Posted on 08/13/2014 9:57:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The Vatican is increasingly indicating support for military action in Iraq to protect Christians and other religious minorities from persecution by brutal Islamic jihadists.
As the world grapples with how to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS), the Vatican released a letter Wednesday in which Pope Francis urges the international community “to take action to end the humanitarian tragedy now underway.”
The Pope’s entreaty came before U.S. defence officials revealed late Wednesday that air strikes and the work of Kurdish fighters had allowed many of the thousands of Yazidis trapped on Mount Sinjar to escape....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.nationalpost.com ...
Really? Ever heard of the Kurds.
‘As long as people cooperated with him he didn’t bother them.’
The same is true for ISIS. If you cooperate by converting to Islam or leaving they will not cut your head off and put it on a pike.
Things where significantly better under the occupation and the status of forces agreement hashed out by the GWB administration. Very few people where dieing before we pulled out. The country had become if not a tourist destination, at least quite stable. There where free and fair elections, women where allowed to participate in the governance of the country and a modest peace was found in much of the country.
So I reject your argument outright as false. I also reject the opinion of the Vatican about the Iraq War of liberation. Had Saddam remained in power we have no idea what he would have done.
It is no secret that he murdered hundreds of thousands of not more than a million of his own people. His boys where every bit as brutal and would have slaughtered to stay in power.
For the dead it is of little difference as to whether the killer is a monomaniacal despot or a religious zealot, The outcome is the same.
What is going on in Iraq may be sectarian violence and Civil War, but the cause of that war is the lack of an American force of occupation. As most of the bad actors are actually jihadists imported from around the globe, just like those we fought during the hot war in Iraq.
A force of less than 15,000 would have been sufficient to maintain peace just as it has done so in Germany, Japan and the Korean Peninsula. World War II and the Korean Conflict have been over for more than a half century, yet we maintain tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, Okinawa and DOZENS of other countries as a stabilizing force for good. None of these countries are the possessors of the second largest KNOWN supply of easily retrievable crude oil. Yet we beet feet as soon as the idiot Obama could from the most geopolitically important regions in the World. Even after the hostilities where less than that of an average weekend in Chicago!
BTW our presence on in Korea is what is keeping the Kim Regime in check. The lunatics in Pyongyang would have over run the South decades ago had we ever pulled out. They would try if we left today.
The Iraq War was every bit as justified as the Afghanistan War and a damn site better run. Since the surge was complete the War was won. We simply had to maintain the peace, a much easier and less costly affair than what we are soon to be involved in in Iraq. I assure you WE WILL BE INVOLVED. No matter what the Mulatto Morons’ desire to stay aloof.
You don't win wars only to abandon the field to the conquered enemy!
Regardless if Saddam held weapons of mass destruction. He had the knowledge, means and history of their use. He harbored known international terrorists. He had practiced genocide against the Kurdish people. He was also in violation of International Law and dozens of U.N. Resolutions. HE was a cancer in the Middle East that had already inflicted millions of deaths on his own populous as well as to those of his neighbors.
He proved he was not going to stop his desire for expansion by launching two wars of conquest within fifteen years. He also threatened repeatedly to use military force including gas and chemical weapons against his neighbors including Israel a treaty bound Democratic ally of the United States.
As for Cambodia, that analogy is laughable as we abandoned Cambodia, the same as we abandoned the South Vietnamese, Laos & the ethnic Montagnards in Southeast Asia, much to our great shame.
WE caused the death of at least five millions by turning our back on South Vietnam and Ted Kennedy is very much to blame as he rammed through a resolution in the Senate to deny support to the South Vietnamese and act contrary to our legally binding treaty with that government.
Once we allowed the Communists to over run and murder their opponents in South Vietnam it was open season for the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong and Pathet Lao backed Khmer Rouge. We through the Veto proof Democrat House and Senate are directly responsible for the humanitarian disaster in Southeast Asia throughout the decades of the Seventies and Eighties. There feckless, cowardly actions still adversely effect the people of Southeast Asia today. To deny so is to deny reality of History!
Once again the entire affair, all the death and destruction can be laid directly at the feet of America and in particular the Democrat Party. Had we followed our treaty obligations,established a support force of Americans like we have in South Korea, South Vietnam would be making our cars, televisions and consumer goods just like the South Koreans, while the backward Communists in the North would be as advanced as the Hermit Kingdom of North Korea. Unable to feed, cloth or even light the streets at night.
All Obama’s Iraq policy has done is confirm the fact that America is the World best enemy and its’ worst ally!
What's going on? Someone other than Jews being victimized this time?
That’s not true. The Catholic Church has always taught that it is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war.
I was referring to the current Vatican's hypocrisy in being against war when someone else is being invaded/attacked and then suddenly discovering that there is indeed such a thing as a "just war."
BTW, some of your hyper-traditionalist fellows on this forum sound like hippies in their blanket condemnation of "war." I suppose what they really mean is a war that could conceivably in any way eventually benefit Jews--you know, like World War II.
BTW, some of your hyper-traditionalist fellows on this forum sound like hippies in their blanket condemnation of "war." I suppose what they really mean is a war that could conceivably in any way eventually benefit Jews--you know, like World War II.
And I don't know what you are talking about here. Who are the hyper-traditionalists on this forum who are anti-war 100% of the time?
Jim:
No my analysis is not wrong, it my view. You don’t like my view, fair enough. That is your view. I don’t like seeing American kids die for BS. Saddam did not attack America. Sorry. Again, Kim is killing political opponents by the thousands in North Korea, yet, do you suggest we invade North Korea? The US forces in South Korea are there to “prevent North Korea” from attacking the South, which is a totally different issue vs. Saddam killing political rivals in Iraq. When Saddam invaded another country, the US was correct in responding, when the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden attacked the US, the US was correct in responding.
No the Iraq war was not justified vs. Afghanistan. Iraq did not attack the United States, the Taliban in Afghanistan and is Al Qaeda allies did. Big difference. And as I said, Saddam after being pushed out of Kuwait was no different than dictators all over the world. Are you suggesting we attack all these dictators. You suggesting we invade Cuba again and try the Bay of Pigs thing again? You want to invade Venezuala and take out Chavez. You want to rid Sub-Saharan Africa of its dozens of dictators, who oppress citizens? How many damn wars do you suggest we fight?
The NeoCons sold a bill of goods what were lemons. Pat Buchanan had it correct, the United States sending its money and sons to fight other peoples wars is crap. Saddam could have been isolated. If the Iraqis wanted him gone, they could have spilled their own blood.
But give Saddam was taken out and now the crazies are running much of Iraq [ISIS], that is a different animal. They are attacking other countries and are a threat. Saddam after getting run out of Kuwait was not going to invade another country. He may have been a dictator, a brutal one, that killed political rivals, but he was not killing Christians for the mere fact they were Christian or other religious minorities.
I voted for Bush twice, but he and Chaney’s war on Iraq was FUBAR. And I am well aware we have troops stationed in Europe along with Korea, but they are there for defensive purposes. As for Vietnam, do you really think in hindsight that was a war the US should have fought. We are now trading with them for heaven’s sake. Ho Chi Min was a Marxist in terms of economics, but he was more of a Vietnamese Nationalist that wanted to unite Vietnam. He was not a Stalinist, sorry. 58,000 American boys fought bravely and I honor their service, but that was not a war that should have been fought, neither this last Iraq war.
I would have opposed the First Gulf War. I could care less about Kuwait, it was just another Arab Muslim country, why were they any of our business? We were there for the Saudis, who believe in keeping their friends close and their enemies even closer, and have been the biggest sponsors of terrorism, they just do a good job of pretending to be our friends.
Now, having said that. It was stupid not to take out Saddam once we did go over there. It just left him to plot his revenge. Would we have left Hitler in power in a similar situation. It just guaranteed we would have to go back in again, as Saddam would be even more radicalized than before.
Then stupidity #2 courtesy of the Bushes. You cannot simply go into a country in the Arab world, remove a leader, and leave. It would have required at 10-20 years of occupation, if you wanted to ensure that the country wouldn’t fall straight back to crap. And frankly I would have made Iraq a US protectorate, taken their oil, and told the Saudis to take a flying leap.
And that should have been made clear DAY ONE, that an invasion of Iraq was a done deal. If the will was not there to stay there for that length of time, it should have never been done.
dfwgator:
Well, I think part of the issue with Gulf war 1 was Saddam starting shooting at Israel with the skuds. My guess is had the US not jumped in, Israel would have, and that could have led to a larger middle east war. I agree, the Saudi influence with the Bushes was a part of it. The US is far less dependent on foreign oil today than we were back then, in fact, we are now well over 50% domestic. At that time, more lie 60 or so foreign. Saddam controlling that much oil and wealth by overrunning Kuwait [and he would not have stopped] was a factor for Gulf 1.
Hitler and Saddam is not a valid comparison. Hitler’s Germany had overrun Europe and had an army and weaponry that could have imposed serious damage on the world [even more so than they did] as they were not to far off from obtaining atomic weapons and had already before the end of the war developed early missile and Jet fighter technology.
Did that not happen AFTER we were already over there?
“Really? Ever heard of the Kurds.”
Hussein did not target the Kurds because they were Kurds. He targeted them for the same reason the Syrians, Iranians and Turks have been hard on the Kurds: They want their own nation. Even when Hussein gassed the Kurds he only did so because he believed - correctly - that they were disloyal to his regime. The Kurds had formed a relationship with the Iranians - the arch rivals of the Iraqis.
ISIS is different. ISIS wants complete uniformity of religious belief. Hussein didn’t give a damn about religion nor did he care much about ethnicity. ISIS is made up of Arab supremacists who just today were said to be raping Yazidi women in order to end their gene strain of blonde hair and blue eyes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724658/Were-not-leaving-Yazidis-refusing-come-mountain-300-women-stolen-ISIS-impregnated-smash-blond-bloodline.html
Do you think Hussein gave a crap about any of that?
dfwgator:
I think it did but before we went in with infantry and armor. Regardless, I don’t think Israel would have let Saddam stay in Kuwait, especially if he moved on Jordan or another country closer to their border.
Hussein used rape rooms, torture cells and brutal killing techniques all aimed to control and manipulate the populous. No different than those used by ISIS. He simply did it for a more secular power than the religious ISIS.
“What’s the difference dead is dead.”
Oh, so now nothing else you said before matters? Okay, let’s talk about the dead. How many more millions would die if ISIS were left in charge of Iraq for as many years as Hussein was? One million? Five? Ten? Compared to ISIS, Hussein was a piker except for the war with Iran. ISIS will kill as many people as humanly possible. Hussein only killed as many people as his twisted mind viewed as necessary.
“The difference between Bathist political philosophy and islamist religious philosophy is irrelevant to those who bear the brunt of the violence.”
Absolutely true. . . except for one thing. Islamist philosophy necessitates the killing or oppression of billions of people in this world. Bathist political philosophy doesn’t. The Bathist party had Christian members. How many Christians are members of ISIS? Oh, that’s right! That’s IMPOSSIBLE.
“Hussein used rape rooms, torture cells and brutal killing techniques all aimed to control and manipulate the populous.”
True. And he was still a piker compared to ISIS.
“No different than those used by ISIS. He simply did it for a more secular power than the religious ISIS.”
ISIS is raping women by the hundreds. ISIS is marrying off and raping 8 year old girls to legitimize those rapes. Did Hussein do that? Nope.
Hussein was a boy scout compared to ISIS.
As for the Bay of pigs. Had Kennedy been a real man instead of a fornicating fool and stood with the operation HE approved, called up the air power and sent in the Marines standing by, we would have avoided over seventy years of trouble with Castro and his Russian puppet masters. He was weak and a coward and it wasn't until the missal crisis that he showed any toughness north of the belt line.
As for the loss of men. Anytime we lose men in war it is tragedy. However, we must put that tragedy into context. We invaded a country of 24 million with the fourth largest army on the planet. Beats it's army's ass, toppled it's government, set up free and fair elections and settled into fighting an insurgent engagement and lost fewer than 5,000 men in six years. Also not one, NOT ONE of the men who fought in Iraq did so under duress. None where pressed into service via draft. They all volunteered. Most reenlisted willingly again and again. They knew what they were doing and wat they where fighting for.
That my friend is an amazing thing. Once the Surge took place we had fewer casualties in Iraq than shooting victims in Chicago and that is no bullshit. It was under these circumstances that Obama the idiot of all time decided to keep the one campaign promise that he kept. He left Iraq to the Islamists as a stage for World mayhem.
Any, and I mean ANY person of any historical and military knowledge would tell you that a counterinsurgency is a minimum of sixteen years commitment and usually a full generation. Stability in an unstable region takes time. We had all the time in the World to keep 15,000 - 20,000 troops. ONE DIVISION. In country to protect our multitrillion dollar investment in a forward operating base in the Middle East.
This is a dangerous World. We can no longer protect ourselves by hiding behind the oceans that bracket our continental nation. It is now significantly more dangerous because we allowed a jug eared fool to move our troops out of a pacified country that anyone with a brain could tell was only pacified because of our troops presence. No matter what you think, or Pat Buchanan thinks, we can not and will never be the isolationist empire we so much would like to be. We will be forced to reengage in Iraq and reconquer a country we already invaded and pacified just a couple years ago.
The next time if we lose twenty thousand we should consider ourselves lucky!
Who cares. Hussein is dead. We killed him. We can’t dig him up and reinstate him as dictator no matter how much you would love to do so. It is useless and ascinine to re-argue as to whether we should have fought in Iraq or not. We did. We succeeded. We Won.
We did so amazingly conquering a vast country with a million man standing army with losses of less than 5,000 in six years fighting. Damn the allies lost 120,000 men during the first six weeks of the Normandy invasion. Germany lost 120,000. What the U.S Millitary did was close to a miracle, all while minimalising true civilian cassualties.
Why would we not keep Iraq, just like we kept Japan and Western Europe as our trading partners. The reason why we have had no problems with Germany and Japan is because WE NEVER LEFT! We are still there.
Obama decided that he didn’t like victory, so he left.
Don’t kid yourself, had we pulled a Wilson and beet feet back to the U.S fer WW II like we did after WW I Germany would have regrouped and tried again.
That was their nature. That was Europe’s nature since the end of the Pax Romana. Same with Japan. They would have had no problem having at Korea and China again in ten years had we not stayed.
We are going to have to go back. The jug eared idiot just signed the death warrants of thousands more U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands more Arab Iraqis because he is a political and military novice. He is the worst kind of leader.
We once again have shown our utter fecklessness and stupidity on the World stage. This time in the guise of a half black moron.
“Who cares. Hussein is dead. We killed him.”
It is amazing how you go in exactly the wrong direction each and every time. The point was that Hussein wasn’t as bad to his own people as ISIS is to everyone else. That’s irrefutable. End of story.
Jim from C-Town:
I know quite a bit about history, I just don’t share your hawk views. Like I said, we are now having tourist go to Vietnam and are trading with them.
As for toppling Saddam, and trying to set up elections, do you really think that nation building works in that part of the world. Do you suggest we go in topple every dictator and set up elections. Containing Saddam was legitimate in terms of using military power, toppling him was a stupid move. He was not nor ever was a Jihadist. The Taliban were Jihadist, they were two different animals. Only a simpleton would say the two were the same.
Jim From C-Town:
How many of these countries should we intervene in?
Now, having said that. It was stupid not to take out Saddam once we did go over there. It just left him to plot his revenge. Would we have left Hitler in power in a similar situation. It just guaranteed we would have to go back in again, as Saddam would be even more radicalized than before.
Then stupidity #2 courtesy of the Bushes. You cannot simply go into a country in the Arab world, remove a leader, and leave. It would have required at 10-20 years of occupation, if you wanted to ensure that the country wouldn’t fall straight back to crap. And frankly I would have made Iraq a US protectorate, taken their oil, and told the Saudis to take a flying leap.
I agree with your point about the Saudis and the Bush's coddling of them over the years (rather ironic to claim to wage a war against radical Islam by while currying favor with radical Islam's biggest sponsors). And like you, I thought that the first Gulf War was something of a waste, though not on the same scale as the second one.
However, you seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand, you correctly point out the stupidity of overthrowing a dictator and leaving behind a power vacuum that will either be filled by worse dictators, religious fanatics, or endless sectarian/tribal wars. Then you go on to say that Bush I's biggest mistake was not to take out Saddam at the end of Gulf War I. Wouldn't that leave precisely the same power vacuum that Gulf War II created? That was probably the reason why Bush and Baker decided to leave him alive and in power.
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.