For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

Its not just about money. Integrating Muslim refugees (well mostly migrants) has proved to be difficult bordering on impossible in Europe. Ghettos, antisemitism, sectarian violence, attempts to impose islamic law on communities etc.

Nonetheless if a refugee asks for asylum in any EU country he will be given asylum in that country. Migrants are different, but since we do not have much of a mechanism for sending them back where they came from... not so very different.

Now some of these migrants and refugees that want to live in Germany and Sweden are supposed to be distributed by "quotas" among the other EU countries, how is that supposed to work in practice?

Dont get me wrong, we have hundreds of thousands of recently (within say 20 years) migrated foreigners in our country, but none of them are bitching about what I eat and drink, how often I pray or what my wife wears to the beach. So no big deal.

As long as these people get asylum and then get evaluated before getting citizenship and there is a limited number of citizenships available over a given period of time everything might yet work out fine.

It will not work out fine just by inertia and political correctness..

I would rather have one crazy polish fascist than a thousand people claiming to be syrian refugees come to my doorstep. I could deal with maybe five at most.

>> ^rougy:

Just when I thought I couldn't get more depressed....
America will never be America until Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are behind bars.


Hard to say this to you Rougy, but I agree.

I've only watched the first clip so far, but it is the first video account I've seen that finally goes after the real problem of the occupation. The failure to implement martial law after the fall of Baghdad.

What's worse, is that everyone should have known and expected things to go exactly as they did in the absence of martial law. Instead, Cheney and Feith deliberately and repeatedly refused to prepare any plans for a post war Iraq involving lawlessness or sectarian violence. They should be shot for that alone.

That said, Saddam had done far worse things to the Iraqi people, repeatedly and deliberately over the last several decades and Iraqis are better off for his removal. I still support the Iraq invasion, despite my enormous and vehement criticisms and problems with the following occupation.

>> ^Skeeve:
From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

I just wanted to point out that it's really misguided to say that religion caused all these conflicts which happened to have religion tacked on to them. The Crusades, for example, were less about religion than they were about halting the advance of a growing empire. Religion is the excuse and the propaganda tool for mobilizing one group of people against another, usually for political reasons or in competition over resources. We'd have plenty of wars still without religion, and the scapegoating is pointless.

>> ^rottenseed:
And as for eastern religions Hinduism, Buddhism, etc; all that spiritual stuff, is BS in my book.

You clearly haven't researched them at all. Some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism aren't spiritual but pragmatic. Then there's Taoist philosophy which is agnostic when it comes to belief in a soul or an afterlife, but it teaches that ultimately it doesn't matter. I see modern astrophysics and quantum physics making new hypotheses that mirror Eastern philosophical tenets, such as cosmic inflation theory's infinite/eternal field of bubble universes being similar to the Tao. Eastern philosophies can't be lumped in with Western religions, and aren't adequately described as "spiritual stuff."

>> ^burdturgler:
menatlity thanks for the civil discussion.
We disagree and that's it. I think he has an issue and you don't. We just read it differently. As far as why God allows eye worms .. malaria .. pianos to fall on your head .. look .. That's life. People get struck by lightning too. You know people die, right? That's even accepted among the religious folk. Like I said I have been witness to and suffered through some awful shit. Still, I know others have suffered more. There are people starving every fucking day. Most of them don't have to. It's all politics. Half the donated wheat to charities rots on docks because of political infighting and bullshit. People fucking die while food rots in a boat. Shit happens every single day. People cause more plague, war, theft, death, hardship and strife than they could ever blame on God. I'd like to see a graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war. Of course, I can actually see the graph .. so maybe I'm biased.


I've been trying to understand your point of view throughout this discussion burdturgler, and I kind of get what you are saying, but there are a few problems.

First, you seem to have missed the opening lines of his answer. What Attenborough is raging against, if anything, is people using god as an explanation for life by referencing the beauty of nature, while ignoring all of the horrible things that happen. People who say that god exists because the eyeball is so perfect or roses are so beautiful tend to forget or ignore the fact that there are rather gross and horrible things in nature as well.

Secondly, by acknowledging that bad things happen and it has nothing to do with god or the devil you prove that you do not follow the same brand of religion as the majority of Christians/Muslims. Take that as a compliment because you seem altogether more intelligent than most of the religious people I know and your view is infinitely more logical. Attenborough is inundated with the less logical views of your fellow theists, I'm sure, and he is specifically attacking that ignorance.

Third, and I'm sorry if this comes off antagonistic, but your example of a "graph of eye loss from God worms vs. ya know .. actual life loss from the Iraq war" would not work in your favor as an example of death and hardship caused by man as opposed to caused by god... Religion has a huge influence on the Iraq war. From the attacks of 9/11 (which have been used as a justification for Iraq) to the sectarian violence ravaging Iraq right now, god/religion is the main killer there too.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion burdturgler and I honestly look forward to hearing more from your point of view.

>> ^MINK:
^the invasion itself is what he did, forcing far too many civilians to move, or die, or live without water for days, or be accidentally bombed and killed, or be recruited into terrorist forces that you would call patriots if the situation were reversed.
i know bulldozering graves is a sick image, but just try to imagine a starving baby that had plenty of food before the invasion, and think about how you would assess world politics if you were the father.


That doesn't overwhelm the starving babies from before the invasion that died of malnutrition in their mothers arms in Saddam's concentration camps. Their father's never had a chance to re-assess world politics though as they were executed before they had the chance.

I'm sorry if that sounds calloused about the current plight of Iraqi's, it honestly isn't meant to be. The conditions there ARE still horrific, and for many are worse than before the invasion. But no longer is it because their own leadership is actively trying to starve or kill them.

It is the terrible sectarian violence and hatred causing the grief, and blaming that on the invasion is damagingly naive. The decades of brutal repression and encouragement of sectarian hatred that Saddam imposed did infinitely more to create the hate that is the problem in Iraq today. It's not as though Shia and Sunni factions were dancing in the streets holding hands before the invasion turned them into mortal enemies. America's greatest guilt in all of it is not the invasion, but the decades of support given to Saddam prior to the 90's.

>> ^rougy:
"We're never leaving Iraq and if we did, it would be an even bigger disaster."
That's a conventional bit of wisdom that is often repeated but has little basis in reality.


Really? So your saying Sunnis and Shias will stop trying to kill each other if only the Americans leave the country? I think I'd go further than Ryjkyj and say that leaving Saddam in power was also a bigger disaster.

He without question fueled the sectarian violence far worse than the Americans have because that was in many ways his goal. And that isn't even talking about his campaign to entirely eliminate the Kurdish people. I think that the mass graves of Northern Iraq are now being dug up in stead of filled up is justification enough for Saddam's removal. How much responsibility the US had in removing him is debatable, but doing it was for the greater good of humanity. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of Saddam's Al-Anfal campaign and countless other atrocities.

Hrm, sounds a bit like...

War = Peace
Freedom = Slavery
Ignorance = Strength

Happy happy double think!

>> ^rasch187:
I guess he just read the textbook of the current administration, entitled: "How Reality Doesn't Really Matter; The Words You Use Define It."
Chapter 1: Invasion = Liberation
Chapter 2: Civil War = Sectarian violence
Chapter 3: Recession = Economic slowdown
and so on...

I guess he just read the textbook of the current administration, entitled: "How Reality Doesn't Really Matter; The Words You Use Define It."

Chapter 1: Invasion = Liberation
Chapter 2: Civil War = Sectarian violence
Chapter 3: Recession = Economic slowdown

and so on...

>> ^Payback:
Over a million Iraqis killed by US soldiers? Wow, I have trouble believing that... that's close to how many civilian casualties were inflicted on the Germans in WW2 by everyone else. Not sure how to vote this one.


Watch it again....

Over 1 million killed DUE TO THE US OCCUPATION. He did not say directly at the hands of US forces.

What this means is. The US occupation threw the country into chaos, resulting in internal strife and sectarian violence. Most of those 1 million deaths are the direct result of US occupation, causing regional destabilization, AND introduction of active Al Qaeda operatives which DID NOT EXIST until said occupation occurred.

Yes, Saddam was a bastard and did deserve his fate. HOWEVER He did hold tight reign on the factions (namely religious in nature) keeping the country within strong secular bounds. Keeping religious fanatacism under check prevented sectarian violence. Of course, it did not hinder his ability to commit violence against anyone he so deemed to target.

Now we need to look again at why the US invaded. The WMD proclaimed to exist did not. The intelligence was cooked up and has been proven to be completely fabricated. The so called 'freedom' of the Iraqi people was not WHY the US invaded to begin with. The 'freedom' card was played AFTER the invasion by Bush and his gang when the WMD story fell apart at the seams and when the majority blinded by his so called 'morality' and 'faith' was shown to be a sham to garner votes. While Bush was crying 'freedom' for the Iraqi's Karl Rove and Dick Cheney continued to spew the WMD excuse until they were standing in quicksand. Soon thereafter, they shut their traps and also pushed the 'freedom' agenda.

We went to Iraq for oil. We went to Iraq because Saddam was trading oil in Euros instead of the US dollar. We went into Iraq because George Jr wanted revenge on the guy who attempted to assassinate George Sr. But mostly it was all about oil. Resource control. The side benefit is our ability to have an entire nation under military control through the guise of an appointed 'democratic' government. Meanwhile, the US pops up military structures, bases and a massive fortified compound (for command-control-intelligence) right in the heart of the middle east.

A little bit of thought, and you too will see the underlying intentions which the US had from Day #1. Put 1 and 1 together, and you realize that we killed people, tortured people, threw a nation into chaos, and spent trillions of US taxpayer dollars all for what?

Oil.

That is what happens when you elect 'oil men' into the US presidency.

Now, lets go elect McCain and all his ex-Enron, Bush, and Neocon advisers to the US Presidency. Lets see how much better things become.

No. Instead lets use our brains and keep our war/oil profiteering government and their cronies in line. I don't care what party. They are all guilty of this money game costing the lives of untold numbers of people around the world.

Wake up. The US is not a Democracy. It is a Plutocratic Kleptocracy.

Watch out. They are ALL (including Democrats) playing this same game with Iran. Listen, learn, and get your info from MANY sources. Most of what we get fed in the US is biased propoganda, and we are only told PART of the world story.

They want to hit Iran next.

"There were no insurgents blowing crap up in Iraq until Mr. Decider got involved."
Nope, just a humanitarian nightmare of decaying infrastructure, daily executions to enforce loyalty and chemical weapons being used against Iran and the Kurds. Shame on the US for coming in and turning that all to pot.

"Sunni insurgent groups.. I thought McCain was saying the Shi'a in Iran were the bad guys."
It's neither the Sunni nor the Shi'a that are the problem, but the militant extremists from both. To paraphrase Hitchens, "The problem that many are making is looking at this as a war with Islam rather than a war within Islam".

Now I'm happy to criticize Bush as much as the next guy, but Iraq is not as simplistic as the above little blurbs might make out. The US obligation to Iraq started back in the 60's when they helped get Saddam into power. Selling him chemical weapons deepened that obligation. Going in and removing Saddam was obviously going to be a mess and shame on the Bush administration for saying otherwise. It is, however, just as dishonest to suggest that Iraq wasn't already a mess. The only change to sectarian violence that Saddam's presence made was that he ensured it remained one sided. Like using poison gas on the Kurds. But, if you'd like to call those the good old days, then why let reality get in the way?

"Farhad2000
There were IEDs, Al Qaeda and sectarian violence before the invasion? Sir you have your facts wrong."

I never claimed those were the only possible sources of death and misery. You are the one who has quite ignorantly made that claim. Astonishingly you also don't appear to consider violence, directed by the government of Iraq, at Kurds to be "sectarian". The book "The Long Short War" details enough about Iraq's support of international terrorism and burgeoning links to Al Qaeda that I am glad it went as far as it was ever going to go.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
"hundreds of innocent people die each week as a direct result of US's thirst for power, world dominance and cheap gas."
If your ok with religious fanatics, tyrants, gangsterism and foreign interests in Iraq, and want to give them a free pass on the death and misery THEY have inflicted both before and after the invasion I guess your free to do so. But where is this cheap gas you refer to cause I would really like to know. Also.... even if there is some cheap gas somewhere that I have missed, doesn't the astronomical cost of the war offset the savings?


There were IEDs, Al Qaeda and sectarian violence before the invasion? Sir you have your facts wrong.

There is no cheap gas because the plan was stupid from the start. Don't you remember the administrations claims that invading Iraq and bringing freedom and democracy was going to pay for itself as Iraq starts exporting oil?

And the cheap gas was never for you Sir, it was for the oil companies who would then make you pay more anyway because they like da profitz.

Yes, I've read Naomi Wolf. Cheney took advantage of 911 like Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag fire, but Clinton/Obama seem different. During the previous Clinton administration not one American claimed we resembled post-WWI Germany, though 9/11 itself was blowback from Clinton and pre-Clinton policy. I never supported nuclear proliferation, nor threats designed to prevent it. Nukes are safe in India's hands, but not with Pakistan or Turkey. I never supported "pumping Iraq full of money and weapons". You are putting words into my mouth. Somebody has to stop the sectarian death squads in Iraq. Replacing US troops with UN peacekeepers is good because it would calm some of the jihadists. Total immediate withdrawal would probably lead to a 3-way civil war between the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites and an eventual 3-state schism, and Iraqi Kurd independence would lead Iran and Turkey into the fray, and I can't say for certain that the total death toll of that would be higher than UN peacekeeping over festering wounds of sectarian violence, but it probably would. I wish the Iraqi Kurds could get a free state without Turkey&Iran making a fuss about the precedent that sets. Kurdistan is the most peaceful and least fundamentalist part of Iraq. I'm sufficiently uncertain about the difference in eventual effect between gradual withdrawal & UN peacekeeping vs. total immediate withdrawal that it's not really the most important difference between the candidates. The biggest problem in Iraq is the damn fundamentalist religion. They prefer to just blow each other up over an argument that started with who should succeed the ancient impostor Muhammad. Most Iraqis oppose total freedom of religion, even the ones who are afraid of being oppressed by a majority of the opposite sect. It's madness. Some days I wish someone would translate the complete works of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Richard Dawkins into Arabic and air-drop 100 million copies.

@arsenault... I said 'life-loving'... or so they always seem to say that they are.

And if they were sending happy, colorful 'Jesus Loves Me' stickers and bibles to a country that wasn't currently being torn apart by a religious based Civil War and thereby helping to add to the chaos and misery of the situation, then I probably would not have said anything, because yeah, like it or not, they have been doing this for centuries (although really, that, I think is no cogent argument for the justification of modern missionary activities- after all there are lots of things humanity has done for centuries, like, oh, prevented women from owning property or having any sort of a say whatsoever, or, oh I don't know, slavery.... both of which could also potentially be justified by the "we've been doing this for thousands of years" argument, but aren't, because people by and large have realized that we need to progress and move forward as a species. So, applying that same reasoning to justify the continuation of missionary work, just isn't gonna fly).

But, anyway, they are purposefully going into an area that is already torn apart by religious and sectarian violence... if they were so dead set on saving Muslim souls, then why not go somewhere else? Iraq is not going anywhere, someday, eventually after a lot of bloodshed it will settle down. The fact they have chosen to go into Iraq NOW strikes me as purposefully divisive and meant to stir up trouble, like they are looking to make some modern-day martyrs or something... so in this case, in light of the civil war and the inherent violence of the region at the moment, it strikes me that they should GTFO for now and stop making things worse... there is a time and a place, and their being there NOW is not helping, and any way they rationalize it is, at this point in time, ridiculous.