The Chicken Sh!t World

[Rudy Tamasz]

Which one are you speaking of? You've got to be more specific.

If you mean the Iraq/Syria thing, perhaps you think our best course would just to stay out and let ISIS do whatever it wants? Personally, I think that might not be a bad way to go. It's a Muslim problem so let the Muslim countries of the world deal with it. What is going on there can't be too bad - shooting prisoners; raping women and/or forcing marriage; killing non combatants and children; etc. - since we don't see the populations of the majority Muslim countries of the world taking to the streets to demand immediate action against the "Islamic State". If its OK with the rest of Islam I guess its OK with me.

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.

[schmenke]

I live in Australia. We have no foreign policy other than to do whatever big brother tells us to do. Firstly we did what John Bull told us and now we do what Uncle Sam tells us. That's pretty well much been the reason Australia has been to every war it's been in ever.
....

??

I'll admit my Australian history is a bit fuzzy, but...

War on Iraq, 2003: Australia commits military resources to the Iraq conflict as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

WWII: Australia enters the war in 1939, shortly after Germany invades Poland.

WW I: Australia enters the war on the dame day as Britain declares war on Germany in August 1914.

Boer War: Australia, as a Commonwealth, were compelled to serve under the British Empire.

[Starter]

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.

I agree with you there. I initially supported the 2nd invasion of Iraq (the first being in the 90s when they invaded Kuwait). That was because our government lied to us about the threat of WMD and the Iraqi terrorist connection. I blame Bush II and more so his advisers like Chaney & Wolfowitz as I believe he was partially duped too. As the truth came out, I changed my opinion about the entire affair. It was a complete disaster for the entire nation of Iraq which will be decades in fixing if it can be fixed at all.

I also blame Obama for the current mess. You are correct about what happens when there is a power vacuum and that vacuum is rarely filled by any group with good intentions. He is responsible for creating the current situation with his pull out and his reckless support of the Shia sectarian government (just so he could claim we didn't need to be there any more) which divided Iraq even more than it already was. Add in the situation in Syria; the long playing issues between Israel and the Palestinians; the unrest in Egypt, Libya, etc.; and the simmering Sunni - Shia conflict and that entire region of the world is much like the swirling vortex at the bottom of a toilet. The US didn't create all of the problems there, but we sure didn't help much either. A couple of US presidents who were/are much more interested in political expediency and promoting their own party's brand instead of solving problems have only exacerbated the situation.

[Roamy]

I mean Iraq, first of all. I don't question the right of the U.S. to launch the preemptive strikes if the terrorist threat is real but in the case of Iraq it wasn't. The invasion was unnecessary. What's I'm saying is not the wisdom of hindsight. Most facts about terrorism sponsoring and WMD were clear enough back then. What happened, the U.S. gov't decided to invade anyway and turned Iraq into a bloody mess. As bad as Saddam was, an ordinary citizen, Arab or Kurd, Sunni, Shiite or Christian had way better chances of walking to the grocery store and coming back home alive with food for his kids, than he does now in the liberated Iraq. ISIS is the direct if distant result of the 2003 invasion, which created the vacuum of power. I'm afraid something like that can happen again if the U.S. attacks ISIS, just worse. I don't see a good solution to this mess.

The only answer is to take out ISIS. I think arming the Kurds with air support will do it. But it has to be done or we will be screwed in a few years. Also we will need to take out extremists in Libya.
Moral of the story is "don't remove dictators that you don't have to" Saddam killed over 300k God know how many Assad and Libya killed. The world is a sh!thole and the trick is to let someone else do your killing for you. The Euros are good at this. Especially Merkle.

[Gregor-y]

??

I'll admit my Australian history is a bit fuzzy, but...

War on Iraq, 2003: Australia commits military resources to the Iraq conflict as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

WWII: Australia enters the war in 1939, shortly after Germany invades Poland.

WW I: Australia enters the war on the dame day as Britain declares war on Germany in August 1914.

Boer War: Australia, as a Commonwealth, were compelled to serve under the British Empire.

Also Korea (UN/Commonwealth), Malaysia (Commonwealth) and Vietnam (first suckle off the US teat?)

[airshifter]

Before getting involved into something make sure your involvement is going to improve things. That's not been the case with the latest U.S. military interventions.

But at the end of the day if the WORLD rather than the US alone with maybe a few allies was involved in ending real humanitarian crisis, it would have more of a humanitarian effect and less of a political effect IMO. Stopping people from being displaced, sent to mass graves, isolated, discriminated against, etc should be something the entire world doesn't tolerate.

The problem IMO is that the political influence is greater often than the humanitarian crisis. Even the middle east does more in some cases. During the Iraq invasion there were security issues with aid coming from Kuwait crossing the border to Iraq before it was even safe to do so. Yet it's not uncommon for us countries with a lot more ability to help sitting on our hands on doing nothing productive.

[Roamy]

so airshifter you think the world should have completely open borders?????

[Koz]

as part of the UN Coalition, in support for the UN resolution to disarm Iraq.

UN Coalition? UN Resolution?
Say what now?

There was no UN resolution of any kind calling for an invasion, that is why the war has been called illegal.

[airshifter]

so airshifter you think the world should have completely open borders?????

Not for a second have I thought that. Immigration policies should be up to individual countries and based on a number of things, primarily the negative effect it will potentially have on the economy with more benefits going out and jobs in a given country being taken by those willing to work for lower wages.

But what I'm saying is that countries and people as a whole could do a lot more to care about other human beings and get rid of all the stereotypes. Just as you might hang out with some gringos, there are plenty of good people of all other races and religions. The only Pakistani's I know personally own a local business and contribute to the economy. I don't know any Somali's personally but had a neighbor directly from Africa who was a linguist in the US Navy. The first Muslim I was ever friends with served with me in the Marines, and in his case he worked in military intelligence.

It's just like the gringos you might hang out with Roamy. Not all of them are drug smuggling cartel members that kill people on both sides of the border. But I'm sure you can find people that will tell you otherwise.

UN Coalition? UN Resolution?
Say what now?

There was no UN resolution of any kind calling for an invasion, that is why the war has been called illegal.

The war has been called illegal by people that have no basis in reality. Resolution 1441 clearly paved the way for use of military force. The fact that later attempts at resolutions failed doesn't change that. There is no legitimate court that would ever find any participating nation in violation of international laws.


But, if you or others think it was illegal, it brings up a great example of Roamys point. So a coalition of 30 some countries went into Iraq illegally as you and others claim? Well what has the rest of the world done to stop it? Nothing. Nothing at all other than lip service. But the rest of the world could have taken drastic measures that would have impacted the economies of the countries involved, and/or used military means to stop it. But they didn't.



And I think the turning of this discussion is a prime example of how the world often reacts when something happens. It quickly turns to finger pointing and politics rather than the situation at hand. Saddam filling mass graves should have been stopped long before it was. The situation with ISIS, as well as Russia, should have been stopped sooner. But the world will turn it into a political thing, and allow thugs to do what thugs do because of that.

And human beings that have no hand in the politics will die because of the chicken shit world doing nothing about it. I'd bet money if it was people any of us knew personally being killed we would be more involved in the situations. But since it isn't people we know personally, those people will continue to die.


I personally think Obama is an idiot, and I surely don't want him to involve the US in a mess the way Bush did. But I'm glad he at least has the cajones to do something. And if the rest of the developed world wasn't a bunch of chicken shits, the entire UN membership would at a bare minimum stop the killing and displacement of innocent people.

[Koz]

The war has been called illegal by people that have no basis in reality. Resolution 1441 clearly paved the way for use of military force. The fact that later attempts at resolutions failed doesn't change that. There is no legitimate court that would ever find any participating nation in violation of international laws.

Here is Resolution 1441: http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/1441.pdf
Where does it "clearly pave the way for use of military force"?

I believe, and I may be wrong here, the only "legal" authority that can sanction a "legal war" is the UN Security Council.

As for your notion of a legitimate court, where exactly would I find one?

Regardless of the legality, my point was that it was pretty ignorant of schmenke to call the forces in Iraq a "UN Coalition".

But, if you or others think it was illegal, it brings up a great example of Roamys point. So a coalition of 30 some countries went into Iraq illegally as you and others claim? Well what has the rest of the world done to stop it? Nothing. Nothing at all other than lip service. But the rest of the world could have taken drastic measures that would have impacted the economies of the countries involved, and/or used military means to stop it. But they didn't.

Exactly, they didn't do anything.
Saddam wasn't a nice guy, so why bother anything but a condemnation?

Who would economic sanctions against the likes US, UK, Australia and Japan hurt most?
The ones imposing the sanctions. So what choice do they have?

Saddam filling mass graves should have been stopped long before it was. The situation with ISIS, as well as Russia, should have been stopped sooner. But the world will turn it into a political thing, and allow thugs to do what thugs do because of that.

In 2003, we could have had the attitude you have right now. But now we must all enter reality.
Look what has happened to every country that has been "fixed".

Look at Libya, do you think it was a good solution to bomb Gaddafi?
Do you think the Libyan are better off?

Libya no longer exists.

Tunisia on a brink of civil war.

In Egypt, a legitimately elected government was ousted by a military coup; and this was a good thing.

Syria and Iraq also no longer exist. And I tell you, it isn't even about the IS anymore. If and when IS is stopped or destroyed, who do you think will take their place? It will probably be Iran's Shia militia.

The reality is that these democracy will not work for these people. And for the most part strongmen who can maintain peace are the best that we'll ever get.

Look at what we now have: a series of failed states stretching from North Africa to India.

And human beings that have no hand in the politics will die because of the chicken shit world doing nothing about it. I'd bet money if it was people any of us knew personally being killed we would be more involved in the situations. But since it isn't people we know personally, those people will continue to die.

I personally think Obama is an idiot, and I surely don't want him to involve the US in a mess the way Bush did. But I'm glad he at least has the cajones to do something. And if the rest of the developed world wasn't a bunch of chicken shits, the entire UN membership would at a bare minimum stop the killing and displacement of innocent people.

I urge you to read Diplomacy by Kisinger.