    Is there really anything that can be done that isn't a retread of the spring of 2003?
  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Eh, I just don't think the period fell outside of realistic expectation or was overly long. With Iraq, the actual invasion ended in May, 2003. The military governance ended literally 7 months later. There was a temporary Prime Minister, and then a permanent Prime Minister, all within about 18 months. That timetable is not particularly drawn out. In fact, the US probably should have kept military control of Iraq for a longer period than it did.

    Libya still doesn't have a functioning government, and the military strikes there happened in 2011. Of course, in Libya, besides dropping bombs, the international community hasn't put meaningful effort into actually stabilizing the country, when it should be doing exactly that.
    Last edited by Mr44, Jun 12, 2014
  20. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
  21. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 5
    Considering the recent talk of possible U.S airstrikes against ISIS, it'd be interesting to see if any cooperation results between us and Iran.
  22. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Jun 12, 2014
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  23. Lord Vivec Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 17, 2006
    star 7
    lol whoops


    http://www.ibtimes.com/iran-deploys...iraqi-troops-helps-retake-most-tikrit-1599766
  24. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    At least you didn't link me to the Captain Crunch Fan Forums this time. [face_plain]
  25. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Interesting developments. The prospect of the extremists creating their own new county out of their conquered territory could be a fascinating political development.