I don't think it's in America's interest to be involved in this fight, just as they should have stayed out from the beginning under Bush. The Sunni revolt in northern Iraq was rapid and successful because it had popular support against an overtly sectarian government, it'll be a different story if they try to advance into areas controlled by a Shiite majority. Let the superstitious fanatical retards fight it out amongst themselves, Iran has more than enough weapons and soldiers to oppress people as is; I don't see why America would want to empower Shiite terrorists supporting mass murder next door in Syria over Sunni terrorists, when both groups comprise a serious strategic threat to the security of the free world.
Well I'm quite happy to see that numerous politicians and analysts essentially share my assessment, good call to condition any assistance on Iraq moving away from Iran's sectarian regional agenda. I just want to note that the Iraqi government's call for US airstrikes really says something damning about their confidence in their own ability to defend against ISIS. The Al-Maliki government was proclaiming that it had repelled the insurgents' attacks on the Baiji oil refinery which constitutes 25% of the nation's total output, and now multiple reports are coming in saying the exact opposite. I still doubt ISIS has the manpower and equipment to take direct control of Baghdad, but they can do some serious ballbusting with that refinery under their control, and Kurdistan's newfound independence will only leave Iran and its allies ever more cash-strapped still.
This is unusual. It's so screwed up that nothing the USA can do now can make it worse. There isn't any way they could get Israel involved is there?
We could always "droppa da bomb" ...that'd make it worse, right? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It may yet end up wid de dropping of da bomb. This is one huge ferking goddamn mess. There are so many countries and factions involved. Anyone else thinking "Sarajevo". Our foreign office are salivating at the thought of getting involved, but our elections are in 2015, and any more British soldiers brought home in body bags will lose it for the Conservatives.
The Sheii should let the Suni have representation in the Parliament there in Iraq. That is the main reason this whole thing erupted to begin with. Without a voice in government the Suni will always be pissed off at the Sheii so that problem should be addressed.
Part of that inclusiveness will have to involve adhering to the Sunni community's wish for their country to not be a willing enabler and participant in Bashar Assad's slaughter next door.
What could bombing possibly accomplish in that environment? I can't believe anyone is seriously contemplating it at this point, we don't even have a list of suitable targets. Siding with Iran would enflame tensions between the Sunni world and the West to levels unprecedented in recent history, and while possibly hurting one terrorist group in the short term (likely widening their recruit pool in the long term), it would simply empower the world's number 1 state sponsor of terrorism in their place. Also it should be noted that Iran along with Syria's Assad regime had no qualms about arming, training and sheltering ISIS and Al Qaeda when they were fighting US soldiers in Iraq, and allowing them to slip back and forth across their borders with impunity. They did everything they could to make sure America couldn't leave Iraq in a state of peace and harmony, so let them reap their just rewards.
Of course dropping bombs won't help. I think I saw a US aircraft carrier on its way on the news just now. The Saudis have warned the US and UK not to get involved. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...st-not-meddle-in-Iraq-warns-Saudi-Arabia.html "Also it should be noted that Iran along with Syria's Assad regime had no qualms about arming, training and sheltering ISIS and Al Qaeda when they were fighting US soldiers in Iraq, and allowing them to slip back and forth across their borders with impunity. " Are these the same ISIS and Al Qaeda that the US are helping in Syria? As a pirate, I have to commend ISIS on their jolly roger. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Gaaaargh!
I don't see how the US is doing anything whatsoever to help them; indeed, America intervened with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to dry up the flow of nearly any weapons built in the last 50 years, leaving Assad with a monopoly on Russian air and land power. If only they were merely pirates trying to force everyone to say yaaarrrgh, instead of radicals trying to subjugate everyone to their jealous, insecure god.
The US need to stay on the sidelines. Unfortunately, Obama is already being criticised for his "weak" response.
I think history has shown that he'll be criticized no matter what he does. I don't think the US stands to lose much by not getting involved; allowing terrorists to kill each other is a lesser evil than an intervention that only worsens the conflict. Where I fault Obama is on not having the courage and vision to stand up to the rise of 21st century fascism in Russia and China and move towards a thorough economic disengagement. Global pollution could be dramatically cut by transferring manufacturing industries back to the western hemisphere where people actually give a hoot about regulations and energy efficiency, and we'd stop financing the military growth of nations and regimes who jealously view the United States and its allies as strategic rivals with bigger penises to eventually be subjugated. There would be no need for any sort of American military presence or assistance in the Middle East if Russia and China weren't pumping their own weapons into the region for their own selfish purposes. Virtually none of the weapons nor ammunition being wielded by Sunni and Shia terrorists and tyrants was made in the Middle East.
Why do folks assume, and keep claiming, that there are no Sunni in Iraq's parliament? Until he had a debilitating stroke last year, Jalal Talabani, the Iraq president is a Sunni Kurd. He was the voice of reason and negotiation, and had the political power, will, and acumen to keep things civil. He's still being treated in Germany. There are many factions within the Sunni and Shia camps, some who want to work together, and some who don't. The Saudi's would have us believe that the current problem stems from Maliki, while they are doing all in their power to create the seeming rift between Shiites and Sunnis. I suspect that 2 things play into the current actions. 1) the Saudi's are arabs, the Iranians ain't. 2) the Saudis and Iranians each want to be the regional super power. Assuming that to be somewhat accurate, they will both play proxy battles through dupes.
I haven't seen any analysts making such a claim. What's being claimed is that the Sunnis have only been given token representation in Iraq's parliament, and that in practice they've had little meaningful involvement in setting national policies. It's like how they always brag about how nicely they treat their Christian minorities, like yeah all 50 of them still left there are having a real blast.
My above was in response to an above positing. Every once in awhile, we need to step back from the spin(bullshit) du jour, and look at a broader picture. We (usa, france britian --nato) have destabilized secular and moderate Muslim governments across the Arab world for several years now. In so doing, we have supported just about every and any lunatic fringe terrorists who we thought would further our goals. In so doing, we have added bloodshed and violence far beyond the borders of the countries we had intended to destabilize. One wonders, what is the long term goal? 30 odd years ago, a retired cia operative claimed that we were wandering about the globe pissing off various people so that when we needed an enemy du jour, we had one handy to distract our respective populations from domestic crap, injustice, and diminishment of civil liberties.---------but, then again, he did seem a tad bitter.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Does anyone know. What is the relationship between ISIS and the Kurds? Perhaps we could make friends with the Kurds. That would be a new experience for them.
That's an old map, the Kurds have secured the hydroelectric dam north of Mosul, and have Kirkuk. The Kurds seem to be drawing a line in the sand, and fighting if/when ISIS attempts to cross that line. The Kurds have a long history of fighting for independence in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, and loosing badly, so they have learned to adapt to politics, and more modest goals. It seems that both ISIS and the Kurds have a goal of acquiring real estate. The Kurds are moderate Sunnis, who want no "religious" extremist views. ISIS attempted to form a non aggression pact with the Kurds---("We won't attack you if you agree to not attack us in the north".) But various ISIS fighters have kept attacking along the Kurd line. It seems that a good part of ISIS strategy is to take over income generating infrastructure, ergo the attack on the refinery. In Syria, they are actually selling electricity to the Syrian government after taking over the production facilities. ISIS/ISIL ain't just destructive terrorists, they actually seem to have the goal to be nation builders.
ISIS has now taken Mosul. The Kurds are now fighting with the ISIS group, with further mass exodus of refugees. This has the makings of a huge war, as well as a humanitarian crisis. ISIS, if it becomes a country, will be a country devoted to expansionist extremist Islam. Far worse than Afghanistan, in which such ideas were held by a subgroup. In that case, US intervention, with American troops, will happen. It may come after the next election, but it will happen.
