Author Topic: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...  (Read 12129 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #120 on: April 19, 2016, 08:56:12 AM »
No. This is what you claimed:

If not for the Invasion of Iraq there had been no ISIS, we are simply facing the consequences of our bad decisions.

And now you're backpedaling. The fact that ISIS existed (under different names) before the war is in itself enough to disprove your entire argument.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #121 on: April 19, 2016, 09:03:18 AM »
I believe he's talking about the large present influence of Daesh, which did not exist prior to the war. And putting the blame on the withdrawal is pretty much saying that the better option was a permanent bloody occupation of Iraq, which most rational minds know was unsustainable. I can't believe I got dragged into another political argument. Oy.   :(

Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3077
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #122 on: April 19, 2016, 09:24:50 AM »
They have used a lot of names and the embyro was created already back in the 80:s but it would only be confusing to trying to use all the names, its easier to say ISIS or Iraqi AQ. No one would have a clue if I called them Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad for example.
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3910
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #123 on: April 19, 2016, 09:56:34 AM »
putting the blame on the withdrawal is pretty much saying that the better option was a permanent bloody occupation of Iraq, which most rational minds know was unsustainable.

By the end of 2009 there was very limited US involvement in Iraq and there was no "permanent bloody occupation".  The US transition from the Awakening to Iraqi sovereignty was well in motion with the US functioning as an advisory and stabilizing influence that gave hope to Sunni and Shiite reconciliation and sharing of power.  The complete withdrawal of forces and diplomatic involvement empowered the militant Shiites emboldened by Iran that led to the melt down that followed.  It was the change in policy towards disengagement in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East in the Arab Spring that followed that empowered the Jihadis which led to the Islamic Caliphate know as ISIS.   


In short, Zimme's assertion of the US invasion itself leading directly to ISIS is contradicted by what most every credible source describes.  It was one step among many in an evolving chain of events but to then draw a causal relationship in spite of that evidence seems implausible. 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_%E2%80%93_Iraq

"During 2008 and 2009, all non-U.S. foreign forces withdrew from Iraq. Withdrawal of all non-U.S. forces was complete by 31 July 2009. As of 1 January 2009, the Iraqi government became fully responsible, through its security ministries, for maintaining and providing security and rule of law for its populace. Furthermore, as of 28 June 2009, no foreign forces were stationed within any of Iraq's major cities. The United States decided after negotiations to cease combat operations, that is, patrolling, serving arrest warrants, route clearance, etc., within Iraq by 1 September 2010, and transition to a pure advise, train and assist role. The changing mission entailed major troop reductions; from 115,000 on 15 December 2009, to 50,000 by 1 September 2010, and to zero by 31 December 2011."

Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3077
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #124 on: April 19, 2016, 10:11:28 AM »
If not for the invasion Saddam and Baath party would most likely still have been in power and their commanders would not have join ISIS... The Invasion started the chain of events that eventually have led to the present situation. Does that mean that everything is US fault? No - There are still a lot of other factors in this.

My point was still only to use it as an example of how wars can have unintended consequences but obviously people were too butthurt by it...
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3910
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #125 on: April 19, 2016, 10:26:53 AM »
If not for the invasion Saddam and Baath party would most likely still have been in power and their commanders would not have join ISIS... The Invasion started the chain of events that eventually have led to the present situation. Does that mean that everything is US fault? No - There are still a lot of other factors in this.

My point was still only to use it as an example of how wars can have unintended consequences but obviously people were too butthurt by it...

Sure, there is a very remote relationship if you ignore the observable fact that the Bathist/Sunni uprising in Iraq of 2004-2009 was quelled by the Awakening and was a non factor until the reconciliation process championed by the US was abandoned by a change in US policy.  If there was a continued uprising without the multi year reversal you could make a more rational correlation but that is not there.

No one is butthurt by your statements.  They are simply shallow and myopic and others are pointing out facts that illustrate that. 



P.S. Thank you Skuzzy for not nuking the thread.  I appreciate a good debate and reasoned discourse.

Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3077
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #126 on: April 19, 2016, 10:50:57 AM »
But there would still have been no uprising in 2004 without the invasion.

The invasion created a security vacuum in Iraq that were used by Al-Zarqawi to start a wave of terror in order to divide Shias and Sunnis. This was largely suppressed by 'the surge' were most of the leadership were killed or captured, However the captured AQ leadership were allowed to merge inside the prison camps and was then put back on the streets. So even though you are right that the  change of US policy was an important factor it still not the point. Point is that the Invasion led to a number of problem that were both unforeseen and unintended by the US.

There are several examples of how a regime like Saddam's can suppress internal conflicts and were it boils over once the regime falls. It did happen in Yugoslavia and it was what happened in Iraq. The invasion opened the Pandora's box. The Surge almost closed the box again but then came the withdrawal..
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3910
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #127 on: April 19, 2016, 11:02:12 AM »
But there would still have been no uprising in 2004 without the invasion.

The invasion created a security vacuum in Iraq that were used by Al-Zarqawi to start a wave of terror in order to divide Shias and Sunnis. This was largely suppressed by 'the surge' were most of the leadership were killed or captured, However the captured AQ leadership were allowed to merge inside the prison camps and was then put back on the streets. So even though you are right that the  change of US policy was an important factor it still not the point. Point is that the Invasion led to a number of problem that were both unforeseen and unintended by the US.

There are several examples of how a regime like Saddam's can suppress internal conflicts and were it boils over once the regime falls. It did happen in Yugoslavia and it was what happened in Iraq. The invasion opened the Pandora's box. The Surge almost closed the box again but then came the withdrawal..

the withdrawal ..  which along with further US disengagement from the turmoil in the middle east led to the rise of the Islamic State. 

I understand and agree with unintended consequences but you have to agree it's a lot more reasonable to say that the original 2003 invasion was far less the cause of the rise of the Islamic State / ISIS than US disengagement once the pandoras box of the Arab Spring was cracked open.  It was just one step along the way and could have led in an entirely different direction if other decisions had been made in 2009 onward.

Offline Zimme83

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3077
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #128 on: April 19, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »
Again: I only said that the invasion was the event that started the chain of event, if the right decisions had been made afterwards, and especially after 2009 the situation would most likely have been fundamentally different.

But it seems like we do agree on the vital parts so I think this is the time to end the debate.  :salute
''The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge'' - Stephen Hawking

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13217
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #129 on: April 19, 2016, 01:04:19 PM »
How come no one is rule # ?
There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3910
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #130 on: April 19, 2016, 01:24:40 PM »
Again: I only said that the invasion was the event that started the chain of event, if the right decisions had been made afterwards, and especially after 2009 the situation would most likely have been fundamentally different.

But it seems like we do agree on the vital parts so I think this is the time to end the debate.  :salute

Glad you came around!   :grin:

 :salute

Offline Changeup

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5688
      • Das Muppets
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #131 on: April 19, 2016, 02:12:40 PM »
I believe he's talking about the large present influence of Daesh, which did not exist prior to the war. And putting the blame on the withdrawal is pretty much saying that the better option was a permanent bloody occupation of Iraq, which most rational minds know was unsustainable. I can't believe I got dragged into another political argument. Oy.   :(

No need to speculate.  There is no reason to believe that a continued US presence amounting to an occupation or "transitional assistance group" in Iraq would have resulted in anything different than a US occupation of Japan or Germany for 40+years.

1.  Ground commanders predicted the early withdrawal would cause a vacuum
2.  Regional Commanders agreed
3.  Pressure from coalition partners leaving at a rapid rate forced the weakly played US hand

To say the withdrawal played no part of to minimize that event flies in the face of US political leaders opinions, ground commanders documented disagreement, regional commanders documented disapproval and theater commanders documented tactical assessments predicting the instability it would create.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 02:19:39 PM by Changeup »
"Such is the nature of war.  By protecting others, you save yourself."

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered.  Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.  Thus, the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Morihei Ueshiba

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #132 on: April 19, 2016, 02:43:35 PM »
No need to speculate.  There is no reason to believe that a continued US presence amounting to an occupation or "transitional assistance group" in Iraq would have resulted in anything different than a US occupation of Japan or Germany for 40+years.

There's every reason to believe such. Germany and Japan didn't have radical insurgents like Iraq. The correlation you're better off using is Vietnam. Many predicted the problems the world is now experiencing due to such an invasion prior to its undertaking. Now, I'm leaving Palmyra before the bombs drop. ;)

Offline Changeup

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5688
      • Das Muppets
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #133 on: April 19, 2016, 02:58:18 PM »
There's every reason to believe such. Germany and Japan didn't have radical insurgents like Iraq. The correlation you're better off using is Vietnam. Many predicted the problems the world is now experiencing due to such an invasion prior to its undertaking. Now, I'm leaving Palmyra before the bombs drop. ;)

You're oversimplifying.  There were plenty of America-hating Germans and Japanese, lmao.   Both countries had all their personal weapons policed up (including katanas and knives in Japan.  Please see the story of the Honjo Masamune).  There was no thorough occupation of Iraq on that level and therefore you have weapons in the hands of insurgents.

We lost Vietnam.  You can't occupy a country that you lost.  That pretty much proves you're just arguing to argue.  The US had been in draw down mode for years so there was no vacuum.  We handed the South to N Vietnam.
"Such is the nature of war.  By protecting others, you save yourself."

"Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered.  Those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid.  Thus, the wise win before the fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Morihei Ueshiba

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Re: Battle of Palmyra. Last words...
« Reply #134 on: April 19, 2016, 03:07:48 PM »