Iraq formally seeks US air strikes

[coma]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

Israel has ignored several UN resolutions too, don't see the USA doing anything about that.

I like it a lot.

[rgs2001uk]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

There is a very simple answer to your first question about neighbouring countries. Most people, certainly the Bush administration at that time, have no clue (or pretend so) about the divide in Islamic people. There are two main streams: Sunnis and Shias (or Shiites). Sunnis are the largest group of islamists in the world, and are that in many countries in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi-Arabia. In Iran and Pakistan the Shiites are the majority.

Iraq has been ruled by the Sunnis during Saddam era, and the Shiites were not only suppressed, but also tortured, killed and several 100,000s have been deported. When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably. Now ISIS or better ISIL, consisting of Sunnis, are standing up against the Shiite suppression, hence the trouble.

And now the Shiites ask the US to bomb the Sunnis.... would be wise if the US for one time does not step into a war-arsenal-testing action, it's not only the non-existing enemy they kill, but obviously quite some US soldiers will be killed, and those that return might have some mental damage.

Stay out of it, USA!

PS I'm not in favour of either group of islam, just summing up historical information.

When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably.

I was always under the impression Iraq had a Shia majority, Saddam being Sunni oppressed them, the Saudis were quite happy to look the other way as Saddam did their dirty work for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

[chuckd]

Recently Bush admitted that he invaded Iraq because he wanted to "kick somebody's ass" for the 9/11 attack and Sadaam looked like a good target because he was cruel to his countrymen. Hardly grounds for a national security objective.

I would love to see a link to this rather astounding assertion. Thank you.

[Asiantravel]

The BBC is reporting that Obama is considering bypassing Congress to launch military action.

But meanwhile Gen. David Petraeus is warning against any action unless a certain number of preconditions can be met.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/18/david-petraeus-issues-warning-about-u-s-military-involvement-in-iraq/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

[mcdiddly]

We supported Iraq when they were fighting Iran over the southern boarders but we were never buddies, Saddam never like the agreement he signed in 75. As far as Afganastan goes it was the Mujahideen that the US backed, after the war a radical group of the Mujahideen became the Talaban ..

if they start to kill people here, will the US intervene ?

i guess not

internal affairs of the country

iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was more than probable an inside job to START WARS ! nothing more, nothing less, same as PEARL HARBOUR

how many americans know that Saddam was a good friend of the US, while fighting IRAN ???

how many americans know that the taliban was a good friend of the US, while fighting the ex-USSR ???

war means big business for a small conglomerate of war mongers

[chuckd]

The BBC is reporting that Obama is considering bypassing Congress to launch military action.

But meanwhile Gen. David Petraeus is warning against any action unless a certain number of preconditions can be met.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/18/david-petraeus-issues-warning-about-u-s-military-involvement-in-iraq/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Ran across this article earlier today.

It seems Obama is basing his reluctance to get Congressional approval on the interpretation that the 2002 Iraq War Resolution had no expiry date and is still in full force.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Not Asking Congress’ Permission on Iraq (Updated)

By Steven Dennis and Humberto Sanchez

Posted at 4:51 p.m. June 18

Updated 5:09 p.m. | President Barack Obama is still considering what to do about Iraq, but he told the top congressional leaders Wednesday that he doesn’t think he needs Congress’ permission to act.

“We had a good discussion,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., arriving back at the Capitol after the meeting. “The president basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take and indicated he would keep us posted.”

Obama met for about an hour in the Oval Office with McConnell, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

<snip>

She (Pelosi) appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-not-asking-congress-permission-on-iraq/?dcz=

[Asiantravel]

The BBC is reporting that Obama is considering bypassing Congress to launch military action.

But meanwhile Gen. David Petraeus is warning against any action unless a certain number of preconditions can be met.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/06/18/david-petraeus-issues-warning-about-u-s-military-involvement-in-iraq/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

Ran across this article earlier today.

It seems Obama is basing his reluctance to get Congressional approval on the interpretation that the 2002 Iraq War Resolution had no expiry date and is still in full force.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama Not Asking Congress’ Permission on Iraq (Updated)

By Steven Dennis and Humberto Sanchez

Posted at 4:51 p.m. June 18

Updated 5:09 p.m. | President Barack Obama is still considering what to do about Iraq, but he told the top congressional leaders Wednesday that he doesn’t think he needs Congress’ permission to act.

“We had a good discussion,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., arriving back at the Capitol after the meeting. “The president basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take and indicated he would keep us posted.”

Obama met for about an hour in the Oval Office with McConnell, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

<snip>

She (Pelosi) appeared to be referring to the authorizations to use military force passed after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq. Neither of those authorizations have expired, although the official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-not-asking-congress-permission-on-iraq/?dcz=

Nancy Pelosi’s opinion and advice versus that of General David Petraeus

[Balance]

al-Makili was hand picked by the Bush geniuses (all of whom should be tried for war crimes) based on assurances that he would foster and support an inclusive government. He did exactly the opposite. He made the bed, let him sleep in it. I never thought I would agree with Glenn Beck about anything, but his statement yesterday took courage.

[Bpuumike]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Second mistake, Saddam never had a stockpile of WMD's.

[Bpuumike]

We? I don't remember Bush / Cheney asking us? They should be sent over there to deal with the mess.

With all due respect, the Bush/Cheney administration did ask "us".

The Bush administration went to the people's representatives, Congress, and obtained authorization for the action in Iraq.

Without the votes of both Republicans and Democrats , acting as the people's representatives, there would have been no Iraq war.

And that is an inescapable fact that nobody can spin.

Might there not have been some doubt about the information Bush gave Congress, on which they based their decision?

Just asking like.

To Bush and Congress add Blair and Parliament.

Staying on topic, I can't envisage US air support having much effect against scattered forces with no permanent structures.

[Chicog]

Agreed.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[chuckd]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

There is a very simple answer to your first question about neighbouring countries. Most people, certainly the Bush administration at that time, have no clue (or pretend so) about the divide in Islamic people. There are two main streams: Sunnis and Shias (or Shiites). Sunnis are the largest group of islamists in the world, and are that in many countries in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi-Arabia. In Iran and Pakistan the Shiites are the majority.

Iraq has been ruled by the Sunnis during Saddam era, and the Shiites were not only suppressed, but also tortured, killed and several 100,000s have been deported. When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably. Now ISIS or better ISIL, consisting of Sunnis, are standing up against the Shiite suppression, hence the trouble.

And now the Shiites ask the US to bomb the Sunnis.... would be wise if the US for one time does not step into a war-arsenal-testing action, it's not only the non-existing enemy they kill, but obviously quite some US soldiers will be killed, and those that return might have some mental damage.

Stay out of it, USA!

PS I'm not in favour of either group of islam, just summing up historical information.

Can I ask you where you got this version of history because apart from getting the demographics wrong, ignoring the fact that the US put Saddam in power and funded him through an eight year war against their new arch-enemy and even provided him with WMDs which apparently later they decided was naughty of him, you have it nailed on.

I might ask you the same question about the history lesson you so obligingly provided us.

The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. He did it the old fashioned way, through intrigue and back room deals following a couple of coups. He was ruthless during his rise in the Ba'ath Party and the immediate years following the coup in 1968. He either murdered his opposition or had somebody do it for him.

If any foreign power supported him, it was the Russians. The US had severed diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1967 and only re-instated diplomatic relations after Jimmy Carter became President in 1979.

The US did support Saddam financially during the Iran/Iraq war, along with Europe and the Arab States. They did not provide Saddam with chemical or biological weapons. What the US did was to turn a blind eye on products that might have been dual-use (civilian and military) and permitted the export of some items to the Iraqi government. Some items were beneficial in the manufacture of WMDs by Saddam.

G. H. W. Bush maintained diplomatic relations with Iraq until their attack of Kuwait in 1991.

Not a pretty picture but the US did not put the man in power. He accomplished that on his own.

[iancnx]

I just posted this on the other thread, which now seems defunct. So for those not fully aware of the history leading to the US presence in the region.... And not just the US. (I am a Brit by the way and a Blair Hater)

The Brits and others started meddling in the Arabian desert during the First World War and inspired the Arab revolt, which led to the Arab conquering of Damascus and Aleppo. Funnily enough the first Arabian oil was discovered in the early 1900's, but no one really knew how to get the stuff out of the ground. After numerous treaties, led mostly by the Brits and the French the Middle East was carved up in convenient blocks with, no doubt, future oil wealth being of speculative importance. (The Brits even had the audacity to promise Palestine to the family Rothschild in 1916). By 1932 Al Saud and specifically Abdul-Aziz was proclaimed as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 short years later the Americans had installed themselves and played an important role in the first discovery of oil in the kingdom. ARAMCO was formed and together with British and French oil company interest elsewhere in the conveniently sliced up region, the foundations for the exploitation of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks - (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Jews and a dozen other religious sects) - was nicely arranged. And everything in the garden was rosey until events such as the Suez crisis, the Aden crisis, the 6 day war, and numerous other little know events all shaped the Middle East we know today; The Middle East - the region of primary interest to the Americans for the past 90 years. Some in here talk about Sunni v Shia since the year 632. In some part yes they have always been at loggerheads, but, it is the slicing up of a continent by the western powers and the enormous influence of the American insatiable desire for the black gold that leaves millions dead, slaughtered, wounded, homeless, orphaned, raped, tortured, abused, starving and helpless across the continent. It is far more than a few dunes; some recent war fighting (or operations room) veterans I am afraid miss this point as can be seen from a good number of posts above. ISIS is just another disenfranchised group that see American and their Allies interference in the region as intolerable. I don't support their terror methods no more than I support the West's eternal interference and desire (and NEED) to impose democracy on nations that are neither ready or equipped to morph in to Uncle Sam's New World Order.

The US best course of action IMO is to return home; they no longer need the oil - they have more than enough of their own. Let the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa sort themselves out. Non nuclear proliferation can be managed by strategic cruise missile strikes. Surely this is enough?

[Exsexyman]

If only Saddam did not repeatedly violate sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions and refused full access to international weapons inspectors, he would still be in Iraq brutally murdering his populace without a care and ISIS would not be marching on Baghdad.

Wow, nice job on the whitewash. The UN inspectors repeatedly reported that there were no WMDs. The CIA knew it but Uncle George and the gang decided to go to war anyway and ended up killing up to a million people over complete lies. Just in case you think people are going to believe your lies.

Too true. Some people really do need to take off their,'My country right or wrong' blinkers, and face some unpalatable,(for them), facts.

[Traveling Sailor]

Cheney advocated for the invasion of Iraq (see PNAC) and also got his company, Halliburton, over $20 billion US taxpayer dollars in no-bid contracts.

As a thank you to the American taxpayers, Halliburton moved all its operations off shore to Dubai in 2007 to avoid being responsible for paying US taxes.

Yet there is not a peep from the usual teaparty crowd on this forum who just spent the last several days on the Cantor thread telling us they stand for reining in out-of-control gov't spending.

Go figure.

Unfortunately, the US created this mess in Iraq and we have some responsibility in fixing it since our actions have now resulted in the death of more innocent Iraqis than if Saddam had remained in power 100 years.

Yes, we Americans got rid of the government that was keeping everything under control with force.

Yes, America went in and got rid of the existing government.

However, America also dit its best to set up an inclusive government. The current Iraq government is anything but inclusive.

I say that the current government created this mess by NOT BEING INCLUSIVE. The current Iraq government did not want the Americans, or anyone else, to help them set up their government, or do anything else in-country. Does this sound like another country somewhere in the world? They wanted us GONE! So, we left.

The current Iraq government created this mess and they should be the ones to clean it up. Without America's help.

[SanukJoeII]

Turkey, Syria, Iran and a few more... why don't the neighbouring countries get involved at least once in a while? Muslim-on-muslim violence is a daily business and won't elicit anti-American/anti-Western reactions that would feed the flames more. The Rwanda issue was also largely "resolved" by central African troops from neighbouring countries. The West and East both have sent plenty of weaponry to the region, is it too much to ask our allies and enemies to use them on each other when the time is right?

I really hope the US and Iran will agree on a non-interference pact that'll leave local powers free reins to get their mess sorted out (with securities for Israel but I needn't say that).

There is a very simple answer to your first question about neighbouring countries. Most people, certainly the Bush administration at that time, have no clue (or pretend so) about the divide in Islamic people. There are two main streams: Sunnis and Shias (or Shiites). Sunnis are the largest group of islamists in the world, and are that in many countries in the Middle East, e.g. Saudi-Arabia. In Iran and Pakistan the Shiites are the majority.

Iraq has been ruled by the Sunnis during Saddam era, and the Shiites were not only suppressed, but also tortured, killed and several 100,000s have been deported. When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably. Now ISIS or better ISIL, consisting of Sunnis, are standing up against the Shiite suppression, hence the trouble.

And now the Shiites ask the US to bomb the Sunnis.... would be wise if the US for one time does not step into a war-arsenal-testing action, it's not only the non-existing enemy they kill, but obviously quite some US soldiers will be killed, and those that return might have some mental damage.

Stay out of it, USA!

PS I'm not in favour of either group of islam, just summing up historical information.

When the US performed its illegal attack on and occupation of Iraq, the minority Shiites were installed as new government and guess what, started to suppress the Sunnis, as revenge probably.

I was always under the impression Iraq had a Shia majority, Saddam being Sunni oppressed them, the Saudis were quite happy to look the other way as Saddam did their dirty work for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Iraq

Nobody knows the truth, but I don't trust the CIA in giving information..

Sunnis hotly dispute their minority status, including ex-Iraqi Ambassador Faruq Ziada,^[73] and many believe Shia majority is "a myth spread by America".^[74] One Sunni belief shared by Jordan's King Abdullah as well as his then Defense Minister Shaalan is that Shia numbers in Iraq were inflated by Iranian Shias crossing the border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

[simple1]

Cheney advocated for the invasion of Iraq (see PNAC) and also got his company, Halliburton, over $20 billion US taxpayer dollars in no-bid contracts.

As a thank you to the American taxpayers, Halliburton moved all its operations off shore to Dubai in 2007 to avoid being responsible for paying US taxes.

Yet there is not a peep from the usual teaparty crowd on this forum who just spent the last several days on the Cantor thread telling us they stand for reining in out-of-control gov't spending.

Go figure.

Unfortunately, the US created this mess in Iraq and we have some responsibility in fixing it since our actions have now resulted in the death of more innocent Iraqis than if Saddam had remained in power 100 years.

Yes, we Americans got rid of the government that was keeping everything under control with force.

Yes, America went in and got rid of the existing government.

However, America also dit its best to set up an inclusive government. The current Iraq government is anything but inclusive.

I say that the current government created this mess by NOT BEING INCLUSIVE. The current Iraq government did not want the Americans, or anyone else, to help them set up their government, or do anything else in-country. Does this sound like another country somewhere in the world? They wanted us GONE! So, we left.

The current Iraq government created this mess and they should be the ones to clean it up. Without America's help.

Have a read of the content and access the original doctrine paper at the URLs below. Firstly note one of the introductory observations "The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

[55Jay]

I was told by a Saudi Naval Admiral that Saddam moved all his remaining WMDs to Syria just before the war broke out. He was perplexed as to why Saddam did not allow the weapon's inspectors to simply verify it.

Yes, makes perfect sense for Saddam to give all of his chemical weapons to a Shi'a leader I suppose.

Gulf War 1, Saddam evacuated what remained of his air force to Iran.

[thaiedward]

From a source which I respect, the recent insurgency is also USA/NeoCon sponsored, armed and trained by you-know-who. Where did the "insurgents" obtain their ordnance & blitzkrieg tactical training? Why has "support" for the US-installed "democratic" gov't of Iraq crept away? I don't know the answers...yet the masters of war are generating huge profits from their corporate armories. Population control anyone?.

[Ulysses G.]

From a source which I respect

Which you are keeping to yourself.

[a99az]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Make it easy, if only the US had got it facts right in the first place this would never of been our problem today. But hell why change with any luck they might all kill each other.

[Chicog]

I might ask you the same question about the history lesson you so obligingly provided us.

The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. He did it the old fashioned way, through intrigue and back room deals following a couple of coups. He was ruthless during his rise in the Ba'ath Party and the immediate years following the coup in 1968. He either murdered his opposition or had somebody do it for him.

The CIA were supporting him and the Ba'ath party from 1963 to prise Iraq from Russian influence.

The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

Ah yes, and the "We did not sell them chemical weapons" is just plausible deniability, you simply sold them the raw materials and the instruction manual.

Oh and helped them in all sorts of other ways in that war.

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Chicog

[Bpuumike]

From a source which I respect

Which you are keeping to yourself.

Indeed, pray tell us more.

[Ulysses G.]

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

You mean after he invaded Kuwait? Hardly surprising that we would turn on him after that.

[Bpuumike]

I just posted this on the other thread, which now seems defunct. So for those not fully aware of the history leading to the US presence in the region.... And not just the US. (I am a Brit by the way and a Blair Hater)

The Brits and others started meddling in the Arabian desert during the First World War and inspired the Arab revolt, which led to the Arab conquering of Damascus and Aleppo. Funnily enough the first Arabian oil was discovered in the early 1900's, but no one really knew how to get the stuff out of the ground. After numerous treaties, led mostly by the Brits and the French the Middle East was carved up in convenient blocks with, no doubt, future oil wealth being of speculative importance. (The Brits even had the audacity to promise Palestine to the family Rothschild in 1916). By 1932 Al Saud and specifically Abdul-Aziz was proclaimed as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 short years later the Americans had installed themselves and played an important role in the first discovery of oil in the kingdom. ARAMCO was formed and together with British and French oil company interest elsewhere in the conveniently sliced up region, the foundations for the exploitation of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks - (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Jews and a dozen other religious sects) - was nicely arranged. And everything in the garden was rosey until events such as the Suez crisis, the Aden crisis, the 6 day war, and numerous other little know events all shaped the Middle East we know today; The Middle East - the region of primary interest to the Americans for the past 90 years. Some in here talk about Sunni v Shia since the year 632. In some part yes they have always been at loggerheads, but, it is the slicing up of a continent by the western powers and the enormous influence of the American insatiable desire for the black gold that leaves millions dead, slaughtered, wounded, homeless, orphaned, raped, tortured, abused, starving and helpless across the continent. It is far more than a few dunes; some recent war fighting (or operations room) veterans I am afraid miss this point as can be seen from a good number of posts above. ISIS is just another disenfranchised group that see American and their Allies interference in the region as intolerable. I don't support their terror methods no more than I support the West's eternal interference and desire (and NEED) to impose democracy on nations that are neither ready or equipped to morph in to Uncle Sam's New World Order.

The US best course of action IMO is to return home; they no longer need the oil - they have more than enough of their own. Let the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa sort themselves out. Non nuclear proliferation can be managed by strategic cruise missile strikes. Surely this is enough?

A good post and necessarily abbreviated history. Look at the borders of Israel and closer to (our) home those of Brunei too. Us Brits have a lot to answer for a few generations back, then we handed the baton to the US.

The oil majors are too heavily invested in Iraq and will be strongly lobbying their governments not to walk away.

We already have discussions of US air strikes, Brit SAS there or on the way. Seems to be working.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Scott

[rgs2001uk]

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

You mean after he invaded Kuwait? Hardly surprising that we would turn on him after that.

Indeed especially after he had basically been given the green light to invade.

Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt write in the January/February 2003 edition of Foreign Policy that Saddam approached the U.S. to find out how it would react to an invasion into Kuwait. Along with Glaspie's comment that "'[W]e have no opinion on the Arab–Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.' The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had 'no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.' The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."^[11]

^{Above, taken from here.}

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie}

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe you should read the rest of your link.

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

[Chicog]

Well he gave them fair warning to stop drilling under the border into Iraq's reserves. I don't think he had any other aspirations.

Probably would have done little harm if the US had left him alone. I'm guessing he would have cleared all their oil kit, pushed the border back a bit and gone home.

[Morch]

We Americans sure opened this can 'o worms.

If only Saddam had not been involved in the 9/11 terror attacks against the US.

My mistake, I meant if only Saddam did not have an active WMD program and a stockpile of those WMD's then the US would never had to go in there.

Not arguing the bogus reasons for the previous USA intervention.

That said, Saddam did not exactly stabilize the region - Iraq was actually at odds with most neighboring countries at one point

or another, during his reign. Even disregarding that, and seeing him as a necessary evil, how were things supposed to go on

after him? Far as I recall, he did a good job of cutting down to size most eligible alternative leaders likely to have carried on.

The mess Iraq is in, or something similar, was always brewing under the surface. Just a question of time and circumstances

as to when it would come to a head.

Some valid points; however, we removed whatever chance there was for a peaceful transition when we destroyed the entire countries infrastructure with our "shock & awe" and did not provide the Iraqi people time to prepare for the eventual vacuum that would have occurred when he died or was ousted from power by fellow Iraqis.

Was it even a decade later that the Arab spring took place?

And in the process, we lost the credibility the US once held globally, we showed our enemies that our military can't even fight small wars effectively and that we don't have enough military to even fight two regional wars, we cost many American and Allied soldiers loss of life, and left many more seriously injured and absent limbs, we spent a trillion of taxpayer dollars and we have witnessed how many tens of thousands of Iraqis killed both before and during this civil war and the violence is growing worse.

And regardless who voted for it, the war drums were beaten by an administration of neo-cons with proven interest in attacking Iraq prior to 9/11 and who made fictitious ties between 9/11 and saddam in oder to manipulate the country into doing their dirty work and furthering their own business interests.

What peaceful transition do you imagine there would have been if Saddam was deposed by rivals or died of old age? There wasn't anyone in a position to take charge. Yes, he was grooming his sons for the job, but would probably have ended the same way Syria did. Youngsters weren't up to it.

They would have had the same crisis (that is, splitting up to three distinctive groups) either way. Infrastructure nothing to do with this.

Like I said, no beef with the bogus reasons for going to war in the first place. And like most wars, there are many bad side effects. That is by no means unique.

[chuckd]

I might ask you the same question about the history lesson you so obligingly provided us.

The US had nothing to do with Saddam's rise to power. He did it the old fashioned way, through intrigue and back room deals following a couple of coups. He was ruthless during his rise in the Ba'ath Party and the immediate years following the coup in 1968. He either murdered his opposition or had somebody do it for him.

The CIA were supporting him and the Ba'ath party from 1963 to prise Iraq from Russian influence.

The coup that brought the Ba'ath Party to power in 1963 was celebrated by the United States.

The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition.

US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time.

"I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them," he told me.

"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".

This happy co-existence lasted right through the 1980s.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power in Iran in 1979, America set about turning Saddam Hussein into Our Man in the Gulf Region.

Washington gave Baghdad intelligence support.

President Reagan sent a special presidential envoy to Baghdad to talk to Saddam in person.

The envoy's name was Donald Rumsfeld.

Ah yes, and the "We did not sell them chemical weapons" is just plausible deniability, you simply sold them the raw materials and the instruction manual.

Oh and helped them in all sorts of other ways in that war.

That's why I found it so funny when all of sudden he became the bad guy.

Your effort to pin the rise of Saddam on the US is fruitless.

Your original claim was..." ignoring the fact that the US put Saddam in power and funded him through an eight year war against their new arch-enemy".

Now you come up with the following quote from some unattributed article that you use to support your position that the US "put Saddam in power".

Your own link says..."The CIA had a hand in it. They had funded the Ba'ath Party - of which Saddam Hussein was a young member - when it was in opposition."

I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around how the CIA funding of a political party where Saddam was claimed to be a "young member", suddenly changed into "the US put Saddam in power."

What am I missing here? Anybody?