It is somehow crazy that we have to hope for the Iranians to take over in Iraq. After all this is probably the best solution in the moment.
From a European point of view it is not understandable that you Americans wasted so much blood and energy to conquer this country just to leave it alone in its most critical moment. With Saddam Hussein things were in balance just as they are with Assad in Syria. Neither Assad or Saddam ever were a threat for us or for you. Furthermore the concept of democracy simply does not correlate with Islam. Therefore Assad and Saddam were the best solution for all of us. We always told you that and you never believed us.
Now you guys left a mess that will cost us (the “West”) many good men and lots of material. The Iraqis already paid your faults with thousands of lives and now they have to pay with many thousands more.
You might be misleaded to discharge the responsibility on Obama alone. This is definitly wrong. His predecessors are as nocent as he is. A mixture of mammonism and greenness lead them into into a simply imbezile war.
I will probably be zotted because of this statement. Nevertheless it is simply the truth.
Regards from Europe
Andreas
If true, isn't it odd, then, that Islamic regimes like that of Iran feel a need to engage in "elections" as a way of legitimizing their control?
The only problem with your analysis is the notion that Assad, Saddam and Mubarak and their ilk were a stable form of government that could be maintained infedinitely.
It is much more likely, in my less the entirely expert opinion, that stresses have been building up in the Middle East for decades. The Shah was the first domino to fall from the post-war settlement, but the others were inevitably also doomed. The WWI settlement and boundaries have little relationship to the facts on the ground and are thus liable to eventual collapse. Which is not to say that whatever replaces them will be an improvement, from either our perspective or that of the inhabitants of the area.
America’s involvement may have precipitated the collapse, and there are certainly legitimate arguments that it would have been a good idea for us to stay out of the area.
But IMO it is just silly to think that everything would be stable and peaceful in the Middle East today if America just hadn’t invaded Iraq.
All Muslim “society’s” are at a critical moment. Every Muslim country is at war within and with all their neighbors. It is a side effect of being a governmental death cult that makes it a religious high point to slaughter all the non “true” believers, Muslim or not.
If, on being shown the superiority of a semi Christian culture, with justice and kindness they cannot choose anything but murder as religion, don’t blame America for not reforming them.
I would say Iraq is a perfect example and proof for the necessity of the use of nuclear weapons to stop suicidal cults. Might I point out that Hiroshima defeated the Kamikazes, not social reform. In Iraq social reform failed, perhaps because we did not use nuclear weapons to demonstrate our resolve. Perhaps because we never had enough resolve in the first place, defeat in social engineering was predetermined?
If you do not really know what you stand for, you may still stand, but for nothing, and that is what you will accomplish.
Greeting from a once great Republic, that is trying National Socialism and getting the Nazi Party in return, just like when Europe tried the same thing.
My guess is we are too stupid to learn from your mistakes, that makes us double dumb...