Some bad news

[Rodmantheman]

ISIS Took control of Mosul in a lightening attack on Monday.

► Has become the richest terror group ever after looting $429 million in cash and gold bullion from Mosul's central bank.

► Took over the city of Tikrit and is assaulting Samarra. ISIS also captured Fallujah and Ramadi in January.

► Routed Iraqi security forces - which the US and Britain spent billions training and equipping.

► Seized a huge amount of US-supplied military hardware.

► Freed" 1,000 inmates from Mosul's central prison.

► Stormed the Turkish consulate and kidnapped 80 Turkish civilians.

► Began mass executions via beheadings.

► Forced at least 500,000 men, women, and children to flee several cities in what one expert calls "the largest and swiftest mass movements of people in the world in recent memory".

So, to recap, the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

• Cost 4,500 American lives
• Cost 100,000 Iraqi lives
• Found no weapons of mass destruction
• Destabilized the Middle East
• Put the country in a position to be overrun by Islamic extremists

[step_back]

Out of the furnace and into the fire.

ISIS met minimal resistance. I know it's awful but the Iraqi security services did nothing to stop them. There were widespread reports of Iraqi soldiers and Police putting down their weapons and taking off their uniforms. If they want to live in a Democracy they are going to have to fight for it. At this rate Iraq will be back in the hands of the Taliban (Essentially what ISIS is) by the end of the year.

If the Allied forces do not intervene Iraq will fall back into the hands of ISIS and the War would have been for nothing.

[tomtucker]

Saddam knew how to control the muslim savages.......but the US and it

[step_back]

[QUOTE=tomtucker]Saddam knew how to control the muslim savages.......but the US and it

[MadeFromDust]

This could be a positive..1) all the terrorists concentrated in one spot; 2) drop nuke; 3) live happily ever after

[D-FENS]

This could be a positive..1) all the terrorists concentrated in one spot; 2) drop nuke; 3) live happily ever after

Bingo!

[rezznor]

Saddam was a savage. He killed 100's of thousands of his own citizens. He was a brutal dictator and he was allies with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda of which ISIS is made up of.

Watch this short video, ISIS have met minimal resistance from Iraqi security forces. Their own Army is running away from a force no bigger than 5000 people. If they're going to surrender this quickly then Democracy will never exist there. You have to fight for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27806792


he was a savage but ask the people of iraq if they would rather live under saddam or under current conditions? not to mention he helped to keep iran in check. the iraq war was the biggest US blunder in our lifetime.

[Godzuki]

none of this will look good in the future. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. will all become a lot worse before they get any better, especially after we demilitarize from those areas.

thing is the Iraqi's DID ask for our help, as well as part of the world, to take out Sadaam....yes we did go in for WMD's as well.

just don't reinvent it like we went in without anyone wanting us to...

i'm not saying what we did was right but at least get the history accurate and not this reinvention these days that we're just waging war with everyone for no reason.

[fiddy]

terrorist get rich>hire more terrorist>declare war on normal peolpe
at the same time in eastern Europe, USA declares war on Russia
WW3 erupts + jihad=NWO is born
mind blown

[Oly BC]

Saddam was a savage. He killed 100's of thousands of his own citizens. He was a brutal dictator and he was allies with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda of which ISIS is made up of.

Watch this short video, ISIS have met minimal resistance from Iraqi security forces. Their own Army is running away from a force no bigger than 5000 people. If they're going to surrender this quickly then Democracy will never exist there. You have to fight for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27806792
That's some misinformation...

Saddam was a shiite muslim. Al qaeda are extremist sunnis. Al qaeda would desimate shiites if given the chance. Saddam's regime was baathist, a secular nationalist dictatorship.

[Oly BC]

thing is the Iraqi's DID ask for our help
How did they, collectively, do that?

[KevinNYC]

I posted some stuff on this in the Big Ass Political thread including what is known about the head of ISIS. He is now considered the most dangerous jihadi in the world and this victory could convince more groups to move away from Al-Zawahiri's Al Qaeda and join him.

The reason ISIS was able to operate so well in the Sunni areas of Iraq is the Iraqi army/security forces were acting in a sectarian manner, so the locals turned against them.

[KevinNYC]

That's some misinformation...

Saddam was a shiite muslim. Al qaeda are extremist sunnis. Al qaeda would desimate shiites if given the chance. Saddam's regime was baathist, a secular nationalist dictatorship.

Saddam was not a Shiite. You are quite wrong on that.

[Oly BC]

Saddam was not a Shiite. You are quite wrong on that.
Wow, I had to google for that but you're right. The rest are true though, his regime was secular and in baathist countries the radical sunnis were kept in check.

I guess I assumed he was a shiite because it seemed more plausible than him being a secular sunni? That's pretty racist of me.:(

[Cactus-Sack]

none of this will look good in the future. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. will all become a lot worse before they get any better, especially after we demilitarize from those areas.

thing is the Iraqi's DID ask for our help, as well as part of the world, to take out Sadaam....yes we did go in for WMD's as well.

just don't reinvent it like we went in without anyone wanting us to...

i'm not saying what we did was right but at least get the history accurate and not this reinvention these days that we're just waging war with everyone for no reason.

Yeah, I'm sure the 300,000 civillians killed were begging for the US to kill them and take out all of the country's infrastructure. Only the US and their vassal states thought it was a good idea.

[East_Stone_Ya]

this really is bad news, Middle-East will have some tense times ahead.

[KevinNYC]

Saddam was a Baathist, but in the 1990s he noted the rise of the Islamists and began to be more publically religious. This is the Sunni mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_al-Qura_Mosque) he was associated with.

The Umm al-Qura ("Mother of All Cities") mosque in Baghdad is the city's largest place of worship for Sunni Muslims. Originally called the Umm al-Ma'arik ("Mother of All Battles") mosque, it was designed to commemorate Saddam Hussein's 'victory' in the 1991 Gulf War and was intended to serve as a personal tribute to Saddam himself. It is located in the Sunni-populated al-Adel area of western Baghdad. Costing $7.5 million to build, the mosque's cornerstone was laid on Saddam's 61st birthday on 28 April 1998. It was formally completed on 28 April 2001 in time for the ten-year anniversary of the Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein was born in Tikrit, a Sunni town that ISIS also just took over.
Tikrit was also the birth place of Saladin, a famous Sunni leader who fought the Crusaders, he later

[magic chiongson]

terrorists get rich -> buys fighter jets -> f-22s finally have a use :D

[Cactus-Sack]

Saddam was a Baathist, but in the 1990s he noted the rise of the Islamists and began to be more publically religious. This is the Sunni mosque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_al-Qura_Mosque) he was associated with.


Saddam Hussein was born in Tikrit, a Sunni town that ISIS also just took over.
Tikrit was also the birth place of Saladin, a famous Sunni leader who fought the Crusaders, he later

Copy and paste a bit short?

[Oly BC]

Saddam Hussein was born in Tikrit, a Sunni town that ISIS also just took over.
Tikrit was also the birth place of Saladin, a famous Sunni leader who fought the Crusaders
Many people were born in Tikrit, a number of them is currently fleeing ISIS. Being born in Tikrit is not evidece of being allied to people wanting an islamic state and the most strict interpretation of sharia law and Saddam certainly didn't want those things.

The thing isn't that Saddam was good but that Saddam was. Now Saddam isn't and the only thing existing is a power vacuum waiting to be filled by the most hot headed person with a gun. You can't expect thatpeople will just rise up in unison to fight for a congress and presidential elections every five years, like they grew up watching Dallas or something. They have a completely different culture and these things don't change by force.

[KevinNYC]

Wow, I had to google for that but you're right. The rest are true though, his regime was secular and in baathist countries the radical sunnis were kept in check.

I guess I assumed he was a shiite because it seemed more plausible than him being a secular sunni? That's pretty racist of me.:(

Well Shiites and Sunnis were kept in check, because he wanted no one to challenge his power. He was an enemy of both Shiite Iran and Sunni Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Shiites are the majority of the population in Iraq and one of the issues in the postwar era, is the majority of the technocrats/military/professional classes were Sunni. Now they see Maliki acting in a sectarian way which means they are more open to appeals of their own sectarians militants.

I think ISIS is taking over these towns easily, because Maliki wants to save them to battle closer to Baghdad.

[KevinNYC]

Copy and paste a bit short?
Bad edit. Was deleting that part of the sentence

He ruled Egypt which is majority Sunni, but then I realized it might have been that Egypt was Sunni before was its leader and he may have nothing to do with why Egypt was Sunni.
and I didn't feel like looking it up.

[KevinNYC]

Many people were born in Tikrit, a number of them is currently fleeing ISIS. Being born in Tikrit is not evidece of being allied to people wanting an islamic state and the most strict interpretation of sharia law and Saddam certainly didn't want those things.

My point is Tikrit is Sunni and famously so.

[GimmeThat]

whichever fight you pick. I've never found it to be profitable in fighting against your own.

if ideal is spread through the sound of gun fires.

what happens to that ideal when the fire stops?


no country has ever fought a war in which it doesn't have any self-interest. but many isolated groups of people have committed the attempt of suicide in the name of pride and honor.

[KevinNYC]

this really is bad news, Middle-East will have some tense times ahead.http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341420&page=2

Kurds just took Kirkuk.

[ZenMaster]

none of this will look good in the future. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. will all become a lot worse before they get any better, especially after we demilitarize from those areas.

thing is the Iraqi's DID ask for our help, as well as part of the world, to take out Sadaam....yes we did go in for WMD's as well.

just don't reinvent it like we went in without anyone wanting us to...

i'm not saying what we did was right but at least get the history accurate and not this reinvention these days that we're just waging war with everyone for no reason.

Don't talk about getting history accurate after making such a broad assumption as "the Iraqi's DID ask for our help".

Sorry but there's a lot of insecurity in what you say.

"I'm not saying what we did was right" --- holds no merit when you've just tried giving multiple reasons for the opposite(Iraqi's and part of the world asked for help and we also went in for WMDs).

[fiddy]

http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/IPu9lxT.gif
Whos that obnoxious looking clown?

[tomtucker]

just realize these bastards are insane, with no brain.........even us folks here on ISH are professors compared to these sub humans..........waste of time to argue about them

[KevinNYC]

Whos that obnoxious looking clown?
http://i57.tinypic.com/oggthf.gif

[Marlo_Stanfield]

good job USA. brough peace and stabilization to another country formerly led by a Dictator:applause: :applause:
now Iraq gets overrun by extremists more extreme than Al-quaida the second America leaves the country after running it into the ground:facepalm
good job good effort

[Marlo_Stanfield]

[QUOTE=Rodmantheman]ISIS Took control of Mosul in a lightening attack on Monday.

► Has become the richest terror group ever after looting $429 million in cash and gold bullion from Mosul's central bank.

► Took over the city of Tikrit and is assaulting Samarra. ISIS also captured Fallujah and Ramadi in January.

► Routed Iraqi security forces - which the US and Britain spent billions training and equipping.

► Seized a huge amount of US-supplied military hardware.

► Freed" 1,000 inmates from Mosul's central prison.

► Stormed the Turkish consulate and kidnapped 80 Turkish civilians.

► Began mass executions via beheadings.

► Forced at least 500,000 men, women, and children to flee several cities in what one expert calls "the largest and swiftest mass movements of people in the world in recent memory".

So, to recap, the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Out of the furnace and into the fire.

ISIS met minimal resistance. I know it's awful but the Iraqi security services did nothing to stop them. There were widespread reports of Iraqi soldiers and Police putting down their weapons and taking off their uniforms. If they want to live in a Democracy they are going to have to fight for it. At this rate Iraq will be back in the hands of the Taliban (Essentially what ISIS is) by the end of the year.

If the Allied forces do not intervene Iraq will fall back into the hands of ISIS and the War would have been for nothing.
what an all out retard:roll: :roll: :roll:
typical example of a stupid American:biggums:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Saddam was a savage. He killed 100's of thousands of his own citizens. He was a brutal dictator and he was allies with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda of which ISIS is made up of.

Watch this short video, ISIS have met minimal resistance from Iraqi security forces. Their own Army is running away from a force no bigger than 5000 people. If they're going to surrender this quickly then Democracy will never exist there. You have to fight for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27806792
and heavily supported by the US government for years,e ven after the first gulf war:oldlol: :oldlol:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Saddam Hussein>>>>>>>any US president in history bar maybe JFK. and we all know what happened to JFK

[Godzuki]

How did they, collectively, do that?


when Sadaam was in power there was a lot more world news on Sadaam and his sons. his sons were kidnapping and raping Iraqi women and bringing them back to their compound. the Iraqi people during that time were asking the world for help....and if i remember right, just before we got involved, one of his sons had just taken some women, and some Iraqi's tried to get payback against his son which i think failed in some car hit.

obviously none of the above is cause for war.

But not cooperating with world bodies in regards to nuclear weapons when you're a small fry IS....

[step_back]

what an all out retard:roll: :roll: :roll:
typical example of a stupid American:biggums:

EPIC FAIL!

I'm from London you ****ing moron. It clearly says so under my username.

If Iraqi's want freedom they are going to have to fight extremism. What is difficult to understand about that?

[Marlo_Stanfield]

EPIC FAIL!

I'm from London you ****ing moron. It clearly says so under my username.

If Iraqi's want freedom they are going to have to fight extremism. What is difficult to understand about that?
Iraqi military fought extremism for decades and were very successful at that.
that was, until your shit country and the warmongering USA decided they had to destroy yet another countries stability.:applause: :applause:

[kentatm]

But not cooperating with world bodies in regards to nuclear weapons when you're a small fry IS....

Saddam WAS cooperating w/inspections.

Bush/Blair admins didn't give a shit. They were going in no matter what. They didn't even let UN weapons inspector Hans Blix finish his job.


"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.


The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. "No one likes inspectors, not tax inspectors, not health inspectors, not any inspectors," Blix chuckled. Not only did Saddam have to endure the indignity of submitting to searches of his palaces, he explained, but the dictator also harbored the valid fear that the inspectors would pass on their findings of conventional weapons to foreign intelligence agencies, providing easy future targets.

link (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml)

[Godzuki]

Saddam WAS cooperating w/inspections.

Bush/Blair admins didn't give a shit. They were going in no matter what. They didn't even let UN weapons inspector Hans Blix finish his job.





link (http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml)


yeah he did to some degree but it wasn't completely open unrestricted access if i remember right. Sadaam kept playing these games, and every so often he'd let them come in and inspect, but it was mostly based on Sadaam's timing where he was playing all of these games with the UN

which is why the Dem's gave Bush the power to go to war because everyone knew Sadaam was toying with the UN/Bush Admin.

[fiddy]

That's your intercontinental champion
I want to spit in his mouth

[Marlo_Stanfield]

yeah he did to some degree but it wasn't completely open unrestricted access if i remember right. Sadaam kept playing these games, and every so often he'd let them come in and inspect, but it was mostly based on Sadaam's timing where he was playing all of these games with the UN

which is why the Dem's gave Bush the power to go to war because everyone knew Sadaam was toying with the UN/Bush Admin.
BS and you know it yourself.
sure Saddam couldnt wait for USa to destroy his military:roll: :roll:
also Iraq was never even close to have WOMD:coleman:
just pure BS and propaganda and whoever believes that is dumber than a trash can

[macmac]

yeah he did to some degree but it wasn't completely open unrestricted access if i remember right. Sadaam kept playing these games, and every so often he'd let them come in and inspect, but it was mostly based on Sadaam's timing where he was playing all of these games with the UN

which is why the Dem's gave Bush the power to go to war because everyone knew Sadaam was toying with the UN/Bush Admin.


You can't be this stupid can you? Sadaam might have been ruthless but he wasn't stupid, he knew the states were gonna hunt him down and finish him off. He gave in to inspection demands so that the international community could step in but US didn't give a shiit. The plan was already in motion and the inspection ultimatums were just for show

[Godzuki]

You can't be this stupid can you? Sadaam might have been ruthless but he wasn't stupid, he knew the states were gonna hunt him down and finish him off. He gave in to inspection demands so that the international community could step in but US didn't give a shiit. The plan was already in motion and the inspection ultimatums were just for show


i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think way too often these days way too many people always assume mastermind motives for everything they can connect dots to, and rarely give coincidence much of a thought. when the world works far more often in coincidence.

anyways i know Sadaam was toying with the UN. i followed it closely back then. Sadaam wasn't very afraid of us, he was practically daring us to do something but i think he felt comfortable in his bubble. The idea he willfully went along with everything we asked and we had full authority to inspect whenever and wherever is whats being reinvented now.

the ONLY reason Dem's gave Bush the power to go to war was for Sadaam to start taking talks seriously. none of the Dem's wanted to really go to war tho, nor did they expect Bush to launch Shock and Awe right away either.

[step_back]

Iraqi military fought extremism for decades and were very successful at that.
that was, until your shit country and the warmongering USA decided they had to destroy yet another countries stability.:applause: :applause:

Yes the Iraqi military are World renowned for cracking down and fighting against extremism. :facepalm

Power was handed back to Iraqis after billions had been spent arming and training their Army. The Army are barely fighting back which is why ISIS is moving through the country so quickly. So once again

If the Iraqi's want democracy they are going to have to fight extremism

P.S My country is awesome, we're still the number 1 country that people want to move to in the European Union :bowdown:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

Yes the Iraqi military are World renowned for cracking down and fighting against extremism. :facepalm

Power was handed back to Iraqis after billions had been spent arming and training their Army. The Army are barely fighting back which is why ISIS is moving through the country so quickly. So once again

If the Iraqi's want democracy they are going to have to fight extremism

P.S My country is awesome, we're still the number 1 country that people want to move to in the European Union :bowdown:
i bet your retarded ass actually believes that sh*t:roll: :roll:

[Marlo_Stanfield]

i'm not a conspiracy theorist. I think way too often these days way too many people always assume mastermind motives for everything they can connect dots to, and rarely give coincidence much of a thought. when the world works far more often in coincidence.

anyways i know Sadaam was toying with the UN. i followed it closely back then. Sadaam wasn't very afraid of us, he was practically daring us to do something but i think he felt comfortable in his bubble. The idea he willfully went along with everything we asked and we had full authority to inspect whenever and wherever is whats being reinvented now.

the ONLY reason Dem's gave Bush the power to go to war was for Sadaam to start taking talks seriously. none of the Dem's wanted to really go to war tho, nor did they expect Bush to launch Shock and Awe right away either.
Sadam was supported for decades by the USA financially. just like the Taliban.
he gave in to Un demands because Iraq didnt have a single WOMD.
Bush didnt give a shit tho.
you know, that Bush that got voted TWICE for president by most Americans :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[East_Stone_Ya]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341420&page=2

Kurds just took Kirkuk.


In Iraq, in particular, Kurdish rebels battled the Baghdad government for decades and suffered from often-brutal repression, notably during the Anfal campaign and the Halabja chemical attack, which remains the deadliest gassing of civilians ever.

Since 1991, however, they have largely run their own affairs, and now operate an autonomous region that passes its own laws, has its own security forces, and runs its own visa and foreign investment regimes.

As a result, younger Kurds often have little to do with their Arab countrymen -- fewer speak Arabic than older generations, and have the option of exclusively Kurdish satellite television channels and news outlets.

And while much of the Arab-dominated parts of Iraq suffer from regular, and indeed worsening, violence, residents of Kurdistan enjoy relative safety and stability.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/24/iraq-kurds-dream-independence-but-differ-on-details/

if a democratic Iraq is fails then Kurds might try to establish a independent state. But I am pretty sure none of the western powers will be backing such state since it would no doubt escalate the tense relations in Middle-East.

[Marlo_Stanfield]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/24/iraq-kurds-dream-independence-but-differ-on-details/

if a democratic Iraq is fails then Kurds might try to establish a independent state. But I am pretty sure none of the western powers will be backing such state since it would no doubt escalate the tense relations in Middle-East.
the western countries WANT the tense situation to get even worse, they are perfectly happy with it
so many sheep in this thread:facepalm

[East_Stone_Ya]

the western countries WANT the tense situation to get even worse, they are perfectly happy with it
so many sheep in this thread:facepalm

?

:wtf:

I assume you are trolling

[Marlo_Stanfield]

?

:wtf:

I assume you are trolling
especially the USA totally benefit from wars and political unstable situations in that area.
if you cant see how they constantly destabelize those countries i feel bad for you:confusedshrug:

[Godzuki]

Sadam was supported for decades by the USA financially. just like the Taliban.
he gave in to Un demands because Iraq didnt have a single WOMD.
Bush didnt give a shit tho.
you know, that Bush that got voted TWICE for president by most Americans :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

we give a lot of people money for different reasons. we paid Pakistan billions i think and we don't trust them at all. the real question is what country do we not give money to in some way?

do you not remember the UN getting nowhere with Sadaam? and everyone clowning the UN like they're useless? then eventually it was just USA/Bush Admin since i don't think the UN could get Russia and China to cooperate in moving past sanctions for Sadaam.. why would there be sanctions, or UN votes needed if Sadaam was so cooperative all along?

the Republican machine is strong...what can i say? i didn't vote for him... and don't forget that was after 9/11 when America was looking to make someone pay so electing Republican makes more sense. Dem's aren't a war party.

[KevinNYC]

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/24/iraq-kurds-dream-independence-but-differ-on-details/

if a democratic Iraq is fails then Kurds might try to establish a independent state. But I am pretty sure none of the western powers will be backing such state since it would no doubt escalate the tense relations in Middle-East.

I just saw an op-ed with someone saying American might as well back the Kurds as they pro-American and they practically have their own state spanning Iraq and Syria, these days. However I doubt the US will do that because Kurds also live in Turkey and Iran.

Tom Ricks who wrote two books on the Iraq war called his second one The Gamble
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rt7DlYapL.jpg
It was about the Surge and the change in strategy and the fact that original Bush crew was being replaced by realists and the gamble was could the surge actually affect the politics of Iran tweeted a quote from his book the other day. At the end of his book, he quoted the US ambassador to Iraq saying the events that the Iraq War will be remembered for haven't happened yet.

It's starting to feel like they are happening now.

A lot of other folks are talking about how this a continuation of WWI. A hundred years ago WWI started and afterwards the Ottoman empire had fallen the map of the Middle East was literally redrawn. It feels like they are being redrawn again.

[Rodmantheman]

look like Iran is offering help and could send up to 10000 fighters to help the Iraqi government lol.

[Trentknicks]

?

:wtf:

I assume you are trolling
I'm a PhD student in international politics and peacekeeping, and I can assure you, what he is saying is pretty close to the truth.

It's widely believed in reputable circles that Bush and the Republicans stirred up the situation in Iraq so that they could go to war there. Saddam had been a target Bush always wanted on his resume and a plethora of former Republican politicians ended up on the boards of arms & security companies in the late 90s/early 2000's. Despite the fact that the government of the day (I'm not from the USA nor politically aligned with either side) wishes you to believe that you are losing billions of dollars in Iraq, the USA and their various private firms in Iraq (and there are hundreds) have made an absolute fortune through the production of arms and private security firms in the area.

Oh and let's not act like the US can't help but try to spread its seed in every corner of the globe.

[Godzuki]

I'm a PhD student in international politics and peacekeeping, and I can assure you, what he is saying is pretty close to the truth.

It's widely believed in reputable circles that Bush and the Republicans stirred up the situation in Iraq so that they could go to war there. Saddam had been a target Bush always wanted on his resume and a plethora of former Republican politicians ended up on the boards of arms & security companies in the late 90s/early 2000's. Despite the fact that the government of the day (I'm not from the USA nor politically aligned with either side) wishes you to believe that you are losing billions of dollars in Iraq, the USA and their various private firms in Iraq (and there are hundreds) have made an absolute fortune through the production of arms and private security firms in the area.

Oh and let's not act like the US can't help but try to spread its seed in every corner of the globe.


that is based purely on speculation and connecting any related dots

because Haliburton benefited doesn't automatically assume we went to war to make US companies richer based off of Cheney being a exVP of Haliburton or something. few companies can do what Haliburton did in terms of the services it offered so there were very limited companies being looked at. it wouldn't even be odd for Haliburton to get the contract based on Cheney being the USVP even if thats not protocol, but to make the jump we went to war to specifically make Cheney/Haliburton richer? i don't think so....bid influencing?... certainly.

We do not wage war based on our companies - something conspiracy theorists and foreigners always seem to think. If there were no WMD rumors, if Sadaam wasn't resistant, etc. at all it'd never have even come close to us taking him out. Believe it or not but we're VERY SERIOUS about controlling who has nukes and who doesn't. As if that wasn't obvious already...but the conspiracy theorists/foreigners turn that into some smokescreen for us to invade Iraq.

the stuff regarding Bush senior and Sadaam does have relevance since obviously it adds to Bush Jr.'s motivation to take out Sadaam on a personal level.

I just think there is so much fallacy in conspiracy theories, based on events being similar or where someone benefitted so they assume they're related/intended and how they tend to sum things up in the end being so flawed where it kills me because it reinvents the truth of how things happened.

i'm also still waiting for our companies to take all of Iraq and Afghanistans resources. Afterall, we did invade and conquer them, and what country doesn't take another countries resources after conquering?

I guess us :confusedshrug: