• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqis Think The US Is In Cahoots With Isis

Hey annata, Hussein would NEVER have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet! USFP in the ME is either incompetent, or is deliberately destabilizing the region.

'Thing is thatdictators never seem to live for ever. That makes "never" a rather relative thing. You see, one of the main problems with autocracy compared to democracy that makes the earlier less efficient is the transfer of power. It is often very messy and can from time to time be a really bloody affair.
And seeing that Iraq or Syria for that matter has major internal stress between the religious and ethnic groups and Iran is close to the largest of them, "never" is not as comforting as it sounds.

Considering that, it might have been wise to allow Iraq to split up. But that had other problems in tow. But forget the thought, that Bush is at fault for the mess in that area. The mess is the result of a thousand years of fighting and hatred. It is very much as in the Balkans only worse.

The Europeans hope. ;)
 
How exactly? How did the US force millions of Muslims to rise up against their respective dictators?

Seriously dude. Where did I say the US forced anything? Endorsed=forced????
 
'Thing is thatdictators never seem to live for ever. That makes "never" a rather relative thing. You see, one of the main problems with autocracy compared to democracy that makes the earlier less efficient is the transfer of power. It is often very messy and can from time to time be a really bloody affair.
And seeing that Iraq or Syria for that matter has major internal stress between the religious and ethnic groups and Iran is close to the largest of them, "never" is not as comforting as it sounds.

Considering that, it might have been wise to allow Iraq to split up. But that had other problems in tow. But forget the thought, that Bush is at fault for the mess in that area. The mess is the result of a thousand years of fighting and hatred. It is very much as in the Balkans only worse.

The Europeans hope. ;)

That democracy's are superior to dictatorships is indisputable. That has no bearing on my point that Hussein would NEVER have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet.
 
it's bungled FP. Add in the fact Iranian hegemony has now produced a real Shi'a Crescent w/Russia supplying logistics/firepower -
and you have Hezbollah in Syria, and Assad's reliance on Hez and Russia..
That's an effective power block. (Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon/Russia)

al-Maliki and Abadi are both beholden to Shi'a politicians. al-Maliki purged the army from Sunnis ( just like we did it of Baathists)
and the result is an Iraqi army that really is just a shell- the real powers are the Shiite militias,and Quds forces.

The Russian power block is also peeling off Egypt ( trade/weapons/) thanks to Obama's dithering by imposing sanction after the Morsi coupe
on el-Sisi. SA is busy in Yemen.

Syria is now really led by the Russian coalition. France knows this and is attempting coordiantion

Yep. I've been saying forever that USFP in the ME has had an opposite effect of it's stated mission.
 
BAIJI, Iraq — On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting American control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”
U.S. military officials say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a response. “It’s beyond ridiculous,” said Col. Steve Warren, the military’s Baghdad-based spokesman. “There’s clearly no one in the West who buys it, but unfortunately, this is something that a segment of the Iraqi population believes.”

The perception among Iraqis that the United States is somehow in cahoots with the militants it claims to be fighting appears, however, to be widespread across the country’s Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide, and it speaks to more than just the troubling legacy of mistrust that has clouded America’s relationship with Iraq since the 2003 invasion and the subsequent withdrawal eight years later.

At a time when attacks by the Islamic State in Paris and elsewhere have intensified calls for tougher action on the ground, such is the level of suspicion with which the United States is viewed in Iraq that it is unclear whether the Obama administration would be able to significantly escalate its involvement even if it wanted to.

“What influence can we have if they think we are supporting the terrorists?” asked Kirk Sowell, an analyst based in neighboring Jordan who publishes the newsletter Inside Iraqi Politics.

In one example of how little leverage the United States now has, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi pushed back swiftly against an announcement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter that an expeditionary force of U.S. troops will be dispatched to Iraq to conduct raids, free hostages and capture Islamic State leaders.

Carter did not say how many soldiers would be deployed or where. Iraq’s semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, where support for the United States remains strong, has said it would welcome more troops. But Abadi indicated they would not be needed.

“There is no need for foreign ground combat troops,” he said in a statement. “Any such support and special operations anywhere in Iraq can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty.”

The allegations of American collusion with the Islamic State are aired regularly in parliament by Shiite politicians and promoted in postings on social media. They are persistent enough to suggest a deliberate campaign on the part of Iran’s allies in Iraq to erode American influence, U.S. officials say.

In one typical recent video that appeared on the Facebook page of a Shiite militia, a lawmaker with the country’s biggest militia group, the Badr Organization, waves apparently new U.S military MREs (meals ready to eat) — one of them chicken and dumplings — allegedly found at a recently captured Islamic State base in Baiji, offering proof, he said, of U.S. support.

“The Iranians and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda, that the United States is supporting ISIL,” Warren said. “It’s part of the Iranian propaganda machine.”

The perception plays into a widening rift within Iraq’s ruling Shiite elite over whether to pivot more toward Iran or the United States. Those pushing the allegations “want to create a narrative that Iran is our ally and the United States is our enemy, and this undermines Abadi, who is America’s ally, Sowell said.


Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war

Thanks Obama
 
That democracy's are superior to dictatorships is indisputable. That has no bearing on my point that Hussein would NEVER have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet.

I think I also mentioned that one should not think that anyone can prevent things for ever. Even dictators die. NEVER is a false concept here and using it leads to wrong conclusions.
 
Seriously dude. Where did I say the US forced anything? Endorsed=forced????

The US endorses democracy around the world, all they did was endorse the idea of political freedom. What came after was not what the US endorsed.
 
The US endorses democracy around the world, all they did was endorse the idea of political freedom*. What came after was not what the US endorsed.

* As long as the democratic forces were pro US.


Fixed that for you.
 
BAIJI, Iraq — On the front lines of the battle against the Islamic State, suspicion of the United States runs deep. Iraqi fighters say they have all seen the videos purportedly showing U.S. helicopters airdropping weapons to the militants, and many claim they have friends and relatives who have witnessed similar instances of collusion.

Ordinary people also have seen the videos, heard the stories and reached the same conclusion — one that might seem absurd to Americans but is widely believed among Iraqis — that the United States is supporting the Islamic State for a variety of pernicious reasons that have to do with asserting American control over Iraq, the wider Middle East and, perhaps, its oil.

“It is not in doubt,” said Mustafa Saadi, who says his friend saw U.S. helicopters delivering bottled water to Islamic State positions. He is a commander in one of the Shiite militias that last month helped push the militants out of the oil refinery near Baiji in northern Iraq alongside the Iraqi army.

The Islamic State is “almost finished,” he said. “They are weak. If only America would stop supporting them, we could defeat them in days.”
U.S. military officials say the charges are too far-fetched to merit a response. “It’s beyond ridiculous,” said Col. Steve Warren, the military’s Baghdad-based spokesman. “There’s clearly no one in the West who buys it, but unfortunately, this is something that a segment of the Iraqi population believes.”

The perception among Iraqis that the United States is somehow in cahoots with the militants it claims to be fighting appears, however, to be widespread across the country’s Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide, and it speaks to more than just the troubling legacy of mistrust that has clouded America’s relationship with Iraq since the 2003 invasion and the subsequent withdrawal eight years later.

At a time when attacks by the Islamic State in Paris and elsewhere have intensified calls for tougher action on the ground, such is the level of suspicion with which the United States is viewed in Iraq that it is unclear whether the Obama administration would be able to significantly escalate its involvement even if it wanted to.

“What influence can we have if they think we are supporting the terrorists?” asked Kirk Sowell, an analyst based in neighboring Jordan who publishes the newsletter Inside Iraqi Politics.

In one example of how little leverage the United States now has, Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi pushed back swiftly against an announcement Tuesday by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter that an expeditionary force of U.S. troops will be dispatched to Iraq to conduct raids, free hostages and capture Islamic State leaders.

Carter did not say how many soldiers would be deployed or where. Iraq’s semiautonomous region of Kurdistan, where support for the United States remains strong, has said it would welcome more troops. But Abadi indicated they would not be needed.

“There is no need for foreign ground combat troops,” he said in a statement. “Any such support and special operations anywhere in Iraq can only be deployed subject to the approval of the Iraqi Government and in coordination with the Iraqi forces and with full respect to Iraqi sovereignty.”

The allegations of American collusion with the Islamic State are aired regularly in parliament by Shiite politicians and promoted in postings on social media. They are persistent enough to suggest a deliberate campaign on the part of Iran’s allies in Iraq to erode American influence, U.S. officials say.

In one typical recent video that appeared on the Facebook page of a Shiite militia, a lawmaker with the country’s biggest militia group, the Badr Organization, waves apparently new U.S military MREs (meals ready to eat) — one of them chicken and dumplings — allegedly found at a recently captured Islamic State base in Baiji, offering proof, he said, of U.S. support.

“The Iranians and the Iranian-backed Shiite militias are really pushing this line of propaganda, that the United States is supporting ISIL,” Warren said. “It’s part of the Iranian propaganda machine.”

The perception plays into a widening rift within Iraq’s ruling Shiite elite over whether to pivot more toward Iran or the United States. Those pushing the allegations “want to create a narrative that Iran is our ally and the United States is our enemy, and this undermines Abadi, who is America’s ally, Sowell said.


Iraqis think the U.S. is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and it is hurting the war

Starting to realize reality!
 
The US endorses democracy around the world, all they did was endorse the idea of political freedom. What came after was not what the US endorsed.

I guess the neo fascists in Kiev like democracy?:lol:
 
At least Americans aren't the only ones into conspiracy theories.
 
At least Americans aren't the only ones into conspiracy theories.

You mean people that don't listen to state department propaganda? Oh yeah really tinfoil hatters *sigh*.
 
I think I also mentioned that one should not think that anyone can prevent things for ever. Even dictators die. NEVER is a false concept here and using it leads to wrong conclusions.

Iraq wouldn't have become a democracy upon the death of Hussein anymore than Syria did upon the death of the elder Assad. The US has proven by the failed States of Iraq and Libya and it's attempts in Syria that itself is a failure with regards to foreign policy.
 
Iraq wouldn't have become a democracy upon the death of Hussein anymore than Syria did upon the death of the elder Assad. The US has proven by the failed States of Iraq and Libya and it's attempts in Syria that itself is a failure with regards to foreign policy.

That was not the point. You said never and I said never was longer than that dictator could guarantee.

And as to your little mantra, there is no proof in that pudding, only some things to learn. And those are not, what you seem to believe.
 
The US endorses democracy around the world, all they did was endorse the idea of political freedom. What came after was not what the US endorsed.

The US does not endorse democracy beyond lip service. Do you really think governments are noble, moral, just or benevolent? The US pursues it's strategic interests around the world with whatever leverage answers best. If it's overthrowing left wing democracies in Latin America to install right wing dictatorships, that is used. If it's to support a violent protest that drives an elected government they don't like out of office, it will be that, if it's propping up dictatorial regimes, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, that's what they will do. Back off on the sanctimonious self righteous rhetoric.
 
That was not the point. You said never and I said never was longer than that dictator could guarantee.

And as to your little mantra, there is no proof in that pudding, only some things to learn. And those are not, what you seem to believe.

I said that Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet, and I stand by that, he never would have.
 
I said that Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet, and I stand by that, he never would have.

The never was bolded switching the emphasis. But, if you meant it like he would allow it over his dead body, you'd have the point.
 
The US does not endorse democracy beyond lip service. Do you really think governments are noble, moral, just or benevolent? The US pursues it's strategic interests around the world with whatever leverage answers best. If it's overthrowing left wing democracies in Latin America to install right wing dictatorships, that is used. If it's to support a violent protest that drives an elected government they don't like out of office, it will be that, if it's propping up dictatorial regimes, Saudi Arabia/Pakistan, that's what they will do. Back off on the sanctimonious self righteous rhetoric.


I think that despite it's critics the US is our best bet for a free and progressive world. Since the end of WW2 the US has led the way in humanitarian aid, tech advances and has helped make a world smaller. Being the country in power of course comes with it's drawbacks one of them being the fact that they will be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't in many regions,
 
The never was bolded switching the emphasis. But, if you meant it like he would allow it over his dead body, you'd have the point.

I know what emphasis I intended with my post. That Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet is exactly what I meant then and now. All your doing is deflecting from the point that was intended in my post, which is that it's Bush/Obama Iraq policy that has given Iraq to Iran. ;)
 
I think that despite it's critics the US is our best bet for a free and progressive world. Since the end of WW2 the US has led the way in humanitarian aid, tech advances and has helped make a world smaller. Being the country in power of course comes with it's drawbacks one of them being the fact that they will be dammed if they do and dammed if they don't in many regions,

Well you keep on thinking. In the meantime, the US with a little help from their friends is ruining the ME.
 
And this is why we should leave and let them kill each other.
 
I know what emphasis I intended with my post. That Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet is exactly what I meant then and now. All your doing is deflecting from the point that was intended in my post, which is that it's Bush/Obama Iraq policy that has given Iraq to Iran. ;)

Not quite yet, but the danger is certainly there. But that risk was there all the while. Dictators die and then "never" is no longer never.

If you were arguing a different policy mix after hjs removal would have been better, I would agree. The same is true for Libya. That is the lesson.
 
Not quite yet, but the danger is certainly there. But that risk was there all the while. Dictators die and then "never" is no longer never.

If you were arguing a different policy mix after hjs removal would have been better, I would agree. The same is true for Libya. That is the lesson.

Games all. I pointed out that Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet, and he never would have. That was a gift from America.
 
Games all. I pointed out that Hussein would never have allowed Iraq to become an Iranian puppet, and he never would have. That was a gift from America.

Of course you are wrong, because the dictator would have died and the certainty you imply with "never" would have been no more.
 
Of course you are wrong, because the dictator would have died and the certainty you imply with "never" would have been no more.

You're still deflecting. The certainty of never is clear. You are probably the only one that thinks Hussein would have allowed Iraq to become controlled by Shia. And he NEVER did, that was something Bush did after Hussein was killed.
 
Back
Top Bottom