How would you fix Iraq?
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. We CAN do both. Easily. But apparently we don't want to do either.
Ask yourself why that is.
Here's one possible answer: While the US is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, that doesn't mean the US (the nation) has access to or control of that wealth. Those who do have control of what we count as US wealth don't want America spending their money. They own most of one party and half of the other - and that may be an underestimation - so passing laws that they don't want is nearly impossible unless the pitchforks are out.
So the next question is why aren't the pitchforks out?
Private wealth also controls most of the news media that tell us what to believe and most of the entertainment media that distracts us from what's important.
Which brings us to the final question - which is not how to fix Iraq. The final question is how to fix America.
the wealthy "own most of one party and half of the other".
I was going to say "LOL". but then, I realized you are probably right. The Democrat party is 100% owned by the Soros's and Clinton's of the world. The ones who vote Dem aren't "in the party" they are simply bused to the polls on election day.
I was going to say "LOL". but then, I realized you are probably right. The Democrat party is 100% owned by the Soros's and Clinton's of the world. The ones who vote Dem aren't "in the party" they are simply bused to the polls on election day.
Well, you have it backwards. But it hardly matters. What's abundantly clear is that way too few in either party work for the people. Keeping in mind that ALL of them should work for the people and NONE of them should be owned by private concentrations of power.
Some of our reps do still try to work for the people. We should support them. But there don't seem to be enough of them to make a dent.
So you are probably even smarter that you used to be. I'm sorry I wasn't able to help you become fully sentient.
Which of our failed posters were you previously?
I got hammered at the time when I suggested that we could almost certainly make a deal with Saddam that would be better all around than war.
I still don't know why we thought ousting Assad or Gaddafi made any sense. Gaddafi was thoroughly tamed. Assad had proved to be someone we could work with. Does anyone really think what we have now in either country makes more sense than trying to have good working relations with them?
With 32k posts, isn't it time for you to get a new handle? Maybe bring back NPRLover?
Before I inject my opinion, how many innocent civilians should we allow ISIS to kill on American soil once they've established a hold in the ME and we let them? Because it's pretty obvious from your post that your agenda is no more U.S. troops on the ground. And ISIS will not be stopped from setting up a "region" in which they'll be free to plot/plan their attacks on U.S soil. They are well funded, and that will only increase if left alone.
So I ask you again, how many civilians lives on U.S soil, will it take for you to decide ISIS must not be left to establish a permanent foot hold in the ME?
And yes, GWB got us into Iraq and in the end, unintentionally weakened them. But pulling "ALL" troops out of there left a vacuum that ISIS is trying to fill. So huge blame to GWB, but Obama is not without blame here either.
I just want to say that I like your Barry Gibb avatar much better than your JC "face-palm" avatar.
Partition seems an easy answer until one considers the inconvenience of uneven oil distribution between the traditional Kurdish, Shia and Sunni areas. The Middle East has been a complex maze of competing ideologies and cultures for millennia. The advent of oil increased the difficulties of the region by orders of magnitude.
Daniel Yergin, in his book "The Prize" gives a fascinating history of oil and its ever increasing importance throughout the world from the end of the 1800's to present day. Well documented are the effects on foreign policy of decisions to change the British navy from coal fired to oil fired ships, coupled with an the increasing awareness of the value of air power and mechanized infantry. Britain had a secure source of coal in its lands. To change the fleet to oil that had to be sourced from other lands gained advantages in terms of speed and range of ships but came with costs of defending oil regions and the necessary shipping lanes to secure oil for the Admiralty and, accordingly, the resulting changes to foreign policy.
WWI proved the necessity of oil in the conduct of war to most heads of state and the procurement of which led to many post war decisions--not all of those well thought out. Three weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, French Premier Clemenceau and PM David Lloyd George met in London. France wanted oil--England wanted oil. So without consultation with either of their respective foreign ministers, George gave control of Syria to the French in return for the French giving up claims to Mosul. Clemenceau agreed provided the French received its fair share of oil production from Mosul. And so begins the competition for control of oil lands not only between corporations and other private business but now between nations as well.
So what to trade for a fair share of oil between the competing interests and ideologies of Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Areas with less oil will want what Clemenceau wanted--their share of oil in return for accepting traditional land with less oil.
I don't see a successful policy being forced on the people of Iraq. They are going to have to solve this themselves. And we will be living with the consequences for years to come... Sorry for the length but I thought some history might be of value when considering a solution. . .
Daniel Yergin, in his book "The Prize" gives a fascinating history of oil and its ever increasing importance throughout the world from the end of the 1800's to present day. Well documented are the effects on foreign policy of decisions to change the British navy from coal fired to oil fired ships, coupled with an the increasing awareness of the value of air power and mechanized infantry. Britain had a secure source of coal in its lands. To change the fleet to oil that had to be sourced from other lands gained advantages in terms of speed and range of ships but came with costs of defending oil regions and the necessary shipping lanes to secure oil for the Admiralty and, accordingly, the resulting changes to foreign policy.
WWI proved the necessity of oil in the conduct of war to most heads of state and the procurement of which led to many post war decisions--not all of those well thought out. Three weeks after the conclusion of hostilities, French Premier Clemenceau and PM David Lloyd George met in London. France wanted oil--England wanted oil. So without consultation with either of their respective foreign ministers, George gave control of Syria to the French in return for the French giving up claims to Mosul. Clemenceau agreed provided the French received its fair share of oil production from Mosul. And so begins the competition for control of oil lands not only between corporations and other private business but now between nations as well.
So what to trade for a fair share of oil between the competing interests and ideologies of Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Areas with less oil will want what Clemenceau wanted--their share of oil in return for accepting traditional land with less oil.
I don't see a successful policy being forced on the people of Iraq. They are going to have to solve this themselves. And we will be living with the consequences for years to come... Sorry for the length but I thought some history might be of value when considering a solution. . .
The Iraqi Kurds are already selling their oil in violation of the Iraqi constitution. And the central government is withholding the Kurd's share of other oil sales in retaliation. I'm not saying partitioning would be easy, but it may be the best alternative. As I suggested, though, that boat may have sailed. The best we may be able to get out of this is that ISIS and the Sunnis engage in mutual devastation with Iran and Iraq's Shiites, removing each from the board for a time.
Run & Blade 1, rest of posters in thread 0.
Nothing defends us better than completely removing oil and our need for it from the situation. Just do it, cold turkey, this exact moment. Then abandon the entire region save for Israel.
As mentioned earlier, sooner or later it'll boil down to Shia's against Sunni's wherever they are. Yes, the western powers screwed that whole area up in a modern sense...but quite frankly they've been warring amongst themselves since the beginning of time...so, to use a sports metaphor...there's nothing we can do to stop it - so contain them.
Nothing defends us better than completely removing oil and our need for it from the situation. Just do it, cold turkey, this exact moment. Then abandon the entire region save for Israel.
As mentioned earlier, sooner or later it'll boil down to Shia's against Sunni's wherever they are. Yes, the western powers screwed that whole area up in a modern sense...but quite frankly they've been warring amongst themselves since the beginning of time...so, to use a sports metaphor...there's nothing we can do to stop it - so contain them.
