Posted on 09/24/2014 10:08:04 PM PDT by Abakumov
What if Iraq is not a country of people with common cultures and interests and generally accepted borders, but rather an amalgam of warring groups cobbled together by British and American diplomats? What if only a strongman like Hussein — however evil and ill suited for government by Western standards — can keep peace and stability in an artificial country like Iraq?
(Excerpt) Read more at radixnews.com ...
In defense of Ted Cruz’s ‘militaristic pessimism’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3207534/posts
Cruz on Iraq: “We Stayed Too Long And Got Far Too Involved In Nation-Building”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3207574/posts
I despised Saddam’s police state, but the Islamic State would not exist under his rule
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3206470/posts
Some very good questions. Wish we knew the whole truth.
Seems to me the whole world was creaming at Bush the elder for leaving Hussein in power.
Everyone. Not I, but everyone.
I think they should have divided the country into 3 parts after Hussein was thrown out, but apparently Bush thought it could be stabilized through democracy. So they voted and then started blowing each other up.
Then in the future we place brutal ruthless bloody tyrants and give the people what they want!
Remove every few years as needed.
The key to this statement is that Iraq is really a hollow land, with anywhere between three and six different groups who would fight over control. Toss in twenty guys within each group who continually fight for the top position, and various religious groups who think they have the right stuff to lead a nation.
We are simply going back to this period where the Iran-Iraq War concluded, and Iraq was in a weak position and needed cash to rebuild its military....and all of it’s former friendly neighbors refused to help them....so they picked on the weakest neighbor (Kuwait) to replenish their situation. And we decided that we wouldn’t agree with this strategy.
And now what? Admit we should have left Kuwait to Iraq?
In order to have stable governments, the strongest rose to prominence, often ruthlessly, and maintained order between the different factions.
This is hardly an environment ripe for democracy nor even a democratic republic, and so long as sharia is a potent force it will not be. But the strong ruler will prevail, often by the sword.
You mean sort of like libturds and conservatives here in the US?
I don’t know. Maybe we should ask Pat Tillman.
The beginnings of the “Islamic State” were nurtured by Saddam.
“I think they should have divided the country into 3 parts after Hussein was thrown out....”
.
And have to build three separate nations instead of one? Because that is what we were there for — nation building.
They should’ve left Saddam Hussein alone and let him have Kuwait. He certainly knew better how to run Iraq than we do. Besides, he was a buffer against Iran.
Is Iraq better off today than under Hussein? Are we better off?
Stability equals permanent war with “the West” and Israel since 1948?
Re: “What if Iraq is not a country of people with common cultures and interests and generally accepted borders, but rather an amalgam of warring groups cobbled together by British and American diplomats?”
Iraq?
That sounds like the United States of America in 2014!
Sure. Common enemies will unite squabbling factions quicker than most anything.
“What if Iraq is not a country of people with common cultures and interests and generally accepted borders, but rather an amalgam of warring groups cobbled together by British and American diplomats? “
That’s never been disputed has it? It was ignored by the revolutionary utopians who were urging Dubya to conquer it, against the better judgement of the GHW Bush crew. Dubya’s boys believed that democracy could conquer all. Let them vote and voila! Iraq would be just like a western country. Idiots.
The judge is a libertarian..
That is their general view. I accept the opinion, but I don’t agree.
The weak response to ISIS was a direct result of our pre-mature exit. It reminded me of the exit strategy used in Vietnam.
Just turn over the keys and haul azz out of there..
Did not work there, did not work here..will not work anywhere..
Spetsy, fo.
What if...
Answering a hypothetical can be quite the trap but I'll take a shot. If the country is a steaming mess that can only be controlled by a dictator, then let's give 'em a dictator.
Take for instance the Shah; at the time of his reign he was considered by Jimmy Crater to be an insufferable tyrant. Well, compared to the Ayatollahs, Mahmoud Yabbadabbadoo, etc. he looks to me like George Washington. The important thing is that whomever we have there favors us like, for instance, Hosni Mubarak.
When Roosevelt was told of what an SOB old man Somosa was in Nicaragua, he answered "he may be an SOB, but he's our SOB."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.