Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Val Keating]

My understanding wasn't that they didn't hit Iraq hard enough. They basically sacked the entire army which then provided large numbers of trained soldiers who were highly susceptible to approaches by the various sectarian forces. The US actually managed the war quite well. The "peace" was one of history's all-time great cluster fu**s. Rumsfeld and Cheney have a lot to answer for.

I’m just going off what I’ve heard from Jocko. When the Americans hit Iraq in the first war they were surprised by how quickly and easily they defeated the Iraqis so the second time around the politicians didn’t let them use as much fire power. The politicians also wouldn’t let them use anyone that had anything to do with the Saddam’s army and office, leaving a lot of fighting age males without a purpose, effectively turning them into a rebel force.

 

[Val Keating]

You're hugely understating what the US did during the invasion and occupation.

They destroyed entire cities.

I’m not. It’s probably just my way of posting that makes it seem that way. It’s just strange to me that people hold Americans to a higher standard than the previous people that ran that jail. No one even talks about what happened there under Saddam.

 

[Del191229]

Just out of interest, have there ever been any illegitimate rapes in your view?

If you mean do false reports/accusations occur - of course they do.

But if we were to compare the number of rapes which aren't reported, and those are reported yet never get charged, and those that do get charged but are then not proven in court vs the number of false accusations, especially false accusations that actually lead to innocents being jailed, I know which would be far higher.

 

[Snake_Baker]

If you mean do false reports/accusations occur - of course they do.

Well gee thanks. Shelve the kindergarten crap.

 

[DesertRoo]

Yea, but he wasn’t completely ‘their’ guy now was he. The first gulf war made that abundantly clear. He threatened the oil and other semi-dependent powers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

That’s all well and good for Israel, but their security doctrine does little for US strategy in Iraq. In line with the reasons stated above, the yanks pissed in all those resources into state building a country largely built on their own US republican systems and they wasted at least 6 years on combating an insurgency when they could have easily have pulled out, which costed around $1.9 trillion. They don't harp about a stable global rules-based order for nothing. The policies largely failed for not so deliberate reasons, including historical ignorance. Policy intent is far different from policy results.

A destabilised Iraq, or later stabilised under a post civil war regime akin to an ISIS government, is more unpredictable and likely to attack Israel in the long-term anyway. Instability in Iraq and Syria has only increased Iranian influence and power in those countries, so great Yinon doctrine. I have major doubts that the Yinon plan was even an official doctrine, and that it was instead a far right pipe dream like Chomsky suggests. But I rather not waste our morning discussing the legitimacy of Yinon.

I agree with Chomsky that the Yinon plan was some sort of pipe dream..
But completely disagree with the US wanting destabilised Iraq.. they hand picked death squads to target minorities and implemented the Salvador option.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I agree with Chomsky that the Yinon plan was some sort of pipe dream..
But completely disagree with the US wanting destabilised Iraq.. they hand picked death squads to target minorities and implemented the Salvador option.

The beauty of agree to disagree.

 

[Del191229]

Yea, but he wasn’t completely ‘their’ guy now was he. The first gulf war made that abundantly clear. He threatened the oil and other semi-dependent powers in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

There's a school of thought that we was encouraged to think he could have Kuwait as a reward for his efforts in the 80s.

A destabilised Iraq, or later stabilised under a post civil war regime akin to an ISIS government, is more unpredictable and likely to attack Israel in the long-term anyway. Instability in Iraq and Syria has only increased Iranian influence and power in those countries, so great Yinon doctrine. I have major doubts that the Yinon plan was even an official doctrine, and that it was instead a far right pipe dream like Chomsky suggests. But I rather not waste our morning discussing the legitimacy of Yinon.

But it can't develop weapons or capabilities that would actually threaten Israel.

Israel was very chummy with Daesh on its southern front, treating wounded daesh in its hospitals, arming its fighters and providing cover when Syrian government forces got a bit too close to winning.

 

[Del191229]

I’m not. It’s probably just my way of posting that makes it seem that way. It’s just strange to me that people hold Americans to a higher standard than the previous people that ran that jail. No one even talks about what happened there under Saddam.

One thing that happened under Saddam was that minorities could live in peace without fear of being attacked and enslaved by their neighbours, Christians were in the highest level of government and Al Qaeda were crushed and in those torture cells you describe.

 

[DesertRoo]

The beauty of agree to disagree.

I’ll point to exhibit A) El Salvador, after the civil war 30 years ago it’s still one of the most dangerous places on earth. That’s not by accident and if you put the same people in charge with the same plan to implement. Kind of makes you wonder if they were aiming for the same out come..

 

[Del191229]

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

There's a school of thought that we was encouraged to think he could have Kuwait as a reward for his efforts in the 80s.



But it can't develop weapons or capabilities that would actually threaten Israel.

Israel was very chummy with Daesh on its southern front, treating wounded daesh in its hospitals, arming its fighters and providing cover when Syrian government forces got a bit too close to winning.

Interesting school of thought, who developed that viewpoint? Never mind, I pretty much forgot about the embassy cables.

 

[DesertRoo]

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I’ll point to exhibit A) El Salvador, after the civil war 30 years ago it’s still one of the most dangerous places on earth. That’s not by accident and if you put the same people in charge with the same plan to implement. Kind of makes you wonder if they were aiming for the same out come..

US dictated stability. Place their local guys into state power to secure US goals, but ignore crap like death squads as best you can. It is the same in Afghanistan. Make deals with crummy warlords to secure an element of US-determined stability. Make them the devil you know and make them as pliable and strong as possible.

 

[DesertRoo]

Interesting school of thought, who developed that viewpoint?

I think there was a leaked cable, with Saddam and the US, where they didn’t say no..
I’ll see if I can dig it up.
Edit

Gulf War Documents: Meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie - Global Research

Saddam-Glaspie meeting Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. – July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait) (published on GR on March 5, 2012) July 25, 1990 – Presidential Palace – Baghdad U.S...

www.globalresearch.ca

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I think there was a leaked cable, with Saddam and the US, where they didn’t say no..
I’ll see if I can dig it up.

Found it. It was April Glaspie, almost forgot about her. Basically we don’t take positions stance.

Glaspie took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.

 

[Val Keating]

One thing that happened under Saddam was that minorities could live in peace without fear of being attacked and enslaved by their neighbours, Christians were in the highest level of government and Al Qaeda were crushed and in those torture cells you describe.

For the most part. Though Saddam did his fair share of torturing. That’s where a lot of the Isis guys learned it.

 

[DesertRoo]

US dictated stability. Place their local guys into state power to secure US goals, but ignore crap like death squads as best you can. It is the same in Afghanistan. Make deals with crummy warlords to secure an element of US-determined stability. Make them the devil you know and make them as pliable and strong as possible.

But you can’t ignore death squads, especially when the specific goal to create sectarian violence…
Especially when those death squats were hand picked, trained and given immunity from prosecution..

 

[Val Keating]

I’m not defending America, I’m just saying let’s not forget how evil Saddams Iraq was

 

[DesertRoo]

Found it. It was April Glaspie, almost forgot about her. Basically we don’t take positions stance.

Glaspie took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That's standard. That's what you always say. You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.

Not disagreeing, would’ve been interesting to be a fly on the wall during some of those meetings..

but it was about context, a couple of years after Iran/Iraq war ended ‘88 Saddam goes off to tell the Americans he needs to build back his country to fight Iran, he’s going to take some oil fields for $$ then most likely go back for round two..

Americans just nod along..
lost in translation, we’ll never know.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

But you can’t ignore death squads, especially when the specific goal to create sectarian violence…
Especially when those death squats were hand picked, trained and given immunity from prosecution..

Were they created for never ending sectarian violence that nearly completely drained the US economy over 6 years, or were they created to combat any potential insurgents that supposedly threatened wider stability during a period of state-building. Like in El Salvador, their guys were used to crush a specific opposition (insurgents and others) to help stabilise the regime in favour of US interests. Again, similar to Afghanistan. Support absolute scumbags as long as they contributed to some form of regime stability.

 

[Val Keating]

The troops used to find torture chambers (garages) from the smell...

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Not disagreeing, would’ve been interesting to be a fly on the wall during some of those meetings..

but it was about context, a couple of years after Iran/Iraq war ended ‘88 Saddam goes off to tell the Americans he needs to build back his country to fight Iran, he’s going to take some oil fields for $$ then most likely go back for round two..

Americans just nod along..
lost in translation, we’ll never know.

There's plenty of disputes about it from what I read, interesting stuff.

 

[DesertRoo]

Were they created for never ending sectarian violence that nearly completely drained the US economy over 6 years, or were they created to combat any potential insurgents that supposedly threatened wider stability during a period of state-building. Like in El Salvador, their guys were used to crush a specific opposition (insurgents and others) to help stabilise the regime in favour of US interests.

Didn’t drain US economy, transferred public dollars into the private sector..

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Didn’t drain US economy, transferred public dollars into the private sector..

To an extent, yes, but it also meant more national debt as the GFC started up. Really compounded the GFC's effects tbh. Military sustainment costs are ridiculous.

 

[DesertRoo]

To an extent, yes, but it also meant more national debt as the GFC started up. Really compounded the GFC's effects tbh. Military sustainment costs are ridiculous.

Military sustainment cost are ridiculous because War is corporate welfare..
realistically soliders/man power are cheap source of labour..
Everything else which is way over priced and expensive..