What should the West do about the present situation in Iraq?

Nothing ‘gleeful here’ seemingly or otherwise. Try to constrain yourself.
Iraq has been brutal and ugly for a long time:

One Iraqi Family except the mother and wife were numbers 58 through 61 killed in the US and UK invasion of Iraq.

058 Salma Amin 50 Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

059 Mohammed Amin 27 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

060 Said Amin 24 (son of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003

061 Shams Amin 20 (daughter of Salma) Mansour district, Baghdad 8 Apr 2003
The Pentagon reported on 7 April that .A B2 bomber dropped four 2000-pound laser-guided GBU-24 bunker-buster bombs on the Al Saa Restaurant in the al Mansour District of Baghdad that Intelligence sources claimed was a meeting place of Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and senior Iraqi regime leaders.

When the broken body of the 20-year-old woman was brought out – torso first, then the head – her mother started crying uncontrollably, then collapsed.”

That must be Shams Amin, daughter of Salma Amin and sister to Mohammed and Said Amin, who were all killed by the four 2000 lb BGU bunker buster bombs inside or near the Al Saa Restaurant in the Mansour District of Baghdad, Iraq on April 7 2003.

Ugly. and then we couldn’t count the victims by name anymore…

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Try to constrain yourself.
[/QUOTE]

Certainly. In exchange for me not telling you in scathing detail what I think of your plan to unleash the likes of Sadr and his merry band into the mix, or why having another group of blood thirsty and vengeance filled militia mobilized and giving a hunting license (what do you suppose the probable outcome will be on the civilian Sunni population when Shia militia groups are turned loose? Or are you under the impression that groups like this only fight enemy combatants with occasional collateral damage happening??) I want you to try and actually read, with comprehension, what I write, and give a response that has some semblance to the points being made, instead of zooming off in directions the align with your desire for spin. Do we have a deal?

Yes, very tragic. Has zero to do with my own point, however, which was about the wisdom of your plan to arm and unleash Sadr. Please try and stay on topic. We aren’t refighting the Iraq war here. It’s not a thread on the US invasion of Iraq. I’m not speaking to what happened during that invasion here. I know it’s something you want to discuss in pretty much every thread you are in (unless you are wanting to put a good spin on the Russia and rebel groups in Eastern Ukraine…I have to admit, that seems to be the one topic that can distract you from rehashing the US invasion of Iraq), but it’s got nothing to do with my own point.

Yes, very dramatic. What do you think is the probable outcome of unleashing Shia militia groups into the current situation? You figure there will be less innocent (and otherwise) victims? Can you explain your logic there? Will they be countable? Does that make it better?

Why? What’s his opinion got to do with anything?

Strawman. WHEN SOMEONE FUCKING BRINGS UP MCCAIN, GRAHM OR LIMBAUGH THEN YOU CAN BAT AT THAT POSITION. No one has, however. Let me be clear here…I don’t give a flying fuck what any of them have to say on this matter. I don’t give a rats ass if Sadr’s opinion is superior to theirs since I don’t care what their opinions are on this. Tell me why you think Sadr has anything meaningful to say.

Wow…so, did you realize that 2007 was, like, 7 years ago now? And that the US was basically making a devils bargain there, picking the lesser of two weevils? Is that what you base your opinion that it would be a good idea to arm and turn him and his group loose into the current rat fuck? You think this will improve the situation???

Sadr’s militia is not on my leash or on any leash held by any government outside of Iraq. So your premise is false. Rewrite the question keeping it accurate and a deal could be in the making. Sadr’s going at these invaders. The ugliest outcome comes in my mind if the Mahdi Army and better units in the Iraqi Army can’t drive them out of Iraq’s cities … some where Shiite Shrines have stood for ages.

[quote=“XT, post:102, topic:690553”]

Why? What’s his opinion got to do with anything? /QUOTE]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/withdrawal-from-politics-of-disillusioned-shia-leader-muqtada-alsadr-will-only-add-to-iraqs-political-turmoil--but-he-may-not-officially-retire-9134614.htmlou
Sadr has been a sectarian unifier for since 2007.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/04/iraqi-shiite-cleric-al-sadr-visits-church-sunni-mosque-as-anti-government/

Iraqi Shiite cleric al-Sadr visits church, Sunni mosque as anti-government protests rage Published January 04, 2013 ·Associated Press
Several key excerpts from that link and headline:

The Protesters in the first line are SUNNI.

Sadr has long stood up for Iraq’s Christians. He’s been working on gaining more trust with the Sunni. Sadr is an Iraq nationalist, He could bridge the Sunni Shia divide in Iraq.

Sadr’s opinion has a lot to do with everything going on today. He is also a religious leader as well as politician and former resistance fighter to the US occupation of his country.
I respect his opinion. He’s a an Iraqi. A very influential Iraqi who has fought for Iraq unity for all.

http://jawabna.com/en/index.php/statements/3055-sayd-muqtada-al-sadr-peace-be-upon-iraq-s-christians-and-sunni.html

I don’t think you understand the religious order of Iraq’s society. Here’s another highly revered religious authority that you should know his opinions:
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani

I’m not sure you know what Shiites in Iraq should do. Do you have any ideas about what they should do?

McCain stood on the floor of the Senate telling the world who’s to blame for what’s happening in Iraq and the solution is air strikes … bombing and more air strikes.

Condemning references or protests against that politically driven sore loser argument as you feel the need to do makes no sense.
Of course we should discuss what national leaders and hate talk jocks have to say. Why not? Why ridicule and harass some aspect of the debate that you don’t like?

I’m against intervention but I do think Obama could have okayed a little air support to aid in the rescue of besieged US contractors.

These were guys directly employed by the Pentagon. Fortunately the Iraqis got them out of harm’s way, their heads might have been adorning the roadsides otherwise. The President should have given a little help, we’re not talking ground invasion here.

Sometimes Obama reminds me of a rabbit caught in the headlights, totally transfixed by events. He seemed far more sage and statesmanlike talking about the Arab Spring and his Russian reset. How long ago that all seems and how naive it all sounds now.

and believe me, contractors know exactly how to play that game.

[QUOTE=NotfooledbyW]
Sadr has been a sectarian unifier for since 2007.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, well, let’s take a look at the Wiki page on him then:

Let’s see, what about this?

Seems he’s been successful in convincing folks like you that he’s a moderate and man of peace at least. It’s Putin all over again with you, isn’t it? Do you have any cites of Sunni who are happy with the prospect of this guy shouldering into the fight? Do you really, honestly believe that if Sadr and guys like him and the militia units he commands get fully involved that this thing won’t completely spin out of control? That there won’t be massacres of civilians on both sides that further escalate the violence and killing? What would make you believe that this WON’T happen??

But I’m VERY sure that you don’t have a clue what you are asking for or what the ramifications will certainly be. Guess we’ll find out because your buddy Sadr is certainly going to be in the thick of things. After the massive blood shed it will either be a totalitarian fundamentalist Sunni government in charge or an equally totalitarian fundamentalist Shia government in charge. I’m sure you will be happy.

As to what I think they should do, I’d say the current governments best bet is to ask the West for aid and assistance and try and keep their own madmen and militia on a leash…a very, very short leash. Because if those guys are turned loose they will have multiple packs of rabid dogs going at each others throats and tearing up anything in between them that gets in the way.

No, your ability to read and comprehend what I’m saying seems to be at fault here.

Did I bring up McCain? Did I mention McCain? Has anyone mentioned him? What’s whatever he had to say got to do with anything I’ve written?

I make no sense to you because you are incapable of actually reading what others say and responding to that without trying to put spin on everything and without trying to bring up irrelevant horseshit that you think helps you poison the well. You bring up McCain and the right wingers because you figure you can associate me with their crazy crap in an effort to do that well poisoning. It’s a strawman argument but you will stubbornly stick with it in the same way you did over and over again in the other threads I’ve had the misfortune to attempt to debate with you. It’s your standard MO in all of these things.

Discuss away, but don’t bring them up in relation to my own posts unless I bring them up. As I said, I don’t give a rats ass what McCain had to say and you telling me what he said has nothing to do with the posts of mine you are quoting.

Who lost Iraq?

Is there something in all that text that contains an argument or point?

If not ‘what about it’.

Check XT’s sermon on bringing up McCain. I brought up McCain in response to XT’s bogus rationalization that I am saying Sadr was the ‘best judge’ of what to do in Iraq.

Here is the exchange:

I try to give XT someone to compare to because XT tried to define my position that Sadr is the ‘best judge’. That is not how I see it. He’s better than McCain but not the best.

Yeah, not to sound cold-hearted, but contractors are highly paid, highly trained ex-military mercs with their own highly paid highly trained security. The reason they’re over there making boatloads of tax-free cash is because they know the risks, and it isn’t really the US military’s job to be over there holding their hands.

<googles Sallyport Global> Hmmm.

Sounds like another bunch of mercenary thugs like Blackwater; we do like using “contractor” as a euphemism for such people. Probably rapists, torturers and murderers like Blackwater too.

Which is why we call such people “contractors” of course; it whips up outrage better when the headline says “Insurgents hang a dozen US contractors” than if it reads “Resistance fighters hang a dozen US backed mercenaries for rape and murder”. It makes them sound like they are plumbers or carpenters or something else harmless.

Thank-you for selecting JM Marketing Consultants for your Foreign Contracting Business. We’ve come up with 2 names for your business that we think will convey an image of strength, stability and with more than a hint of ruthlessness:

  1. Blackwater

  2. Sallyport

Which one do you gentlemen prefer?

You’re quoting me from nine years ago, in another thread? While I’m happy for the interest, you might want to consider how much time you’re spending on the internet.

But to answer your surprise, the logic is that if what you have now is horrible, then change is good. Change might end up back at horrible, but it was the chance for something better.

And no I don’t believe that Bush conquered Iraq because he cared about what Saddam had done. I think he did it, because propping up Saddam as the ring leader helped to deflect from the fact that he couldn’t find Osama (you can find quotes from the time period of me saying that, probably) and because he felt like he could correct the political failure of his dad’s by finishing the job.

“We destroyed the village in order to save it”. For their own good we mass murdered them, tortured them, destroyed their infrastructure and social order and left them with chaos and misery.

Yay, we’re heroes! :rolleyes:

He didn’t want to find Osama. He kept trying to call the hunt for Osma off.

It’s not a coincidence we only got him after Bush was out of office and couldn’t run interference for Osama anymore.

You might want to note that when I talk, I say things like “I believe”, “I think”, “as I understand it”, and so on. Unfortunately, that’s the highest I go. Your omnipotence defeats me.

If the Sadr ‘madman’ militia engages the Sunni terrorists invading Iraq, your two suggested outcomes are, “it will either be a totalitarian fundamentalist Sunni government in charge or an equally totalitarian fundamentalist Shia” government in charge."
You really don’t know much about Iraq do you? Have you heard of the Anbar Uprising?

Iraq is more likely to end up partioned than one sect taking over all of Iraq ever again. The Shiites have no cause to end up ‘totalitarian Shiite fundamentalist’ in place of how they are now. Ali Sistani and Sadr are quite established in accepting a moderate form of Islamic government and have demonstrated that through the years. You are off.

The worst that could happen in a Sunni partition would be the Iraqi born Sunni warlord hierarchy would be exterminated by the foreign jihadist terrorists. If they survive I don’t see your totalitarian Islamist regime taking root in Anbar and areas to the north.

The Anbar uprising is precedent for that.

For the reasons I stated. Regardless of whether you would like it to be true or not, he was a man with the power and reasons to influence the history of Iraq after 2009. Regardless of what choices he made - to do what he thinks he had the legal right to do, to do what he thinks he had the moral right to do, or whatever - those are choices that are meaningful at a (Iraqi) national level.

The significance of his impact on Iraq might be that he did nothing, because he felt that he had no right to do anything. I’m not saying that his choices were good or bad, in regards to how he handled Iraq. My sole point was that people have the right to discuss whether Obama’s choices helped or hindered Iraq, because regardless of what he did or didn’t do, doing and not doing both influenced the fate of the Iraqi people.

You used the word blame in the original. That does not appear to be your message right now. Is that correct?