The Hidden Hand of ISIS: An American Fuck-Up

[AiA in Atlanta]

You are asking the wrong question. Instead you should ask why did America not oppose the ending of denazification efforts in the very early 1950's and allowed former low-level Nazis to go back into the civil service.

That would be a reasonable question, if you agree that de-Nazification and de-Baathification were good ideas. Otherwise it is merely a deflection.

De-Nazification was a bad idea as the West Germans quickly realized as did their American masters. Too bad the Americans didn't realize de-Baathification was equally bad before it was too late. Chopping off only Hitler's head would not have been enough and complete de-Nazification like the Americans initially wanted was too much. Could we not say the same about Saddam and de-Baathification?

[freediver]

So you think post WWII Germany would have been better off if the Nazis had retained power?

You appear to be confusing the achievement of de-Nazification with a reversal of policy on de-Nazification. It was never intended to be another holocaust.

[Outlaw Yogi]

So you're implying Saddam's revenge being a Stalinist Islamic State regime with a jihadi face is preferable to Saddam's Stalinist Bath regime? ... which until it nationalised Iraqi oil had US backing.

Of course not, but I do not expect ISIS to win.

Neither do I, but only because IS has made itself a threat and common enemy to all the nations around it (except Turkey, who support them).

... But ISIS should give you a good idea of the consequences of leaving Saddam's regime in charge.

Rubbish! .. If the Bathists had retained control of Iraq they would have stayed in Iraq, but since losing control of their former territory their reincarnation as IS has retaken some of its original ground (in Iraq) plus invaded Syria and Lebanon, and is now gaining territory in Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Would you prefer the people running ISIS had control of the Iraqi military, police, public service, tax base etc?

If they had remained in Iraq, yes.
Since the Shi'ite take over of Iraq, Iran now has considerable influence in Iraq, and emboldened the Iranians to run a new proxy war in Yemen.

This is what all the whingers are forgetting. There's no point complaining about the dissolution of the regime unless you are willing to suggest that leaving the regime in place would have been a better idea.

I'm not only believe leaving the Bathists in control is/was a better idea, I'm claiming removing them from their power base is a disaster because they have morphed in to something far worse that is infecting many other countries, caused a humanitarian catastrophe with hundreds of thousands of displaced people now headed for Europe (and allowed IS to sneak 4000 jihadis into Europe via the refugee exodus) and is costing the rest of the world a fortune.

Either you have a better way, or you must acknowledge that despite the consequences, dissolving the regime was the best option, and you are merely cursing at windmills.

No! ... you either leave it as it is, or wipe it out completely via genocide.
That's why I say (despite having a Pashtoon camel driving ancestor brought to Oz by the Brits) if you want to end the problem in Afganistan called the Taliban, they need to throw the Geneva Conventions in the toilet, go into Warizistan (northern Pakistan) and completely eliminate the Pashtoon tribes. Because as long as they are allowed to breed they will continue putting their boys thought Islamic madrasses and the Jihadi phenomenon will remain for generations.

In Markandeya Purana, a mythical story about a 5000 year long war by the gods (later pilfered and partially reproduced by Christians to create 'the Apocolypse of St John'), the gods fought the boss rakshasa/demon Raktabija.
Their blows/strikes were ineffective, so they sought Indra's help because he had a special dart that could penetrate anything. But for every drop of Raktabija's blood that hit the Earth, a new monster grew in his likeness.
They didn't want to seek Shiva's aid because Shiva gets very cranky if you wake him up and has destructive tantrums. So they got his feminine alter ego Kali to help. She killed the 2 mosters Shimba and Nishimba that grew from Raktabija's blood, and as the gods battled Raktabija Kali licked his wounds to prevent the creation of new monsters.

Are you suggesting we yield to fascism because you cannot stomach fighting against it? Or do you want to lick it's arse? Is there something special about ISIS that makes it different from ever other fascist regime we have taken on and conquered? Or have you fallen victim to some kind of noble savage fantasy that makes ISIS invincible? Can you suggest a better option than fighting ISIS, or is this more cursing at windmills?

Not in the slightest. I'm saying either isolate it and leave it to die via natural causes from its domestic enemies, or destroy it utterly through genocide.

[Rorschach]

Well that's very interesting yogi...
because we seem to be in complete agreement re the solution.
leave it and let them kill one another off and deal with the leftovers
or go in there and wipe it off the face of the Earth
mind you if it was the former i'd be monitoring it closely from afar just in case.
my personal preference has always been to "wall them in" and let them kill each other off.
make them persona non grata to the rest of the planet until the problem no longer exists.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Denazification of Germany didn't finish off the Nazis.
IBM who's big break was numbering Jews is now a TNC.
Bayer who produced Zyclon B to gas Jews is also a TNC.
V2 rocket engineers/technitions were transfered to NASA.
Some Gestapo became guests of OSS (forerunner of CIA)
Plenty of top Nazis were given refuge in Argentina via Operation Paperclip.

Nuremberg trials was a show/performance where only those of no strategic value were held accountable.

The Russians had the right idea. They made Hitler's grave secret so it couldn't become a neo-Nazi shrine, and went to Austria and exterminated his entire family.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Well that's very interesting yogi...
because we seem to be in complete agreement re the solution.
leave it and let them kill one another off and deal with the leftovers
or go in there and wipe it off the face of the Earth
mind you if it was the former i'd be monitoring it closely from afar just in case.
my personal preference has always been to "wall them in" and let them kill each other off.
make them persona non grata to the rest of the planet until the problem no longer exists.

I proposed (in a letter, not online) the 'walling in' solution in 2000.
Several years later Israel did just that, but like rats the Jihadis tunneled out.
As unpopular the suggestion is, I think we should exterminate them completely, and not be scared to use chemical and biological weapons on them.

Does anybody imagine Jihadis wouldn't use them on us?

[freediver]

Rubbish! .. If the Bathists had retained control of Iraq they would have stayed in Iraq

And not say, tried to get into Iran or Kuwait? Because they are far better behaved with a national army at their disposal?

If they had remained in Iraq, yes.

So you are invoking the fantasy of benign dictatorship to counter our handling of reality?

I'm not only believe leaving the Bathists in control is/was a better idea, I'm claiming removing them from their power base is a disaster because they have morphed in to something far worse that is infecting many other countries, caused a humanitarian catastrophe with hundreds of thousands of displaced people now headed for Europe (and allowed IS to sneak 4000 jihadis into Europe via the refugee exodus) and is costing the rest of the world a fortune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... n%27s_Iraq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights, which stated that there had been no improvement in the human rights crisis in Iraq. The statement condemned President Saddam Hussein's government for its "systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law". The resolution demanded that Iraq immediately put an end to its "summary and arbitrary executions... and the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances".

You liked this? The fight against this sort of thing is never an easy one Yogi, but if no-one ever took that risk we would all be living under oppressive dictatorship.

No! ... you either leave it as it is, or wipe it out completely via genocide.

Wipe what out? Why did Germany end up such a liberal democracy despite us not slaughtering every last Nazi?

Denazification of Germany didn't finish off the Nazis.

The point was not to kill them all. The point was to remove them from power. Same with Iraq.

[Outlaw Yogi]

Rubbish! .. If the Bathists had retained control of Iraq they would have stayed in Iraq

And not say, tried to get into Iran or Kuwait? Because they are far better behaved with a national army at their disposal?

They'd already been turfed out of Kuwait with considerable losses. If they took on Iran again, they'd run the risk of losing their country to the majority Shia population in Iraq.

If they had remained in Iraq, yes.

So you are invoking the fantasy of benign dictatorship to counter our handling of reality?

What?! ... No, I thought I made it quite obvious. You either leave it alone or destroy it completely. Half arsed measures usually means the problem will come back to bite you on the arse.

I'm not only believe leaving the Bathists in control is/was a better idea, I'm claiming removing them from their power base is a disaster because they have morphed in to something far worse that is infecting many other countries, caused a humanitarian catastrophe with hundreds of thousands of displaced people now headed for Europe (and allowed IS to sneak 4000 jihadis into Europe via the refugee exodus) and is costing the rest of the world a fortune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_righ ... n%27s_Iraq" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 2002, a resolution sponsored by the European Union was adopted by the Commission for Human Rights,

I couldn't give a rat's arse what the EU (who tried to sucker Oz with GATS) or any hypocritical human rights committee parasiting to taxpayers has to say. They should sort their own problems out before admonishing others and/or giving bad advice.

[freediver]

They'd already been turfed out of Kuwait with considerable losses.

So you will change your tune after ISIS is defeated? Is this a "back the winner" approach to morality?

What?! ... No, I thought I made it quite obvious. You either leave it alone or destroy it completely. Half arsed measures usually means the problem will come back to bite you on the arse.

You still haven't explained why Germany turned out so well despite our failure to enact your 'final solution' for the Nazis.

I couldn't give a rat's arse what the EU (who tried to sucker Oz with GATS) or any hypocritical human rights committee parasiting to taxpayers has to say. They should sort their own problems out before admonishing others and/or giving bad advice.

Sounds just like what critics said about the Nazis.

[Rorschach]

Well that's very interesting yogi...
because we seem to be in complete agreement re the solution.
leave it and let them kill one another off and deal with the leftovers
or go in there and wipe it off the face of the Earth
mind you if it was the former i'd be monitoring it closely from afar just in case.
my personal preference has always been to "wall them in" and let them kill each other off.
make them persona non grata to the rest of the planet until the problem no longer exists.

I proposed (in a letter, not online) the 'walling in' solution in 2000.
Several years later Israel did just that, but like rats the Jihadis tunneled out.
As unpopular the suggestion is, I think we should exterminate them completely, and not be scared to use chemical and biological weapons on them.

Does anybody imagine Jihadis wouldn't use them on us?

that's why it has to be monitored closely and why they must be persona non grata globally.