Iraq post-American exit

cafecolour

So the Iraq war is 'over' and American troops have left.

What do people think will happen to the country now? Will it achieve stability or will it devolve into civil war (possibly necessitating a return of US troops, this time as part of a 'peacekeeping' mission)?

For the citizens' sake, I certainly hope that some stability can maintain (or that any transition is relatively bloodless), though I'm not extremely optimistic. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia will use it as Shi'ite vs Sunni proxy battle, though perhaps they'll do it in a 'western democratic' way (i.e. dump tons of money into advertisements, candidates, and voter fraud, and not guns).

I also hope the American troops go back to the U.S., and not to Iran.

TheZohanS

Same thing that happens every 20 years after the US tries to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

Biggins

Is there anyone that really thinking American military "Advisor's" have also left?
Expect just as corrupt Karzi to be propped up for some time just as long as he gives the USA cheap oil, and/or at least easier access to it and maintains to deal the sale of oil in dollars.

starbelgrade

The US led invasion of Iraq was done under the premise that they were looking for weapons of mass destruction, were countering terrorism and were fighting for freedom & democracy.

Now that they are finally leaving Iraq, they are claiming that the "war is won".

How they can claim such a thing is beyond me & beyond absurd. Hundreds of thousands of people have been left dead & injured, most of them civilian, the government that are now in place are rated in the top 10 most corrupt governments in the world, movements of a Al Qaeda which pre-war were recorded as in their tens have now increased to their thousands and the number of weapons of mass destruction found in the country? A big fat zero.

What exactly have the US won? Nothing. What exactly have the Iraqi people won? Nothing.

This has been a war where there have been mostly losers and the only winners have been those who benefit from the production of war materials & weapons and those involved in the oil / gas line scandal. That is the legacy of the US led invasion of Iraq.

Sunnyisland

Still dont know why they were sent there in the first place ?

Truley

It wasn't a war, it was an occupation.

starbelgrade

realies wrote: »

Still dont know why they were sent there in the first place ?

To secure the completion of the construction of the Caspian oil pipeline.

Biggins

starbelgrade wrote: »

To secure the completion of the construction of the Caspian oil pipeline.

...And yet again secure that Dollars was the main currency used for the trading of oil and subsequent goods.
Gadaffi was about to change and use gold as the main currency for trading.

(Sadam as bad as he was - and he was - also was about to change from trading in Dollars to Euro's - when all of a sudden "O' Look... He's got WMD's" and we know how that ended up too!)

AnonoBoy

I'm pretty sure the place will quickly return to the paradise it was before the US moved in.

Children will romp in the meadows past flowing chocolate rivers and man will do onto his brother as he would wish them to do onto him. They will discover that love is the purest form of energy and that true serenity can power a nation.


Then America will invade again.

Haelium

Let this be a lesson, this is probably how the war in Iran will end.

simit

I reckon that if someone were to install an X-box 360 or a Playstation in to the Oval office it'd be doing the world a great service. Let the presidents of the mighty U.S of A spend a few hours a day on a console and they may not need to invade/occupy other nations.
Although if you were playing against them on multiplayer and bet them you could expect a s@~storm.

Saila

less oil there now

Kevin Duffy

Biggins wrote: »

Is there anyone that really thinking American military "Advisor's" have also left?
Expect just as corrupt Karzi to be propped up for some time just as long as he gives the USA cheap oil, and/or at least easier access to it and maintains to deal the sale of oil in dollars.

Pssstttt, Biggins, wrong puppet.....

fedor.2.

I think we can all agree that it was a job well done by the US, Iraq is a much more stable country now and her future looks promising. Another victory for democracy.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

laoch na mona

the corrupt government will cause rebellion by banning opposition or something like that

Saila

laoch na mona wrote: »

the corrupt government will cause rebellion by banning opposition or something like that

oh like....a dictator ?

simit

fedor.2. wrote: »

I think we can all agree that it was a job well done by the US, Iraq is a much more stable country now and her future looks promising. Another victory for democracy.

Are you american?

Saila

simit wrote: »

Are you american?

*fixes posters sarcasm detector*

fedor.2.

simit wrote: »

Are you american?

Do i look American?

Biggins

Kevin Duffy wrote: »

Pssstttt, Biggins, wrong puppet.....

Your right of course.
Its so confusing these days, they have so many of them over the decades! :pac:

simit

fedor.2. wrote: »

Do i look American?

You sound like an american!

laoch na mona

Saila wrote: »

oh like....a dictator ?

maybe i prefer to think of it as guided democracy

fedor.2.

simit wrote: »

You sound like an american!

Ive never spoken to you

noxqs

America is always at war with someone or something.

(Bonus points to anyone who can mention 5 consecutive years in the last 100 years the US was not at war with a country or an idea such as alcohol or drugs).

They'll be at it again soon enough.

fedor.2.

noxqs wrote: »

America is always at war with someone or something.

(Bonus points to anyone who can mention 5 consecutive years in the last 100 years the US was not at war with a country or an idea such as alcohol or drugs).

They'll be at it again soon enough.

Ya,they have to get their remote control plane back from Iran. Dya know the price of um.

RichieC

Onward christian soldier....

MagicMarker

The US troops have left but aren't there still thousands of independent contractors staying behind?

Biggins

RichieC wrote: »

Onward christian soldier....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcrdI-XPdU

RichieC

MagicMarker wrote: »

The US troops have left but aren't there still thousands of independent contractors staying behind?

of course. and an embassy bigger than the vatican...

ReacherCreature

noxqs wrote: »

America is always at war with someone or something.

(Bonus points to anyone who can mention 5 consecutive years in the last 100 years the US was not at war with a country or an idea such as alcohol or drugs).

They'll be at it again soon enough.

Carter administration yeah?

It's an interesting topic, the interventions. America has intervened an awful lot since its foundation as a country.

RichieC

noxqs wrote: »

America is always at war with someone or something.

(Bonus points to anyone who can mention 5 consecutive years in the last 100 years the US was not at war with a country or an idea such as alcohol or drugs).

They'll be at it again soon enough.

Technically speaking the US hasnt been at war since WW2. Congress has to pass a declaration of war which they havent done for any of the countless atrocitys theyve caused post ww2.

ReacherCreature

That's a key area where the recent Presidents have not been helping themselves and the international view of America. They rarely go by Congress when they want to intervene or begin a war. This is an increase of power and their own control. If Congress i.e. a collection of hundreds agreed with the one man (president) then it's a factor in justification. Alas, it's only the one thing and its ability to restrain some of the more adventurous presidents doesn't bode well for their image.

And that's only in decision making. The consequences for democracy as a whole are a tad worrying.

marcsignal

Now that it's over, when are we going to have the 'War Crimes Trials' ?

RichieC

marcsignal wrote: »

Now that it's over, when are we going to have the 'War Crimes Trials' ?

they hung Sadam....

starbelgrade

RichieC wrote: »

they hung Sadam....

And shot Bin Laden.

Though he didn't have the benefit of a trial.

Go Team America.. the champion of human rights throughout the world.

No matter what part of the world that may be.

Unless it's a poor part of the world, that is.. in which case, best of luck to you.

cafecolour

simit wrote: »

I reckon that if someone were to install an X-box 360 or a Playstation in to the Oval office it'd be doing the world a great service. Let the presidents of the mighty U.S of A spend a few hours a day on a console and they may not need to invade/occupy other nations.

You might think you're joking, but the US military has literally hired video game developers to redesign the interface and controls for their drones to be more 'intuitive' for soldiers that grew up playing videos games.

So, soon enough, the US president can go around killing really people from the oval office on his 'xbox', via drone proxy.

cafecolour

starbelgrade wrote: »

Unless it's a poor part of the world, that is.. in which case, best of luck to you.

Not always. The US tried peacekeeping in Somalia (the poorest of the poor), which didn't go so well either.

Manic Moran

cafecolour wrote: »

You might think you're joking, but the US military has literally hired video game developers to redesign the interface and controls for their drones to be more 'intuitive' for soldiers that grew up playing videos games.

Not just the Americans. This is the gunner's control for a British Challenger 2 tank. Note that the turret is controlled by a thumb-stick on the right. Playstation users will be right at home.

http://www.armedforces-int.com/upload/image_files/suppliers/gallery/20/armored-vehicle-training-simulator-controls/armored-vehicle-training-simulator-controls11.jpg

NTM

starbelgrade

cafecolour wrote: »

Not always. The US tried peacekeeping in Somalia (the poorest of the poor), which didn't go so well either.

Peacekeeping? You mean the one in Somalia that saw troops systematically torture & kill Somalians?

Yeah, that didn't go too well at all.

Kasabian

"Only the dead have seen the end of war"

Iraq will be in trumoil for generations to come with or without the Yanks.
I would like to see Bush and Blair brought up on war crimes charges as they started a war on a foundation of lies.

Overheal

starbelgrade wrote: »

Now that they are finally leaving Iraq, they are claiming that the "war is won".

Not that I get a lot of news through the mainstream these days but I haven't heard anybody discuss this as a Victory.

starbelgrade

Overheal wrote: »

Not that I get a lot of news through the mainstream these days but I haven't heard anybody discuss this as a Victory.

Obama tried his best to do it the other day... but even he's not daft / intelligent enough to be able to completely spin the **** up that was Iraq as a victory:


"For nearly a decade, our mission in Iraq has been to root out those who would choose violence over peace, to create a stable Iraqi government, and to transfer power to an incorruptible civilian police force and, in a manner of speaking, we sort of did some of that, right? More or less?"


"Granted, this is not the definitive, World War II–like victory most of us expected but there's a military triumph in there somewhere, I swear. You just have to look at it from the right angles."

ReacherCreature

starbelgrade wrote: »

Peacekeeping? You mean the one in Somalia that saw troops systematically torture & kill Somalians?

Yeah, that didn't go too well at all.

You forget that America didn't enter Somalia with the intention of a militaristic intervention. It was humanitarian but later changed.

Operation Provide Relief gave 38 million pounds of food, Operation Impressive Lift airlifted Pakistani peacekeepers. Provide Hope dropped troops to help disperse aid that the warlords were taking. Continue Hope was a UN (with US) initiative to rebuild the nation.

Mission creep occured and the objective changed from humanitarian to attempt to seize Farrah Adid's factions to stop them causing chaos in the country. The mission creep was fatal - many troops died and more Somalians. Colin Powell objected to this - mission creep happened in Vietnam and that was a factor among multitudes of failures.

nacho libre

Biggins wrote: »

..

(Sadam as bad as he was - and he was - also was about to change from trading in Dollars to Euro's - when all of a sudden "O' Look... He's got WMD's" and we know how that ended up too!)

He had already done so back in 2000.
Shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.

RichieC

nacho libre wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

..

(Sadam as bad as he was - and he was - also was about to change from trading in Dollars to Euro's - when all of a sudden "O' Look... He's got WMD's" and we know how that ended up too!)

He had already done so back in 2000.
Shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it returned oil sales from the euro to the USD.

youll notice the iranian oil borse traded crude for the first time tbis november too.(non petrodollar trade) about the same time the media started up the whole iran nukes narritive again.

why was this trade ignored in the western media?

folk might put 2 & 2 together.

starbelgrade

ReacherCreature wrote: »

You forget that America didn't enter Somalia with the intention of a militaristic intervention. It was humanitarian but later changed.

Operation Provide Relief gave 38 million pounds of food, Operation Impressive Lift airlifted Pakistani peacekeepers. Provide Hope dropped troops to help disperse aid that the warlords were taking. Continue Hope was a UN (with US) initiative to rebuild the nation.

Mission creep occured and the objective changed from humanitarian to attempt to seize Farrah Adid's factions to stop them causing chaos in the country. The mission creep was fatal - many troops died and more Somalians. Colin Powell objected to this - mission creep happened in Vietnam and that was a factor among multitudes of failures.

"Mission creep"? Is that another bullshit military term like "collateral damage"? The type they like to use in order to make the murdering of civilians sound a bit less, well, murderous.

richymcdermott

Too little too late , the damage being done america bombed and destroyed everything in the country , 1000s and 1000s of lives gone , how they were giving the rights to ivade another country without question is mind blowing arry but america is fighting the good fight right? ...

ReacherCreature

starbelgrade wrote: »

"Mission creep"? Is that another bullshit military term like "collateral damage"? The type they like to use in order to make the murdering of civilians sound a bit less, well, murderous.

It's a genuine and historical term and the problem of militaries at times. You ignored my post anyway that the US entered in a humanitarian fashion. Oh well.

Also, I'm actually interested, what elements of torture and murder were they? Outside of the Battle of Mogadishu as the numbers killed are sources of debate.

RichieC

ReacherCreature wrote: »

starbelgrade wrote: »

"Mission creep"? Is that another bulls[SIZE="2"]hi[/SIZE]t military term like "collateral damage"? The type they like to use in order to make the murdering of civilians sound a bit less, well, murderous.

It's a genuine and historical term and the problem of militaries at times. You ignored my post anyway that the US entered in a humanitarian fashion. Oh well.

Also, I'm actually interested, what elements of torture and murder were they? Outside of the Battle of Mogadishu as the numbers killed are sources of debate.

every war starts as a humanitarian mission. noone ever admits there wars are for selfish resourse grabbing.

readin Chomsky he says that belgium invading the Congo is one of the rare times that there was no bsing about with lies about helping people.

Arianna_26

cafecolour wrote: »

So the Iraq war is 'over' and American troops have left.

What do people think will happen to the country now? Will it achieve stability or will it devolve into civil war (possibly necessitating a return of US troops, this time as part of a 'peacekeeping' mission)?

For the citizens' sake, I certainly hope that some stability can maintain (or that any transition is relatively bloodless), though I'm not extremely optimistic. I think Iran and Saudi Arabia will use it as Shi'ite vs Sunni proxy battle, though perhaps they'll do it in a 'western democratic' way (i.e. dump tons of money into advertisements, candidates, and voter fraud, and not guns).

I also hope the American troops go back to the U.S., and not to Iran.

I hope that Iraq can build itself up as a strong country - starting with a government formed of its own people.

I hope it won't devolve into a civil war as I'd prefer if this was the last we saw of American troops inside Iraq.

And I'd love to see American troops go back home - that's where they belong. Why should they go to Iran?