|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On June 23 2014 10:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The Iraqi government appears to have lost control of its western borders after Sunni militants reportedly captured crossings to Syria and Jordan.
Officials said the rebels took two key crossings in Anbar on Sunday, a day after seizing one at Qaim, a town in the province that borders Syria.
The strategically important airport in the northern town of Tal Afar has also reportedly fallen to the rebels.
ISIS is slowly pushing south towards Saudi Arabia as well:
![[image loading]](http://www.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/465img/p01_20140623_pic1.jpg)
Source
|
BAGHDAD, June 23 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met Iraq's prime minister in Baghdad on Monday to push for more inclusive leadership, as Nuri al-Maliki's forces abandoned the border with Jordan, leaving the entire Western frontier beyond government control.
Sunni tribes took the Turaibil desert border crossing, the only legal crossing point between Iraq and Jordan, after Iraqi security forces fled, Iraqi and Jordanian security sources said.
Tribal leaders were negotiating to hand the post to Sunni Islamists from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) who took two main crossings with Syria in recent days and have pushed the Shi'ite-led government's forces back toward Baghdad.
Ethnic Kurdish forces control a third border post with Syria in the north, leaving government troops with no presence along the entire 800-km (500-mile) western frontier which includes some of the most important trade routes in the Middle East.
For the insurgents, capturing the frontier is a dramatic step towards the goal of erasing the modern border altogether and building a caliphate across swathes of Syria and Iraq.
Source
|
On June 22 2014 11:39 nunez wrote:
@xdaunt
the iraq war is still ongoing, even though the imperial aggressor withdrew after getting its ass kicked.
Irony when the sanctions and the second war started because iraq invaded its neighbors to gain a majority on the world oil production.
America isnt' at fault for starting the whole mess in the last few decades. We've had a great big hand at trying to fix it and make it better like we were able to do in the past with other regions of the world but we sure as hell didn't cause saddam to attack iran then kuwait and threaten the saudi's.
|
On June 24 2014 02:39 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 11:39 nunez wrote:
@xdaunt
the iraq war is still ongoing, even though the imperial aggressor withdrew after getting its ass kicked. Irony when the sanctions and the second war started because iraq invaded its neighbors to gain a majority on the world oil production. America isnt' at fault for starting the whole mess in the last few decades. We've had a great big hand at trying to fix it and make it better like we were able to do in the past with other regions of the world but we sure as hell didn't cause saddam to attack iran then kuwait and threaten the saudi's.
When Saddam attacked = bad
When the USA attacks = good? What kind of sick self righteous logic is that?
|
The sunni tribe's are making their bed, let them lie in it.
|
|
|
There's a huge difference between supporting a faction in war and causing a faction to go to war.
Also, Americans couldn't give a shit about that war.
|
On June 24 2014 04:33 BirdKiller wrote:
Also, Americans couldn't give a shit about that war.
So they supported it with billions of dollars and training and technology but they didn't give a shit? Care to explain how that works out?
|
On June 22 2014 11:39 nunez wrote:
@xdaunt
the iraq war is still ongoing, even though the imperial aggressor withdrew after getting its ass kicked.
was that before or after we kicked their asses so hard they didn't do shit until after we left?
maybe they were kicking our asses in the 3 years right before we left where deaths were lower than at any point since the invasion.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
or perhaps it was during the battle of ______ where american forces were defeated. well there were no such battles in iraq so it may be a bit hard to say that.
unfortunately the largest suppliers of arms, technology and money to iraq during the iran-iraq war were the soviet union, yugoslavia, france, saudi arabia, and italy. the US didn't even make the top 5.
"support" and "cause" have two different definitions. they are not synonyms. the us did not cause iraq to attack iran or kuwait.
despite some hilarious pretzel twisting that tries to say the US "greenlighted" the invasion of kuwait.
here is the transcript of the discussion between saddam and the US ambassador that some say constituted the US wink-wink 'telling' saddam it was okay to invade kuwait:
TARIQ AZIZ: Our policy in OPEC opposes sudden jumps in oil prices.
HUSSEIN: Twenty-five dollars a barrel is not a high price.
GLASPIE: We have many Americans who would like to see the price go above $25 because they come from oil-producing states.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?
My assessment after 25 years' service in this area is that your objective must have strong backing from your Arab brothers. I now speak of oil But you, Mr. President, have fought through a horrific and painful war. Frankly, we can see only that you have deployed massive troops in the south. Normally that would not be any of our business. But when this happens in the context of what you said on your national day, then when we read the details in the two letters of the Foreign Minister, then when we see the Iraqi point of view that the measures taken by the U.A.E. and Kuwait is, in the final analysis, parallel to military aggression against Iraq, then it would be reasonable for me to be concerned. And for this reason, I received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship -- not in the spirit of confrontation -- regarding your intentions.
I simply describe the position of my Government. And I do not mean that the situation is a simple situation. But our concern is a simple one.
restating what had been american policy for 25 years at the time is not "greenlighting" an invasion.
is that being skipped in german classes?
![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/1/2/1388671872096/Margaret-Thatcher-shakes--011.jpg)
my goodness will you look at that, mikhail gorbachev shaking hands with margaret thatcher? who knew the iron lady was actually a supporter of the soviet empire?
![[image loading]](http://mgb-home.de/Revolution-Ceausescu-Kohl.jpg)
dear lord, it's helmut kohl shaking hands with nicolae ceausescu! we can only imagine what kind of sinister machinations kohl was working on and what monstrous acts of nicolae's he obviously fully supported and possibly was even participating in! just look at that handshake! it's conclusive i tell you, west germany was undoubtedly involved in and possibly the real instigator of the murders and repressions of thousands of romanians. handshakes don't lie.
|
I hope you know that there's a difference between the Iraq-Iran and the gulf war and that I wasn't even talking about the latter so I don't know why you're trying to argue with me about Kuwait.
And regarding the end of your post, is that the American version of Whataboutism? (Also Mikhail Gorbachev wasn't the greatest defender of the Soviet Union as it turns out)
The thing is quite some Americans seem to be convinced that their country is spreading all the glorious freedom across the globe when in fact they're supporting dictators and scumbags just as much as the Soviet Union has whenever it serves their interests.
|
As someone who hasn't followed this particular situation closely because a. I can't do anything to influence the outcome or any actions the united states might take and b. Its hard to muster up the ability to care (american apathy is real), I get the impression that without some huge intervention, we will end up with some kind of multi-country caliphate. Is this outcome a possibility? Are Iraq, Syria, and other countries in danger of becoming multiple countries?
|
I hope you know that there's a difference between the Iraq-Iran and the gulf war and that I wasn't even talking about the latter so I don't know why you're trying to argue with me about Kuwait.
sermokala mentioned kuwait
the first half of your sentence doesn't deserve a response
And regarding the end of your post, is that the American version of Whataboutism? (Also Mikhail Gorbachev wasn't the greatest defender of the Soviet Union as it turns out)
mikhail gorbachev was a great and incompetent defender of the USSR. perestroika and glasnost were not intended to destroy the USSR.
regarding the end of my post, you and so many others make great implications about donald rumsfeld shaking saddam hussein's hand.
so fucking what? he was an envoy of the US government meeting with the rulers of iraq's government. they shook hands. BFD. just as much of a BFD as kohl shaking ceausescu's hand or thatcher shaking gorbachev's. people from different governments who have are cooperating despite opposing interests and opinions maybe even open rivalry or hostility meet and shake hands all the damn time. so what is your point about rumsfeld and saddam that couldn't be equally applied to kohl and ceausescu, or thatcher and gorbachev, or chamberlain and hitler at munich?
The thing is quite some Americans seem to be convinced that their country is spreading all the glorious freedom across the globe when in fact they're supporting dictators and scumbags just as much as the Soviet Union has whenever it serves their interests.
the thing is some europeans like to ignore how the americans kept the russians from jamming a boot in their faces for 50 years and how the americans took down the japanese empire and how after the russians losing the cold war the world went from being about 60% dictatorships to about 60% democracies
http://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/assets/4337013/democracy_advance_gif.gif
seems to be a pretty big change from 1982 to 1992 and to 2002 hmm i wonder what happened from 1992 to 2002... i'm sure americans had little if anything to do with it though right?
|
On June 24 2014 05:01 Ayaz2810 wrote:
As someone who hasn't followed this particular situation closely because a. I can't do anything to influence the outcome or any actions the united states might take and b. Its hard to muster up the ability to care (american apathy is real), I get the impression that without some huge intervention, we will end up with some kind of multi-country caliphate. Is this outcome a possibility? Are Iraq, Syria, and other countries in danger of becoming multiple countries?
That countries could break up could very well happen. Especially Iraq is at danger. I don't see some kind of cross country caliphate going to happen, though. Iran has repeatedly stated they wouldn't tolerate that and they are the biggest country in the region after all.
|
So is shit getting deep in the middle east?
Is america going back for round two?
|
On June 24 2014 05:06 arb wrote:
So is shit getting deep in the middle east?
Is america going back for round two?
i sure hope not the only way they're going to stop killing each other is if they kill enough of each other to get sick of it. that's how deep and crazy the differences are. it's pretty much the same as the religious wars in europe hundreds of years ago. they were so filled with self-righteous religious fury (and fear, they seriously thought if everybody doesn't worship the way we do society will for sure be doomed, these shiites and sunnis think the same thing) didn't stop either until they'd caused so much destruction to themselves they got sick of it.
|
It's a religious war, they will stop fighting after they have exhausted one another through bloodshed. Look at the Protestant Catholic Wars in Europe as an example.
|
On June 24 2014 05:06 arb wrote:
So is shit getting deep in the middle east?
Is america going back for round two?
Kind of really hard at this point.
It's essentially impossible to interfere at this point, because it's become a terrorist state. There is no going in there to make peace, a lot of brainwashing has happened, and convincing these people that they are "wrong" isn't really possible.
I see ISIS/ISIL taking control of a huge portion of the middle east without intervention in the next few months, but at the same time, there isn't much that anyone can do without going to full out war. Remember, ISIS is so "crazy", that even Al-Qaeda doesn't want to associate with them.
This war has completely shifted to what it was six months ago. The FSA is essentially irrelevant now, and it's all about ISIS, they have extreme funding, and extreme power. It's a very troubling situation.
|
On June 24 2014 05:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:
so fucking what? he was an envoy of the US government meeting with the rulers of iraq's government. they shook hands. BFD. just as much of a BFD as kohl shaking ceausescu's hand or thatcher shaking gorbachev's. people from different governments who have are cooperating despite opposing interests and opinions maybe even open rivalry or hostility meet and shake hands all the damn time. so what is your point about rumsfeld and saddam that couldn't be equally applied to kohl and ceausescu, or thatcher and gorbachev, or chamberlain and hitler at munich?
My point is that the amount of hypocrisy in the US is annoying. Germany and the UK have not proclaimed themselves leader of the free world and painted the Soviet-union as the most evil invention on this planet at the same time.
Also it's not just about shaking hands. the US supported Iraq in it's war efforts against Iran although they were using chemical weapons on that same day Rumsfeld shook Saddams hand. They also supported an absolutist monarchy before that in Iran and they're (probably we are, because Europe isn't much better) supporting Saudi Arabia right now, which is the most ass backwards country on this planet and probably among the biggest financiers of terrorism.
And to relate to the topic of the thread, the US has again prematurely supported Rebels in the region just to observe how they now have created a whole movement of islamistic nutjobs.
All these things from supporting saddam over bombing saddam to supporting the Mujaheddin , to invading Iraq and supporting islamistic Rebels all while claiming that it's happening for freedom and that the US are the truly good guys and defenders of democracy is what drives people crazy.
|
Man truthfully, I don't mean to come offensive in terms of offending religion or anything, but:
They say Islam is a religion of peace, but dozens of radical people went to Syria to fight from my city in Canada, it's very troubling to me as someone concerned for safety. All of them say that these crazy ones gives us a bad name, nobody here in Canada does this, but we've had hundreds go to Syria to fight, and then they bring their hatred back. It's a very serious issue, and I feel if this trend continues... There might be some discrimination about Middle eastern people. I feel like there already is where I live, and it will only get worse.
I don't know a good solution, but something needs to happen. This is the most intense the Syrian Civil War has ever been.
|
More than 1,500 young Britons may have been recruited by extremists fighting in Iraq and Syria, an MP has told Sky News.
Khalid Mahmood said the radicalisation of young British men is a problem that has steadily grown in recent years and could be much more serious than previously thought.
The Birmingham MP's comments suggest the number of would-be jihadists is much greater than ACPO anti-terrorism chief Sir Peter Fahy's estimate of 500 - the highest figure previously mentioned.
Foreign Secretary William Hague has claimed that around 400 young British men had travelled to the region, where John Kerry has held talks about the ISIS offensive with Iraq's prime minister.
Mr Mahmood told Sky News: "I imagine 1,500 certainly would be the lower end. If you look across the whole of the country, there's been a number of people going across.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
