Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

comongethappy

aboysham wrote: »

You appear to have two fingers, use them. Google is your friend.

Burden of proof is on you friend.

If you make outlandish claims, don't be so shocked if someone asks you to prove yourself!

Methinks you've got nothing though.

Next you will tell us that GW promised Australia a place in UEFA is they continued their participation.....or Poland will win the next 3 Eurovision's... Cos that's something the US president would easily deliver on.... Just like forcing countries into the EU!

aboysham

comongethappy wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you friend.

If you make outlandish claims, don't be so shocked if someone asks you to prove yourself!

Methinks you've got nothing though.

Next you will tell us that GW promised Australia a place in UEFA is they continued their participation.....or Poland will win the next 3 Eurovision's... Cos that's something the US president would easily deliver on.... Just like forcing countries into the EU!

Perhaps those that you consider your peers will help you find the facts, I won't, as whatever I say won't help with your condition.

c_man

aboysham wrote: »

You appear to have two fingers, use them. Google is your friend.

Sure why bother having a discussion forum at all, we can google everything.

K-9

aboysham wrote: »

That is exactly what Bush offered, blind man.

comongethappy wrote: »

Burden of proof is on you friend.

If you make outlandish claims, don't be so shocked if someone asks you to prove yourself!

Methinks you've got nothing though.

Next you will tell us that GW promised Australia a place in UEFA is they continued their participation.....or Poland will win the next 3 Eurovision's... Cos that's something the US president would easily deliver on.... Just like forcing countries into the EU!

aboysham wrote: »

Perhaps those that you consider your peers will help you find the facts, I won't, as whatever I say won't help with your condition.

Mod:

Cut it out please. There's no need for sniping at each other whatsoever.

oscarBravo

aboysham wrote: »

Bush II promised inclusion in the E.U. if they would allow American Air bases.

EU membership isn't the US president's to offer, and even Bush knew that. He certainly argued in favour of Turkey's EU membership, but he certainly never promised it, because he couldn't.

aboysham

K-9 wrote: »

Mod:

Cut it out please. There's no need for sniping at each other whatsoever.

Apologies to all, including my friend whose bottle of Rum I skulled last night.

FreudianSlippers

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In an ideal world, none of this stuff would be happening. Poor decisions were made that unfortunately can't be reversed. Only for them, the Middle East would be a very different place today.

It is human nature for people to be greedy. Basically, the US and USSR both wanted to be top dog and they did whatever they had to to do so. Some will admit they made mistakes (such as ex hostage takers from the 1980 embassy siege in Iran), others will justify what they did as the 'right thing' (Blair!!). In reality, all were engulfed in an unstoppable cycle of evil and greed that predated them and they were dealing with the consequences of the poor decisions of those who went before them.

Both the West and Middle East have been served poorly politically for years by weak, indecisive and often evil men. The Bush/Blair/9/11/Taliban/al Qaeda era was not one of the finest times for humanity but as much as I don't like all of these, they are all products of the past and their environs.

I know world peace is a pipe dream. I know there's always evil people like terrorists who the world does need to go to war on. ISIS regardless of our views on the past (I opposed the Iraq war for example) do need to be taken out no matter what. Sure, they were a consequence of the past but so too was the 2003 war.

I totally agree, the problem is I think that means for a peaceful Middle East, the West had it right in the last decade: install a dictator that is in your palm who will rule with an iron fist and get **** done. The problem will resurface when the next USA World Police decide they care about the people who hate them for doing that in the first place... A cycle we are stuck with if we want safety unfortunately.

aboysham

oscarBravo wrote: »

EU membership isn't the US president's to offer, and even Bush knew that. He certainly argued in favour of Turkey's EU membership, but he certainly never promised it, because he couldn't.

I've been looking for the piece (could have been a book) that I'd read on the 2004 White house meeting between Bush and Erdogan but have been unsuccessful so far, if I find it I will post it up here.

I did find this (can't post links);

Erdogan-Bush Meeting/EU: Today's papers give extensive, front-page coverage to AKP leader Erdogan's US visit and to the Erdogan-Bush meeting at the White House. Erdogan was welcomed by President Bush with the words `Welcome to the home of Turkey's closest friend and ally'. All papers report that the US President has extended support to Turkey's EU entry by saying that `we are shoulder to shoulder with Turkey in their struggle to enter the EU'. "Aksam" reports that Erdogan was briefed for 2 hours by DepSecDef Wolfowitz and U/S Grossman prior to his meeting with President Bush. "Hurriyet" reports that top-level US officials, including SecState Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Wolfowitz and US Ambassador to Turkey Robert Pearson, attended the meeting at the White House. "Sabah" reports that President Bush promised to call EU capitals to lobby for an early accession date for Turkey.



If this is what he said publicly it's not too much of a stretch to believe that Bush made a more definitive promise in private given that Blair was in his pocket.

Jacque Chirac said this about another public speech Bush gave in Galatasary university;



Chirac Goes After Bush on Turkey
Published June 28, 2004
Associated Press
Facebook0 Twitter0 livefyre0

ISTANBUL, Turkey – French President Jacques Chirac (search) said Monday that President Bush went "too far" by saying the European Union should admit Turkey, and he added that Bush commenting on Turkish-EU relations was like a French leader commenting on U.S.-Mexican ties.

"If President Bush really said that in the way that I read, then not only did he go too far, but he went into territory that isn't his," Chirac said.

FreudianSlippers

IF he said it... A quick google doesn't return anything really.

oscarBravo

aboysham wrote: »

If this is what he said publicly it's not too much of a stretch to believe that Bush made a more definitive promise in private given that Blair was in his pocket.

It doesn't matter what he promised, even assuming that he did: I could promise you a tax cut in return for cutting my grass, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a tax cut, because it's not mine to give.

aboysham

oscarBravo wrote: »

It doesn't matter what he promised, even assuming that he did: I could promise you a tax cut in return for cutting my grass, but that doesn't mean you're going to get a tax cut, because it's not mine to give.

I agree, but when you consider that Blair was the only EU leader to back fast track accession for Turkey, you can see Bush's fingerprints all over it.

WakeUp

So the Russians have now weighed in and thrown their weight behind Malaki which isn't surprising considering their investments in Iraqi oil and the west wanting Maliki gone. Iraq shaping up as another proxy war between the west and Russia and all who support each side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-20/russia-reignites-proxy-war-putin-offers-complete-support-iraq-prime-minister-scorned

comongethappy

WakeUp wrote: »

So the Russians have now weighed in and thrown their weight behind Malaki which isn't surprising considering their investments in Iraqi oil and the west wanting Maliki gone. Iraq shaping up as another proxy war between the west and Russia and all who support each side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-20/russia-reignites-proxy-war-putin-offers-complete-support-iraq-prime-minister-scorned

Eh
...aren't both of them on the Maliki side?
The US is sending advisors.

Its not a new cold war front.

Seaneh

WakeUp wrote: »

So the Russians have now weighed in and thrown their weight behind Malaki which isn't surprising considering their investments in Iraqi oil and the west wanting Maliki gone. Iraq shaping up as another proxy war between the west and Russia and all who support each side.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-20/russia-reignites-proxy-war-putin-offers-complete-support-iraq-prime-minister-scorned

I'd say this is more Russia send a big "Eff you!" to the Saudi's than anything to do with America.

The Saudi's are the ones funding most of the jihadists in Syria and Chechnya which pisses Russia off no end.

WakeUp

comongethappy wrote: »

Eh
...aren't both of the Maliki side?

I don't think so, no. If we are talking about support of Maliki the man then I would definitely say no. He's Tehrans man and hasn't been playing along with what the Americans have really wanted for a number of years. I watched a speech the other day think it was Thursday were Obama was asked directly did he have confidence in Maliki and he just side stepped it somewhat and did not categorically give him his support. Iraq and the country as we know are in a precarious position the fact he didn't back him remembering that it was the Americans that help put him in says a lot. Diane Feinstein head of senate intelligence has been more blunt saying Maliki has to go. Publicly the Americans are being lukewarm privately I reckon it's more than that and they want him out. And now Putin has come out and offered his full support whatever that means. It might not be apparent yet but I think sides have been taken - west/Sunni Russia/Shia. Russia and Iran will want Maliki to remain in power as if he leaves among other things it will threaten Iranian supply lines into Syria as both are invested heavily there propping up Assad. Maliki will be happy enough to let the Americans bomb the Jihadis though so far the Americans aren't biting and they could have if they really wanted too. It will be interesting too see if they actually attack the Jihadists. The Jihadis are a Saudi proxy Maliki has been quite forceful with his comments lately accusing the Saudis of genocide he has layed the blame squarely at their feet. and the Americans are in the Saudi corner when all is said and done. So I think they want Maliki out. Whether this happens or not remains to be seen . The Americans are hard to read at the best of times but I don't think they are making much effort attempting to hide their disdain for Maliki at the moment I think it's apparent.

comongethappy

Good post.

Ive wondered of late.... In the grand scheme if things, in the context of the whole millennium long Shia /Sunni slug fest.

Why did the US (and to a lesser extent Europe) side with the Sunni over the Shia?

When you look at what Iran used to be, progressive, modern. Compared to the ultra conservative almost medieval Arab states.
From the outside, Iran should have been a more suitable ally for the US.

Was it because of the oil crisis in the 70s?
Or because the arabs have less of a beef with Israel? Maybe both?

Its a sad quirk of history that the US allowed the ultra religious to seize Iran (I'm sure they were secretly chuffed to create a ready made enemy) in the context of what Iran might have been.

Jonny7

It's just a complex mess - during the Cold War any "side-taking" was really for geopolitical, selfish and/or strategic reasons

Later, during Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, it depended on situation, logic, reasoning, etc - generally against the more extreme forces/militia's/brigades whether they be Shia, Sunni or external

e.g. when Al Sadr was threatening Baghdad with his Shia militia, the US took very strong action which blunted Al Sadr, and tensions calmed. Likewise the US were fighting Anbar Sunni's and then, as I mentioned before, they co-operated with them against a more common enemy

At the moment it's whomever is the biggest threat to stability of the country/region, which is ISIS/ISIL

AbusesToilets

I think the US backing of the overthrow of the Iranian government and the imposition of the Shah must rank as one the greatest mistakes in the history of that region. Iran should have been a natural ally of the US and the west and a counter balance to the Wahhabi extremists supported by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. There could could have been a modern, democratic country for the last 40 years instead of the theocratic, terrorist supporting state that exists now.

realweirdo

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's just a complex mess - during the Cold War any "side-taking" was really for geopolitical, selfish and/or strategic reasons

Later, during Iraq 1 and Iraq 2, it depended on situation, logic, reasoning, etc - generally against the more extreme forces/militia's/brigades whether they be Shia, Sunni or external

e.g. when Al Sadr was threatening Baghdad with his Shia militia, the US took very strong action which blunted Al Sadr, and tensions calmed. Likewise the US were fighting Anbar Sunni's and then, as I mentioned before, they co-operated with them against a more common enemy

At the moment it's whomever is the biggest threat to stability of the country/region, which is ISIS/ISIL

Saddam would have solved this ISIL issue, I think that's what most people are saying, he would have kept a lid on it - more than likely by rounding up all the young men and disappearing them into mass graves, and locking up thousands of others and generally obliterating entire regions that dared oppose him. Ah but for the good old days when Saddam ruled.

The problem again is giving the Iraqi people freedom, which they have chosen not to use wisely. Lifting the lid on the Sunni - Shia rivalry was always going to lead to this, but 90% of the fault is with the sunni and shia themselves - and ISIL is exploiting it to the max.

nacho libre

Seaneh wrote: »

I'd say this is more Russia send a big "Eff you!" to the Saudi's than anything to do with America.

The Saudi's are the ones funding most of the jihadists in Syria and Chechnya which pisses Russia off no end.

Yes i think you maybe right.

As you may recall the former Saudi intelligence chief threatened Putin of consequences if they didn't drop their support for Assad

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html


..., but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord. “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” he allegedly said.

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”