The ISIS Megathread

[zzz101]

Dude, no shit the Iraqi army is utter shit, runs away, etc. it used to be strong with Saddam. now? it's nothing but free-for-grabs AFTER N. America leaving. say all you wwant with trainning, etc but they are'nt there now and it's gone to utter shit.

I guess the best way to keep the most peace in some countries in the middle east is through dictatorship or isis. fuck isis.

^Ok, so....





I'm not very confident in the Iraqi military. They were the ones stripping from their uniforms, laying their weapons down and running away from ISIS, despite nearly a decade of US military training and financial aid. The Kurds are a seasoned force, but their ultimate goal isn't to eliminate extremism in surrounding areas, their goal is to establish a free Kurdistan.

What seems to be necessary is a very strong, very capable Iraqi government with the capacity to defend itself from radical Islamism but without being an Assad/Saddam style dictatorship. Is this even feasible?

 

[What 23]

You act like you're arguing from a humanist perspective but arguing to let ISIS run free is anything but.

This.

 

[zzz101]

i would not have a clue about most middle eastern culture but i am sure that most would prefer not to have mass genocide. doing the same as Nazis did.

religion fucks a lot of ppl up.

 

[bit_pattern]

The jihadi group surging through Iraq and Syria is using large captured US-made weapons and has access to anti-tank rockets supplied by Saudi Arabia to a moderate rebel group, according to a report published on Monday.

The study by the London-based Conflict Armament Research consultancy found that Islamic State (Isis) militants had access to large numbers of US weapons, which they were shifting to key battlefields.

The report drew no conclusions about how the weapons were sourced. However, the capitulation of the Iraqi army in northern Iraq on 10 June gave the jihadis access to military arsenals in the north of the country, which were full of US-supplied assault rifles and ammunition, as well as heavy weapons.

The report was compiled from a list of weapons captured from Isis by Kurdish militias over a 10-day period in July.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ms-troop-carriers-supplied-by-us-saudi-arabia

Gee, you know what will solve this problem? Flooding the country with even MORE unaccounted for weapons! What could ever go wrong 8)

 

[quiet roar]

The condescending tone of your posts and the fucking annoying rolling eyes do nothing to advance your argument b_p.

Doubt anyone is arguing this mess isn't our own making but how do you justify walking away from it?

There has to be a combined arab/middle eastern approach to this, and if there isn't, I would certainly consider walking away but we should do what we can to support a united front against these fuckers.

Al Qaeda, IS, same shit basically, but those thinking Sadam or Assad were/are just as bad, all I can say is bullshit. If that was the case there would have been no minorities left in the area. Not saying they weren't tyrannical but no way were they this bad.

I understand it is not so simple because we could simply end up supporting Shiite over Sunni's but I really can't see any alternative - can you? And if your "normal" Sunni is supporting these guys

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

As he prepares to tell Americans why going to war against the Islamic State is vital to US interests, president Barack Obama may find himself preaching to the converted: a CNN poll shows 90% of Americans see IS as a threat to their country. Substantial majorities favor more airstrikes against the terrorist group, and greater support for the forces fighting it.

To help seal the deal, Obama can also point to positive dispatches arriving from the frontlines. After last week’s military gains against the terrorist group, there have now been some important political developments that could strengthen the international coalition Obama is building against IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL).

Perhaps the most important is the fact that the Iraqi parliament has approved the new cabinet of prime minister Haider al-Abadi. After weeks of political horse trading (and the now-traditional brinkmanship by the Kurds) Abadi was able to herd the cats of Iraqi’s political elite into a national unity government. Pressure from the US, Iran, and Arab states all helped. It helped, too, that the prime minister has sounded some conciliatory notes, a welcome change of tone from his predecessor, Nouri al-Maliki.

There’s much to complain about regarding the cabinet, including the fact that Abadi wasn’t able to appoint ministers for defense and interior, arguably the most crucial positions under the current circumstances. Nor is it reassuring that Maliki remains in government, as one of three vice presidents. But given the nature of Iraqi politics, where sectarian and ethnic interests often supersede national ones, it is hard to see how a better team could have been assembled.

In more good news for Obama, the Arab League issued a proclamation calling for immediate action against IS. The League’s 2011 endorsement of a no-fly zone over Libya paved the way for US-led airstrikes that turned the tide against the Gaddafi regime. This time, the League was much more circumspect, falling short of an actual endorsement of US-led airstrikes. But the proclamation is a start, and gives US secretary of state John Kerry something to build on as he tours the Arab world this week to build a coalition against IS.

There are favorable auguries from the military front, too. The Iraqi military says it has pushed IS fighters back from the Haditha dam, and Kurdish Peshmerga militias retook a strategic mountain near Mosul. In both instances, US airstrikes provided ground troops crucial cover. That formula—foreign aircraft, local boots on the ground—is what Obama will sell to his countrymen in his speech on Wednesday.

He may not mention this, but it is no less important: From Tehran, there’s the welcome word that supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has blessed military cooperation between Iran and the US in the fight against IS. The two countries last collaborated to their mutual benefit in 2001, in the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan.


http://qz.com/261871/things-are-breaking-obamas-way-in-the-war-against-the-islamic-state/

 

[bit_pattern]

how do you justify walking away from it?

You know that "not intervening militarily" and "walking away from it" are not the same thing, right? Here's an extra condescending eyeroll especially for you - since you seem to enjoy them so much 8) 8)

 

[quiet roar]

OK, seeing you are intent on being an annoying little fuck, why don't you at least point out what strategy you believe may work.

 

[bit_pattern]

OK, seeing you are intent on being an annoying little fuck, why don't you at least point out what strategy you believe may work.

Let me ask you a question for once. How do you define any strategy as having worked? What's the endpoint? What's the goal you hope to achieve? What does success actually look like?

 

[quiet roar]

That's similar to the question I asked about "solution". Personally, I think stopping the immediate genocide would be a short term success.

Stability in the region is probably the endpoint but is probably also a pipe dream because even if IS is stopped, there will be another mob of Sunni nutters that will rise up against the Shiite powers, BUT that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop this particular tragedy by providing mass air strikes, etc. Yes, I understand these arms will then stay in the area and be used elsewhere but I honestly do not see another way to proceed. Which is why I asked you, what would you do?

 

[realtalkloc]

That's similar to the question I asked about "solution". Personally, I think stopping the immediate genocide would be a short term success.

Stability in the region is probably the endpoint but is probably also a pipe dream because even if IS is stopped, there will be another mob of Sunni nutters that will rise up against the Shiite powers, BUT that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and stop this particular tragedy by providing mass air strikes, etc. Yes, I understand these arms will then stay in the area and be used elsewhere but I honestly do not see another way to proceed. Which is why I asked you, what would you do?

you dont know what you're talking about.

 

[What 23]

Hey, dude, do you have anything of value to add?

If you want to make posts like this, you have to realize it is neither helpful to the person you quote, or others. It's quite immature really.

If he doesn't know what he is talking about, don't just be a dick about it. That's in no way productive. Provide reasoning and educate him/others or something, so you can actually have a fucking conversation.

 

[quiet roar]

you dont know what you're talking about.

Ssshh, the adults are talking.

 

[What 23]

Mods, should the Iraq Airstrikes thread be merged into this one? When I made it I didn't find this one or else I would have just posted it here.

 

[bit_pattern]

That's similar to the question I asked about "solution". Personally, I think stopping the immediate genocide would be a short term success.

Great. And you think that can be achieved with airstrikes? And what if the airstrikes don't achieve the objective? And there is every reason to assume that they won't stop a thing. What then? Do we stand back, admit failure and say "at least we tried" - or do we ramp up the military intervention and start committing troops on the ground? Do we stop at Iraq when ISIS inevitably retreat back into Syria or do we get involved in THAT particular nightmare as well? Where does it end? Do we commit to another ten year long occupation of the kind that caused this problem in the first place? Even war waged with the best of intentions can very quickly turn into something else entirely.

 

[bit_pattern]

you dont know what you're talking about.

Hey, dude, do you have anything of value to add?

If you want to make posts like this, you have to realize it is neither helpful to the person you quote, or others. It's quite immature really.

If he doesn't know what he is talking about, don't just be a dick about it. That's in no way productive. Provide reasoning and educate him/others or something, so you can actually have a fucking conversation.

Well trolled, sir, well trolled...

 

[What 23]

Its annoying.

 

[What 23]

I think that it can be said that airstrikes have provided for some success so far. You keep asking what what will lead to, Etc... I'm pretty sure that that's life. Nobody knows what harnessing the power of electricity will bring. Nobody knows what antibiotics will bring. Nobody knows what feeding the starving children of Africa will bring.

I see what you're getting at, that that region is so unstable. That we arm them. Yada. But what you seem to dodge is giving your thoughts on what can be done.

 

[quiet roar]

Great. And you think that can be achieved with airstrikes? And what if the airstrikes don't achieve the objective? And there is every reason to assume that they won't stop a thing. What then? Do we stand back, admit failure and say "at least we tried" - or do we ramp up the military intervention and start committing troops on the ground? Do we stop at Iraq when ISIS inevitably retreat back into Syria or do we get involved in THAT particular nightmare as well? Where does it end? Do we commit to another ten year long occupation of the kind that caused this problem in the first place? Even war waged with the best of intentions can very quickly turn into something else entirely.

I mentioned air strikes as support for a united arab/middle-eastern ground force. No buy-in from the locals, and I wouldn't continue but if they can unify against a common foe, I see no reason that we shouldn't assist. According to news reports there has been some victories against IS, and they have been pushed back a bit so the plan is "working" to some extent, and if there is major buy-in from the arab league, it would continue to "work".

I do realise that it will be only a matter of time before the next nutters pop up and start creating havoc but I do not see what else can be done. Which is why I ask you again, what do you propose?

 

[cashfl0w_d0nkey]

What seems to be necessary is a very strong, very capable Iraqi government with the capacity to defend itself from radical Islamism but without being an Assad/Saddam style dictatorship. Is this even feasible?

At this point, I think stable dictatorships would be acceptable. I know the hawks in the US government wouldn't go for this though (regarding Iraq) so it will have to be something like the current system that succeeds in Iraq. I see the most likely solution to Iraq that the current government is strengthened by US intervention and eventually is powerful enough to stand on its own. Regarding Syria, I'd say the most likely solution is Assad or someone in his camp eventually prevailing in the civil war and the West accepting it, in light of all the drama surrounding Russia and Iraq.