Iraq has dropped off of the news cycle in North America. We’re finished with the whole thing. The American presence in Iraq is still costing billions of dollars and hundreds of innocent lives on the ground. A shaky measure of stability has been achieved but nothing resembling a stable safe nation has yet been established.
“A suicide car bomber has killed at least four policemen and injured 10 outside a police station in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, an official in the interior ministry has said.
The attacker drove a vehicle packed with explosives into a gathering of police during a shift change at a station in the mainly Shia Amil district, in the southwestern area of Baghdad, the source said on Sunday.
This is the latest in a series of attacks on official buildings, including those to do with crime and punishment.”
Iraq is now fractured along sectarian lines. Bombings, shootings, kidnappings are all par for the course in America’s hub of Freedom and Democracy in the middle east. I’m thinking though that the oil is now flowing into the correct hands and the correct people are now in power. The people of Iraq can now squabble and kill each other as much as their inane religion dictates them to do because it will not effect the important people in Iraq.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
4 comments
June 17, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist,
” Mission Accomplished “. Most definitely. Saddam Hussein is no longer offering money to the families of homicide bombers who kill Jews. Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs has moved on to Iran. Iraq is no longer a threat to it’s neighbors. Oil Production may again reach a point where it will be a factor in keeping World oil prices stable. The Islamic Terrorist world knows that the US will push back hard, when attacked.
That last point is the most important. You Liberals never learned the lessons of WW2 or the cold war.
Yes siree bob, mission accomplished .
LikeLike
June 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm
The Arbourist
Saddam Hussein is no longer offering money to the families of homicide bombers who kill Jews.
Saddam Hussein whom the US gave its unwaivering support to for a decade is gone. The above activity was “ok” when he was on the US’s side. Only when he was not singing from the US song book are his atrocities even mentioned.
Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs has moved on to Iran.
Iraq did not have any WMDs at the time of the second gulf war. Personally I would be more worried about the nukes in Pakistan as that country is spiralling toward sectarian violence with a dash of religious inanity thrown in just for fun.
Iraq is no longer a threat to it’s neighbors.
No, just to the world as Iraq is a hotbed of anti-American sentiments and terrorism.
Oil Production may again reach a point where it will be a factor in keeping World oil prices stable.
How dare Iraq sell its own oil for a reasonable price. You seem to toss words in like ‘stability’ euphemistically meaning a price that is good for the Western world. The destruction of Iraq may have been good for the western economies, but most certainly not for the people of Iraq who get to watch as their oil wealth disappears into the hands of western oil producers.
The Islamic Terrorist world knows that the US will push back hard, when attacked.
The oppressed people are learning that they can beat the US if they are prepared to sacrifice their country and their immediate future. The US has not ‘won’ in Iraq by any sense of the word. Chaos looms just under the surface of a fractured, sectarian society. Law and order does not exist outside of the Green Zone in Iraq.
Afghanistan will continue to deplete American resources and take American lives. Iran is the third front that I predict will break the US’s back economically as fighting three prolonged counter insurgencies will bankrupt the nation.
You Liberals never learned the lessons of WW2 or the cold war.
I do believe some of us have, it is just that different people take different lessons from WW2 and the Cold War.
LikeLike
June 18, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Alan Scott
Arbourist,
Please forgive me if you object to my dropping the word ” The ” . It’s so formal.
” Saddam Hussein whom the US gave its unwaivering support to for a decade is gone. The above activity was “ok” when he was on the US’s side. Only when he was not singing from the US song book are his atrocities even mentioned. ”
What you say is true, however life is not so simple or rather international politics is not so simple that your statement can stand alone without context . Sometimes you got to use scum to battle worse scum. You should know what I mean because Liberals are so into nuance .
OK, I mean that after the hostage crisis, the US decided to use any and all means to battle Iran . That of course meant Saddam. There is plenty O precedent. FDR and Winnie had no problem sacrificing men and ships in the North Sea to supply our bestest buddy crazy Joe Stalin to beat up on Corporal Adolph.
” The destruction of Iraq may have been good for the western economies, but most certainly not for the people of Iraq who get to watch as their oil wealth disappears into the hands of western oil producers. ”
I have so many problems with that statement that I don’t know where to begin. Under Saddam, by the way ever notice how much he looked like Stalin, none of Iraq’s oil wealth benefited the people. Hussein blew all the money on wars and Palaces. He also ruined Iraq’s oil capacity with really stupid short term actions in the oil fields .
I think that ordinary Iraqi’s have the potential to become embarrassingly wealthy under western companies.
” Iran is the third front that I predict will break the US’s back economically as fighting three prolonged counter insurgencies will bankrupt the nation. ”
Under Obama we are bankrupt. We’re just to stupid to know it . Could you send down some more bent Canadian nickels ? We need them.
” it is just that different people take different lessons from WW2 and the Cold War. ”
And what lessons did you learn ? This is a pop quiz.
LikeLike
June 20, 2010 at 2:19 pm
The Arbourist
Arbourist,
Please forgive me if you object to my dropping the word ” The ” . It’s so formal.
No problems here Mr.Scott.
Sometimes you got to use scum to battle worse scum. You should know what I mean because Liberals are so into nuance .
It is the first rule of Realpolitik. However, there exists a misconception in the US that the way the US acts with regards to foreign policy is somehow righteous and always ethically sound. It is a story designed to keep the generally moral masses from seeing the true face of international relations and how ugly they actually are. The difference between the sanitized version of US foreign policy and what it is has been diverging at a steadily increasing rate, because, I hypothesize, that the elite power base in the US is genuinely afraid of democracy. Providing a real picture of the decisions that need be made would seriously neuter their foreign policy goals.
Under Saddam, by the way ever notice how much he looked like Stalin,
George Bush looked (and generally acted) like a monkey. :) We’re even so far.
none of Iraq’s oil wealth benefited the people. Hussein blew all the money on wars and Palaces. He also ruined Iraq’s oil capacity with really stupid short term actions in the oil fields .
I would concede that life under Saddam Hussein was no joyride, but under his leadership he built a strong secular state that had a viable health care, educational and social welfare system. Now the methods he used to achieve those goals are deplorable and I certainly would not support them. It remains though Iraq once had a viable state that provided many services to the people of Iraq. Those services, (health, education) now are mere shadows of what they were.
it is just that different people take different lessons from WW2 and the Cold War. ”
And what lessons did you learn ? This is a pop quiz.
Some might point to the usefulness of the bi-polar divide when there were two superpowers, countries could feasibly develop with more independence as they could ‘play both sides of the fence’ to get concessions from either side of the cold war to support their nation. Was this a good trade off? I hesitate to say yes as the cold war was characterized by the constant threat of nuclear war and various flashpoints throughout the world as the USSR and the US vied for control.
I would say though that the unipolar system has proven too much for the US to handle, even with its amazing economic strength and military capacity. As the fortunes of the US wane, China will fill the void and we will become once again a bipolar world locked in struggle competing for what meagre resources the earth has left.
LikeLike