Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Timsvill]

All our hard work! To make sure this type of thing doesn't happen in iraq! Gone down the drain. Am I the only one feeling like all that work for nothing?

Iraq was for nothing? Golly, who knew!

The war was for helping bring peace into that region! Bring down the leader that supported terrorist and was suppressing his people!

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Sunni and Shia extremists have been at eachother's throats for years. Even moderates often find differences. The issue here is that the Shi'ites are probably the best option for a local response against Sunni extremism. Bringing in non-Muslim forces threatens to bring in some of the moderates on the side of the extremists or even worse, potentially cause a temporary alliance among the two extremist camps.

As a tactical measure, maybe. But in the long run, arming and pitting Shia Muslims against their Sunni counterparts could provide a vacuum for Shia extremists to take over. And at the same time, you frighten moderate Sunnis who will think their worst fears about armed Shias is coming true. You also have the potential to widen the rift between these two groups in Iraq. But that's my own theory, I suppose anything could happen given the screwed up state of affairs now.

[Dracoria]

Sunni and Shia extremists have been at eachother's throats for years. Even moderates often find differences. The issue here is that the Shi'ites are probably the best option for a local response against Sunni extremism. Bringing in non-Muslim forces threatens to bring in some of the moderates on the side of the extremists or even worse, potentially cause a temporary alliance among the two extremist camps.

As a tactical measure, maybe. But in the long run, arming and pitting Shia Muslims against their Sunni counterparts could provide a vacuum for Shia extremists to take over. And at the same time, you frighten moderate Sunnis who will think their worst fears about armed Shias is coming true. You also have the potential to widen the rift between these two groups in Iraq. But that's my own theory, I suppose anything could happen given the screwed up state of affairs now.

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

[Geilinor]

As a tactical measure, maybe. But in the long run, arming and pitting Shia Muslims against their Sunni counterparts could provide a vacuum for Shia extremists to take over. And at the same time, you frighten moderate Sunnis who will think their worst fears about armed Shias is coming true. You also have the potential to widen the rift between these two groups in Iraq. But that's my own theory, I suppose anything could happen given the screwed up state of affairs now.

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

What could be worse than full-on Sunni-Shia war?

[Blakk Metal]

As a tactical measure, maybe. But in the long run, arming and pitting Shia Muslims against their Sunni counterparts could provide a vacuum for Shia extremists to take over. And at the same time, you frighten moderate Sunnis who will think their worst fears about armed Shias is coming true. You also have the potential to widen the rift between these two groups in Iraq. But that's my own theory, I suppose anything could happen given the screwed up state of affairs now.

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

[Dracoria]

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

That's because nowadays people get all upset about little things like slavery and indiscriminant killing, and the locals have gotten all uppity and demand to rule themselves for some crazy reason.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

Get the British in to provide military support. They and the West have as much stake in this conflict as the Middle-Eastern states.

[Blakk Metal]

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

That's because nowadays people get all upset about little things like slavery and indiscriminant killing, and the locals have gotten all uppity and demand to rule themselves for some crazy reason.

Don't give that bullshit. The aftermath of the Second Indochinese War killed and enslaved millions.

[Viritica]

Iraq was for nothing? Golly, who knew!

The war was for helping bring peace into that region! Bring down the leader that supported terrorist and was suppressing his people!

You know, I think Saddam was a dick just as much as the next guy but at least he kept Iraq stable... Relatively.

[Saruhan]

The war was for helping bring peace into that region! Bring down the leader that supported terrorist and was suppressing his people!

You know, I think Saddam was a dick just as much as the next guy but at least he kept Iraq stable... Relatively.

Unless he was genociding his ethnic minorities and making the majority of the population live in fear due to their religion

[Dracoria]

That's because nowadays people get all upset about little things like slavery and indiscriminant killing, and the locals have gotten all uppity and demand to rule themselves for some crazy reason.

Don't give that bullshit. The aftermath of the Second Indochinese War killed and enslaved millions.

Let me rephrase that, then. Nowadays people get all upset about little things like slavery and indiscriminant killing by westerners, and the locals have gotten all uppity and demand to rule themselves for some reason unless brutally repressed in a way the west doesn't have the heart to do publically anymore.

[Dracoria]

You know, I think Saddam was a dick just as much as the next guy but at least he kept Iraq stable... Relatively.

Unless he was genociding his ethnic minorities and making the majority of the population live in fear due to their religion

Or invading his neighbors to plunder their resources.

[Saiwania]

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

North Vietnam had both China and the USSR as allies which didn't allow for any ground invasion on the part of the US. China would have intervened as it did in the Korean war, if an advance to Hanoi was made. The US did however try to move into Cambodia to put a dent in the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Afghanistan? It is the graveyard of empires, it was invaded plenty of times but very few occupiers have succeeded in governing it.

Iraq? The US didn't anticipate or foresee that Syria would fall into civil war and that it would spill over into Iraq, which proved to be too weak to hold its own.

The US has suffered setbacks and defeats, but it was never for lack of trying.

[Viritica]

You know, I think Saddam was a dick just as much as the next guy but at least he kept Iraq stable... Relatively.

Unless he was genociding his ethnic minorities and making the majority of the population live in fear due to their religion

And the ISIS would be better because...

[Geilinor]

Unless he was genociding his ethnic minorities and making the majority of the population live in fear due to their religion

And the ISIS would be better because...

Criticizing Saddam doesn't mean you support ISIS.

[Blakk Metal]

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

North Vietnam had both China and the USSR as allies which didn't allow for any ground invasion on the part of the US. China would have intervened as it did in the Korean war, if an advance to Hanoi was made. The US did however try to move into Cambodia to put a dent in the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Are you shitting me? One was run by a committee decadent parasites who were in it for the free shit, and the other spent much of the SIC War in complete chaos and disarray. There was no way they were going to put up a serious fight in North Vietnam, and the outcome of Chinese intervention would be way better than what happened after the war was lost.

Iraq? The US didn't anticipate or foresee that Syria would fall into civil war and that it would spill over into Iraq, which proved to be too weak to hold its own.

Iraq was a wreck before Syria blew up.

The US has suffered setbacks and defeats, but it was never for lack of trying.

It was entirely for lack of trying.

[Senkaku]

North Vietnam had both China and the USSR as allies which didn't allow for any ground invasion on the part of the US. China would have intervened as it did in the Korean war, if an advance to Hanoi was made. The US did however try to move into Cambodia to put a dent in the Ho Chi Minh trail.

Are you shitting me? One was run by a committee decadent parasites who were in it for the free shit, and the other spent much of the SIC War in complete chaos and disarray. There was no way they were going to put up a serious fight in North Vietnam, and the outcome of Chinese intervention would be way better than what happened after the war was lost.

Iraq? The US didn't anticipate or foresee that Syria would fall into civil war and that it would spill over into Iraq, which proved to be too weak to hold its own.

Iraq was a wreck before Syria blew up.

The US has suffered setbacks and defeats, but it was never for lack of trying.

It was entirely for lack of trying.

Oh, right, you know why we lost in Vietnam?


We sure as hell didn't try hard enough. My Lai, Agent Orange, the countless numbers of bombs expended on Hanoi, the Tonkin Incident, the spreading of the war to Laos and Cambodia... yeah, we weren't really trying. That was the real problem.

If you have better ideas, I'm sure the US State Department has a phone number.

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Well, these things called guns, land mines, and nationalism have become rather problematic for those trying to do some good-ol'-fashioned imperialism these days.

And there is a major difference. The European Great Powers colonized. They did not occupy and set up puppet new governments, they incorporated things into their empires. If the US had done that I actually think we'd have had far more success, but instead we always knew: eventually we're going to leave so they can do things themselves.

[Kelmet]

The US has suffered setbacks and defeats, but it was never for lack of trying.

It was entirely for lack of trying.

I am as an america saying, we definitely fucked up in withdrawing from Iraq like we did.

[Senkaku]

The US has suffered setbacks and defeats, but it was never for lack of trying.

It was entirely for lack of trying.

I am as an america saying, we definitely fucked up in withdrawing from Iraq like we did.

Yes, perhaps we should have made sure the soldiers we trained would actually fight instead of scattering like the armies of Song China before the Mongols. Or just made some bullshit treaty and divied Iraq up into three like the Ottomans, since they knew what they were doing and Churchill didn't.

Edit: although, as a fellow American, I'm sure you would agree our losses in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq have certainly not been for lack of trying.

[Blakk Metal]

Are you shitting me? One was run by a committee decadent parasites who were in it for the free shit, and the other spent much of the SIC War in complete chaos and disarray. There was no way they were going to put up a serious fight in North Vietnam, and the outcome of Chinese intervention would be way better than what happened after the war was lost.

Iraq was a wreck before Syria blew up.

It was entirely for lack of trying.

Oh, right, you know why we lost in Vietnam?


We sure as hell didn't try hard enough. My Lai, Agent Orange, the countless numbers of bombs expended on Hanoi, the Tonkin Incident, the spreading of the war to Laos and Cambodia... yeah, we weren't really trying. That was the real problem.

That was indeed the real problem. If they had invade North Vietnam, kicked Ho Chi Min out and put in a new government, like the US did to Japan after the Pacific War, the US would expunged Stalinism from the area.

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Well, these things called guns, land mines, and nationalism have become rather problematic for those trying to do some good-ol'-fashioned imperialism these days.

And there is a major difference. The European Great Powers colonized. They did not occupy and set up puppet new governments, they incorporated things into their empires. If the US had done that I actually think we'd have had far more success, but instead we always knew: eventually we're going to leave so they can do things themselves.

Guns, land mines, and nationalism didn't save Japan or Germany from being turned into puppets.

[United Marxist Nations]

Oh, right, you know why we lost in Vietnam?


We sure as hell didn't try hard enough. My Lai, Agent Orange, the countless numbers of bombs expended on Hanoi, the Tonkin Incident, the spreading of the war to Laos and Cambodia... yeah, we weren't really trying. That was the real problem.

That was indeed the real problem. If they had invade North Vietnam, kicked Ho Chi Min out and put in a new government, like the US did to Japan after the Pacific War, the US would expunged Stalinism from the area.

Killing a measly few million in the process, as well as crushing any hope they had to not be a Western puppet state.

[Blakk Metal]

That was indeed the real problem. If they had invade North Vietnam, kicked Ho Chi Min out and put in a new government, like the US did to Japan after the Pacific War, the US would expunged Stalinism from the area.

Killing a measly few million in the process,

Wars are deadly. Your point?

as well as crushing any hope they had to not be a Western puppet state.

But that's a good thing, from the US' perspective.

[Saiwania]

I am as an america saying, we definitely fucked up in withdrawing from Iraq like we did.

What can I say? Obama is a fool who was dead set on withdrawing from Iraq the moment he became president and he sided against Assad thinking that he could replicate the outcome of what happened in Libya. Whoops! This time the rebels turned out to be terrorists.

[Senkaku]

Oh, right, you know why we lost in Vietnam?


We sure as hell didn't try hard enough. My Lai, Agent Orange, the countless numbers of bombs expended on Hanoi, the Tonkin Incident, the spreading of the war to Laos and Cambodia... yeah, we weren't really trying. That was the real problem.

That was indeed the real problem. If they had invade North Vietnam, kicked Ho Chi Min out and put in a new government, like the US did to Japan after the Pacific War, the US would expunged Stalinism from the area.

*coughcough*North Korea*coughcough*
Vietnam is not and never was Stalinist, btw. And that wasn't an option, for reasons I will mention below.

The US did that to North Korea. They invaded the country itself, steamrolled the KPA, and were going to eliminate North Korea from the annals of history, around a decade before Vietnam.
And Communist China, as many people seem to forget, did not like this, and deployed rather a lot of soldiers to stop them, which precipitated the end to US hopes of victory, a bloody stalemate, and thousands of dead on both sides.

In Vietnam, the Chinese were heavily aiding the Hanoi regime already (though after the US was kicked out relations cooled quite sharply). How do you think the Chinese would have reacted if US soldiers had marched on Hanoi? Do you think they would've reacted very nicely? The PLA would have swept down, whether the Vietnamese asked for it or not, and driven the US back to the established border, and preserved North Vietnam. The US knew this, so they just bombed Hanoi flat rather than invading.

Another reason the US didn't do this is because they saw how well it worked for the French. Which was quite badly.

Also, the US doctrine on Communism was "Containment", not "Active Extermination".

The US government is pathetic. Since 1964, it consistently failed to do what the European great powers were able to do ease. It couldn't occupy North Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Well, these things called guns, land mines, and nationalism have become rather problematic for those trying to do some good-ol'-fashioned imperialism these days.

And there is a major difference. The European Great Powers colonized. They did not occupy and set up puppet new governments, they incorporated things into their empires. If the US had done that I actually think we'd have had far more success, but instead we always knew: eventually we're going to leave so they can do things themselves.

Guns, land mines, and nationalism didn't save Japan or Germany from being turned into puppets.[/quote]
Because they were far better established prior to the invasion and the US cared much, much more about how they turned out. And also, when they were taken over, it was before the days of asymmetrical warfare and decolonization was only just starting.

[Blakk Metal]

That was indeed the real problem. If they had invade North Vietnam, kicked Ho Chi Min out and put in a new government, like the US did to Japan after the Pacific War, the US would expunged Stalinism from the area.

*coughcough*North Korea*coughcough*
Vietnam is not and never was Stalinist, btw. And that wasn't an option, for reasons I will mention below.

The US did that to North Korea. They invaded the country itself, steamrolled the KPA, and were going to eliminate North Korea from the annals of history, around a decade before Vietnam.
And Communist China, as many people seem to forget, did not like this, and deployed rather a lot of soldiers to stop them, which precipitated the end to US hopes of victory, a bloody stalemate, and thousands of dead on both sides.

In Vietnam, the Chinese were heavily aiding the Hanoi regime already (though after the US was kicked out relations cooled quite sharply). How do you think the Chinese would have reacted if US soldiers had marched on Hanoi? Do you think they would've reacted very nicely? The PLA would have swept down, whether the Vietnamese asked for it or not, and driven the US back to the established border, and preserved North Vietnam. The US knew this, so they just bombed Hanoi flat rather than invading.

How would they be able to defeat the US, when China was dealing with the disastrous Cultural Revolution? And besides, the Korean War ended with an American controlled South Korea.

Another reason the US didn't do this is because they saw how well it worked for the French. Which was quite badly.

The US was way stronger than France was in the aftermath of World War Two.

Also, the US doctrine on Communism was "Containment", not "Active Extermination".

And you know why? Because the US was pathetic.

Guns, land mines, and nationalism didn't save Japan or Germany from being turned into puppets.

Because they were far better established prior to the invasion and the US cared much, much more about how they turned out. And also, when they were taken over, it was before the days of asymmetrical warfare and decolonization was only just starting.

Excuses, excuses. There were partisans in the Axis occupied areas.