The Hidden Hand of ISIS: An American Fuck-Up

[Rorschach]

Face it... ISIL is a virulent plague of psychopaths... Muslim psychopaths.
If we allow the problem to fester and not adopt the 2 only reasonable solutions, they will form their so-called caliphate and continue on their way spreading throughout the ME on their jihad of world conquest, their ultimate goal, and then only 1 strain of Islam will survive, billions would be dead and the Useful Idiots will lose their heads or submit. Not a guess what the ISIL preference would be.
Death to the Infidel, death to the Unbelievers, death to all Kaffir.

[Outlaw Yogi]

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?

This is as far as I've bothered to read from this reply because you seem to be the most incoherent self contradictory cretin debating just for debate's sake, rather than have a valid position.

Why would I change my tune?
As I keep reiterating, the Bath party should have been left in power, or every single Bath party member hunted down and executed.

What you seem to fail to realise is IS is Saddam's revenge in a literal sense.
A very good tactician wrote the play book they operate by, and IS itself is not just a bunch of loopy Jihadis. They're a profesional army who know how to formulate battle units properly so that heavy guns and tanks are supported by motars and technicals (utes with heave machine guns) who intend to exact revenge on the West and carve out an ever expansionist empire under the pretext of a theocratic state. Part of that revenge is to bankrupt U$A in the same way the cost of war/s bankrupted ancient Rome.
What does Jarrad Diamond in Collapse have to say on that sport?

This war is going to go on far longer than that in Afganistan, and is very likely the beggining of WW3.

Your argument that deBathification was good/necessary implies that millions of displaced people in the Mid East is good, and that the exodus from north Africa into Europe via which IS has managed to sneak 4000 Jihadis into Europe is also good.

With sleeper cells generally containing 4 members, why do you think a 1000 new terrorist sleeper cells in Europe is a good thing?

BTw, the title of this thread "The Hidden Hand of ISIS: An American Fuck-Up" is very apt.

[freediver]

This is as far as I've bothered to read from this reply because you seem to be the most incoherent self contradictory cretin debating just for debate's sake, rather than have a valid position.

Great, let's start again from the beginning. Maybe in another page or two we'll get back to where we were last page.

My point, in case you missed it, is that deBaathification was necessary. A holocaust was not. If we left them running the place, they would just prop up another dictator, except this time they would be even more pissed off.

Your argument that deBathification was good/necessary implies that millions of displaced people in the Mid East is good, and that the exodus from north Africa into Europe via which IS has managed to sneak 4000 Jihadis into Europe is also good.

No, my argument is that it is better than the alternatives. See my previous post for where we were up to on this. Or you could just pretend we have not already been over it.

[Outlaw Yogi]

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.

Righto, if you want to debate on unfair comparrisons or unrealistic analogies, lets do just that.
1st Question: Like I keep saying/writing, I have not changed my tune, I keep writing the same thing like a broken record and you act like you can't comprehend it as if yu're tripping on daytura or been licking cane toads.

2nd question: I never wrote nor even implied Germany turned out so well despite U$A protecting its favoured Nazis.
OK, lets just consider pre and post Nazi Germany. Iraq didn't pick the fight with U$A's coalition of the willing or the rest of the Mid East. where as did Germany pick a fight with most of Europe and the Allies. Then once beaten lost a portion of their nation (East Germany) to Stalinist Russia for half a century and had/has permanent US bases in the portion they retained (West Germany), meaning parts of their land is occupied indefinately whether they like it or not.
You're also forgetting that the conquering U$A invested considerable finances to help Germany regain its manufacturing base on which its entire economy depends upon.
Where as the US partial reconstruction of Iraq post 2003 invasion was ad hoc and motivated by the foreign privatisation of Iraq's oil fields.

3rd comment: Bullshit!. You failed to elaborate on whether said critics were critical of the Nazis or failure to eliminate them. So lets address both sides of that coin. Those critical of the Nazis didn't claim to not care what the international community's (UN) judgement was. And were largely ignorant of U$A protecting top Nazis through Operation Paperclip.
Any critics of U$A's Nuremberg trials, I imagine would have been delighted by, if not implicated in the foundation of the ne-Nazi movement.

Happy now?

[Outlaw Yogi]

This is as far as I've bothered to read from this reply because you seem to be the most incoherent self contradictory cretin debating just for debate's sake, rather than have a valid position.

Great, let's start again from the beginning. Maybe in another page or two we'll get back to where we were last page.

My point, in case you missed it, is that deBaathification was necessary. A holocaust was not.

And my point is, the current holocaust in the Mid East is a direct result of deBathification, and the current holocaust in north Africa is an indirect result of deBathification.

If we left them running the place, they would just prop up another dictator, except this time they would be even more pissed off.

And in no position physically or financially to vent their anger in any meaningful way.
You seem to forget, that when the yanks rolled into Bagdad, they'd put bull dozer blades on the front of their Abrams M1A1 tanks and burried 40,000 Iraqi troops in their trenches.
The yanks litterally drove straight over the top of them. Plus the yank's microwave guided missiles had taken out all the Iraqi radar and communication instillations. Fact is the Iraqi military was so devastated, had the yanks gone home, Iran could have taken the place over in a matter of weeks.

Your argument that deBathification was good/necessary implies that millions of displaced people in the Mid East is good, and that the exodus from north Africa into Europe via which IS has managed to sneak 4000 Jihadis into Europe is also good.

No, my argument is that it is better than the alternatives. See my previous post for where we were up to on this. Or you could just pretend we have not already been over it.

But we have been over it. You're claiming deBathification was required, when in fact leaving those in the public service with administration experience to rebuild would have cost far less both financially and in human terms concerning ethnic based conflict and revenge.
Those in the military would have retained their benefits and accepted defeat. But by taking their power base from them, they have reason/motivation to get revenge by causing chaos by destroying what they can't loot.

No matter what you claim, your argument has no legs.

[freediver]

OK, lets just consider pre and post Nazi Germany. Iraq didn't pick the fight with U$A's coalition of the willing or the rest of the Mid East. where as did Germany pick a fight with most of Europe and the Allies.

How is this relevant? Either way you still have the fundamental issue of how to replace a dictatorial ideology with functioning democracy.

Where as the US partial reconstruction of Iraq post 2003 invasion was ad hoc and motivated by the foreign privatisation of Iraq's oil fields.

Are you suggesting that the US methodically rebuilt the German economy post WWII?

3rd comment: Bullshit!. You failed to elaborate on whether said critics were critical of the Nazis or failure to eliminate them.

Obviously neither. The ones who sounded like you were the ones insisting we should not take them on in the first place.

And my point is, the current holocaust in the Mid East is a direct result of deBathification, and the current holocaust in north Africa is an indirect result of deBathification.

And your solution is to either let ISIS run rampant or ramp up the slaughter?

And in no position physically or financially to vent their anger in any meaningful way.

You honestly think that delivering them the entire nation of Iraq, its tax base, and its army would have left them weaker than they are today? Why not just let them take over Iraq then and watch them suffer the consequences of their success?

But we have been over it. You're claiming deBathification was required, when in fact leaving those in the public service with administration experience to rebuild would have cost far less both financially and in human terms concerning ethnic based conflict and revenge.

Sounds pretty naive to me. Sure they would have been more efficient, just as the Nazis were in Germany. But that does not mean better. You are arguing for a government made up of an efficient killing machine because it is so efficient. It would have entirely defeated the purpose of invading. The Iraqi people would be even further entrenched in dictatorship, and we would have an even more hostile leader to keep down.

Those in the military would have retained their benefits and accepted defeat.

LOL. Muslims accepting defeat from the great Satan? ISIS is a demonstration of the lengths they will go to to avoid that.

[Outlaw Yogi]

You're full of shit FD. It's really simple, Saddam was America's buddy (against Iran).
Saddam fell out of favour because he nationalised Iraqi oil.
Iraq got invaded the 2nd time because Saddam sold oil for Euros, thus undermining the artificially inflated value of US dollars.
The Sunni/Bathist admin sanctioned removal of Saddam by U$A if they remained as admin.
The Yanks turfed the Bath party out and put Shi'ites bent on revenge in power.
Now the former Iraqi army is causing chaos through the Mid East and North Africa.
And you're being hypocritical because you endorse the slaughter with motherhood statements to the contrary.
End of story.

[freediver]

The Sunni/Bathist admin sanctioned removal of Saddam by U$A if they remained as admin.

Even if they did, they would not have needed an invasion. They could have shot him in the back of his head themselves.

In any case, none of this is relevant to whether it would have been better to leave the baathists in charge after the invasion.

The Yanks turfed the Bath party out and put Shi'ites bent on revenge in power.

The shites are the majority in a democracy. They were remarkably restrained given what Saddam did. The biggest criticism of them from the ISIS lunatics is that they did not hand seats of power to Sunnis as some kind of consolation prize.

And you're being hypocritical because you endorse the slaughter with motherhood statements to the contrary.

I do not endorse the slaughter. As I keep pointing out to you, and you so deftly ignore, I prefer it to your alternatives. You are the only one endorsing slaughter here.

[Outlaw Yogi]

You do endorse the current slaughter by virtue of advocacy for deBathification of Iraq.
But like I said "You're full of shit" ... which is why you keep trying to change the subject via psuedo analogies with nazi Germany ect.

I assume you imagine you look sophisticated, but I think you're just indulging in intellectual masturbation. And thus a waste of time.... and good oxygen for that matter.

[freediver]

The subject is whether de-Baathification was a good idea. It was a far better option than either of your suggestions of a holocaust or putting them back in charge in the naïve hope that they would play nice.

Someone else brought up the analogy with the Nazis.