When ISIS ransacked Iraqi army bases during its June blitz through the country's north and west, the radical jihadist group emerged with a number of possible next targets. With its new armor and materiel in tow, it could have tried to destabilize an ever-wary Jordanian monarchy or launched a major offensive on Baghdad.
Instead, the Islamic State is consolidating its gains, clearing out Kurdish militias that sit on the edge of the territories it controls and ejecting Assad's army from parts of central and Eastern Syria.
Its efforts have resulted in what's reportedly the deadliest week of a war that's already killed 170,000 people and displaced over 9 million over nearly three and a half years.
Over 1,800 people were killed in the past ten days. But the war's gaining intensity doesn't owe to any immediate threat to the Assad regime's existence, and it isn't because of any endgame-type showdown between the government and its various armed opponents.
Syria is now effectively partitioned, with the war consisting of a network of hot conflicts within and between the various combatants' spheres of control. And now, these region-by-region conflicts are so enflamed that even campaigns for individual sub-sections of the country can kill thousands of people within the space of a few days.
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—Rudaw has learned from a high-level American official that the United States has offered the Kurds air support in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The official source who didn’t want to be named said that the US would also provide the Kurdish Peshmerga with arms and military expertise.
The American offer is said to include humanitarian aid to be transported by air to the people of Shangal and Zumar who have been displaced as a result of fighting in their areas.
This newspaper has also learned that a number of European countries have contacted the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with offers of military support.
The Kurdish forces went on the offensive against militants of the Islamic State (IS) for the first time on Sunday.
Going from a defensive policy to full-scale offensive came after the Islamic State overran Zumar and Shangal west of Mosul where the majority of the population are Yezidi Kurds.
Kurdish forces have faced a major challenge defending more than 1,000 kilometers of border with the newly created Islamic State.
In the past 24 hours the Peshmerga have reclaimed many villages from the Islamic militants as well as the Rabia border crossing between the Kurdistan Region and Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan).
Not sure how reliable this is, but it seems like the Kurds are gaining a lot of foreign support since they're the only ones giving the IS any real fight.
The Humanitarian aid via air support is nice too.
Now I guess I just have to wait and see how the Republicans are going to spin this to make it seem like it's a terrible idea to be supporting the Kurds. Sure neither side here wants to see American boots on the ground, but air support and humanitarian aid seems like it'd be an easy sell. I'd rather our Drones be attacking the IS than continuing to piss of the Pakistanis.
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—Rudaw has learned from a high-level American official that the United States has offered the Kurds air support in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The official source who didn’t want to be named said that the US would also provide the Kurdish Peshmerga with arms and military expertise.
The American offer is said to include humanitarian aid to be transported by air to the people of Shangal and Zumar who have been displaced as a result of fighting in their areas.
This newspaper has also learned that a number of European countries have contacted the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with offers of military support.
The Kurdish forces went on the offensive against militants of the Islamic State (IS) for the first time on Sunday.
Going from a defensive policy to full-scale offensive came after the Islamic State overran Zumar and Shangal west of Mosul where the majority of the population are Yezidi Kurds.
Kurdish forces have faced a major challenge defending more than 1,000 kilometers of border with the newly created Islamic State.
In the past 24 hours the Peshmerga have reclaimed many villages from the Islamic militants as well as the Rabia border crossing between the Kurdistan Region and Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan).
Not sure how reliable this is, but it seems like the Kurds are gaining a lot of foreign support since they're the only ones giving the IS any real fight.
The Humanitarian aid via air support is nice too.
Now I guess I just have to wait and see how the Republicans are going to spin this to make it seem like it's a terrible idea to be supporting the Kurds. Sure neither side here wants to see American boots on the ground, but air support and humanitarian aid seems like it'd be an easy sell. I'd rather our Drones be attacking the IS than continuing to piss of the Pakistanis.
The US has a better shot creating a "Kurdistan" than we do saving "Iraq"
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—Rudaw has learned from a high-level American official that the United States has offered the Kurds air support in their fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The official source who didn’t want to be named said that the US would also provide the Kurdish Peshmerga with arms and military expertise.
The American offer is said to include humanitarian aid to be transported by air to the people of Shangal and Zumar who have been displaced as a result of fighting in their areas.
This newspaper has also learned that a number of European countries have contacted the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) with offers of military support.
The Kurdish forces went on the offensive against militants of the Islamic State (IS) for the first time on Sunday.
Going from a defensive policy to full-scale offensive came after the Islamic State overran Zumar and Shangal west of Mosul where the majority of the population are Yezidi Kurds.
Kurdish forces have faced a major challenge defending more than 1,000 kilometers of border with the newly created Islamic State.
In the past 24 hours the Peshmerga have reclaimed many villages from the Islamic militants as well as the Rabia border crossing between the Kurdistan Region and Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan).
Not sure how reliable this is, but it seems like the Kurds are gaining a lot of foreign support since they're the only ones giving the IS any real fight.
The Humanitarian aid via air support is nice too.
Now I guess I just have to wait and see how the Republicans are going to spin this to make it seem like it's a terrible idea to be supporting the Kurds. Sure neither side here wants to see American boots on the ground, but air support and humanitarian aid seems like it'd be an easy sell. I'd rather our Drones be attacking the IS than continuing to piss of the Pakistanis.
The US has a better shot creating a "Kurdistan" than we do saving "Iraq"
Iraqi Kurdistan was already ruled autonomously even when we occupied Iraq, I don't see why saving Iraq and creating Kurdistan have to be mutually exclusive goals.
I've been hearing a lot that ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State can pose a thread to the Western World, but I struggle to see how that is possible, given that according to wikipedia:
Their strength is 7-20k soldiers
Their net worth is 2 billion
Their opponents are: Iraqi Armed Forces, Syrian Armed Forces, FSA, Islamic Front, Al-Nursa, Army of Mujahedeen, Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Awakening Councils, Indonesian Armed Forces, Turkish Armed Forces, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia Militias, Ansar al-Islam, Peshmerga, Qaraqosh Protection Committee, Iraqi Turkmen Front, USA, and UK.
Also Iraq and Syria are in ruins, thereby they can provide very little funding for any military efforts.
I agree with some posters, that the best course of action is simply to not intervene... If millions must die, but the conflict doesn't spill to other areas, then so be it. Islam at the end of the day, isn't a religion of peace, and if the course of action isn't to exterminate extreme radicals, then the only options are:
1) Come in, and maintain peace for a few years until we leave. 2) Let them establish their Islamic State, and either let them settle this their own way, or try to keep both sides alive, keeping the tensions high forever.
It sounds really awful, but to me, with these religious fanatics, I really think this war to the death is the best way to go about it, and the best way to ensure peace in the region. Whatever happens, this factions will always hate each other, and the best outcome is if one of the factions eliminates the other through combat, and subdues all sour thoughts about them, by giving people a choice to assimilate or to die.
Conventional policy that is practiced in western countries doesn't work with these kind of people. Anyway, this is my opinion, and I think this is the opinion that will be taken by governments... While at the same time trying to keep the human rights people happy and offering support. The best thing we can do if we take this approach is to allow these people to emigrate from their countries if they are not extreme radicals that do not wish to be involved in the conflict, and simply wish to enjoy their lives. If these people are willing to let go of some of their customs to allow other religions and ethnicities to coexist, they can find a happy place in a multicultural society - like in Canada.
The extremists are going to fight like stubborn children until one of them is dead, and right now I think is the best time as any, to simply let them fight it out, as the chance of a full-scale proxy war or international threats is rather low.
On August 05 2014 12:49 FiWiFaKi wrote: I've been hearing a lot that ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State can pose a thread to the Western World, but I struggle to see how that is possible, given that according to wikipedia:
Their strength is 7-20k soldiers
Their net worth is 2 billion
Their opponents are: Iraqi Armed Forces, Syrian Armed Forces, FSA, Islamic Front, Al-Nursa, Army of Mujahedeen, Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Awakening Councils, Indonesian Armed Forces, Turkish Armed Forces, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia Militias, Ansar al-Islam, Peshmerga, Qaraqosh Protection Committee, Iraqi Turkmen Front, USA, and UK.
Also Iraq and Syria are in ruins, thereby they can provide very little funding for any military efforts.
I agree with some posters, that the best course of action is simply to not intervene... If millions must die, but the conflict doesn't spill to other areas, then so be it. Islam at the end of the day, isn't a religion of peace, and if the course of action isn't to exterminate extreme radicals, then the only options are:
1) Come in, and maintain peace for a few years until we leave. 2) Let them establish their Islamic State, and either let them settle this their own way, or try to keep both sides alive, keeping the tensions high forever.
It sounds really awful, but to me, with these religious fanatics, I really think this war to the death is the best way to go about it, and the best way to ensure peace in the region. Whatever happens, this factions will always hate each other, and the best outcome is if one of the factions eliminates the other through combat, and subdues all sour thoughts about them, by giving people a choice to assimilate or to die.
Conventional policy that is practiced in western countries doesn't work with these kind of people. Anyway, this is my opinion, and I think this is the opinion that will be taken by governments... While at the same time trying to keep the human rights people happy and offering support. The best thing we can do if we take this approach is to allow these people to emigrate from their countries if they are not extreme radicals that do not wish to be involved in the conflict, and simply wish to enjoy their lives. If these people are willing to let go of some of their customs to allow other religions and ethnicities to coexist, they can find a happy place in a multicultural society - like in Canada.
The extremists are going to fight like stubborn children until one of them is dead, and right now I think is the best time as any, to simply let them fight it out, as the chance of a full-scale proxy war or international threats is rather low.
On August 05 2014 12:49 FiWiFaKi wrote: I've been hearing a lot that ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State can pose a thread to the Western World, but I struggle to see how that is possible, given that according to wikipedia:
Their strength is 7-20k soldiers
Their net worth is 2 billion
Their opponents are: Iraqi Armed Forces, Syrian Armed Forces, FSA, Islamic Front, Al-Nursa, Army of Mujahedeen, Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Awakening Councils, Indonesian Armed Forces, Turkish Armed Forces, Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia Militias, Ansar al-Islam, Peshmerga, Qaraqosh Protection Committee, Iraqi Turkmen Front, USA, and UK.
Also Iraq and Syria are in ruins, thereby they can provide very little funding for any military efforts.
I agree with some posters, that the best course of action is simply to not intervene... If millions must die, but the conflict doesn't spill to other areas, then so be it. Islam at the end of the day, isn't a religion of peace, and if the course of action isn't to exterminate extreme radicals, then the only options are:
1) Come in, and maintain peace for a few years until we leave. 2) Let them establish their Islamic State, and either let them settle this their own way, or try to keep both sides alive, keeping the tensions high forever.
It sounds really awful, but to me, with these religious fanatics, I really think this war to the death is the best way to go about it, and the best way to ensure peace in the region. Whatever happens, this factions will always hate each other, and the best outcome is if one of the factions eliminates the other through combat, and subdues all sour thoughts about them, by giving people a choice to assimilate or to die.
Conventional policy that is practiced in western countries doesn't work with these kind of people. Anyway, this is my opinion, and I think this is the opinion that will be taken by governments... While at the same time trying to keep the human rights people happy and offering support. The best thing we can do if we take this approach is to allow these people to emigrate from their countries if they are not extreme radicals that do not wish to be involved in the conflict, and simply wish to enjoy their lives. If these people are willing to let go of some of their customs to allow other religions and ethnicities to coexist, they can find a happy place in a multicultural society - like in Canada.
The extremists are going to fight like stubborn children until one of them is dead, and right now I think is the best time as any, to simply let them fight it out, as the chance of a full-scale proxy war or international threats is rather low.
Can you obtain a nuclear bomb for $2B?
Hard to find that information obviously. A stand alone nuclear bomb isn't that expensive, but rather the delivery and all the facilities that make up most of the cost. According to the article I will link below, the US spent 5.5 trillion + on their nuclear program from 1940-1996. Right now the US supposedly spends $20billion a year mostly maintaining current nuclear warheads.
Cost of the Manhattan project was $24Billion in today's dollars. Obviously there is more information out there, but either way, with all the intelligence agencies, I don't think it's an easy thing to get away with. Also a net worth of 2 billion doesn't mean that's their disposable income, far from it.
Also it seems like they are much more interested in securing lands in the middle east, than using that money for nuclear strikes on the US, or wherever else. I don't think it's feasible from the to fire any sizable quantity of high megaton TNT equivalent bombs, especially ones undetected, for the next 15-20 years. Not to mention that "saving up" for one nuclear strike, and then getting decimated by the entire western world regime is completely illogical. It's not like they can cause extreme world destruction outside of the middle east before countries intervene.
It's a different story with a large country like US, China, or Russia, where they have the economic potential to wipe out a significant portion of the world population before retaliation can happen, but have you seen cities like Aleppo?
They have already seized radioactive material from hospitals and research installations in Syria. A dirty bomb is probably perfectly within their means.
Of course IS doesn't pose an existential thread to the West. Of all the Islamic terror organizations though they undoubtedly are the biggest thread so far, if simply to global economy. And foreign IS fighters coming back to Europe are already a problem that is only going to increase. And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
It sounds really awful, but to me, with these religious fanatics, I really think this war to the death is the best way to go about it, and the best way to ensure peace in the region. Whatever happens, this factions will always hate each other, [...]
This is such a stupid thing to say. For hundreds of years, these "factions" have lived more or less peaceful next to each other, including Christians, Zoroastrians, Kurds - while Christian Europe was massacring each other on a scale not reached anywhere else in the world. Just because the last few years, not even decades, saw intense ethnic fighting in the region doesn't mean it was always that way nor that it has to stay that way forever.
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
In the end it will come down to oil. Will this interupt oil supplies/prices in a long run? If so how much? Right now as pointed above its enemies fighting enemies. For the most part at least.
On August 05 2014 16:30 WhiteDog wrote: What frighten people is ISIS unstability. They re like mad dogs, and people in the West fear terrorism like the 9/11.
They fear them because they keep getting media airplay about how the mighty caliphate will be from sea to sea and bla bla bla. If people think of the core of ISIS supporters as disaffected Sunni-Arabs living in the middle east equivalent of Pashtunland then it will be closer to the mark but less scary (obviously still scary since Taleban provided Al Quida its bases but not the clash of civilizations/rabbid unpredictable barbarians that the news likes to make out of them. They are no less scary than the other jihadist groups in Libya or Syria.)
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
In the end it will come down to oil. Will this interupt oil supplies/prices in a long run? If so how much? Right now as pointed above its enemies fighting enemies. For the most part at least.
It's the reason why some people wants china to act : the oil in Iraq belong to China for the biggest part. The US does not care since it is now the third or second producer in the world.
China signed the oil deal with the Russians a while ago. it will take them some years to lay in the pipes but still, i'm guessing it's better/cheaper then to meddle in a war that could last for years. plus, ISIS should be selling oil at discount prices on the black market anyway just to get more money for weapons. that's a win for any buyer.
On August 05 2014 16:30 WhiteDog wrote: What frighten people is ISIS unstability. They re like mad dogs, and people in the West fear terrorism like the 9/11.
They fear them because they keep getting media airplay about how the mighty caliphate will be from sea to sea and bla bla bla. If people think of the core of ISIS supporters as disaffected Sunni-Arabs living in the middle east equivalent of Pashtunland then it will be closer to the mark but less scary (obviously still scary since Taleban provided Al Quida its bases but not the clash of civilizations/rabbid unpredictable barbarians that the news likes to make out of them. They are no less scary than the other jihadist groups in Libya or Syria.)
Yeah, they got land in Iraq, but how does this "endanger" the west? It juts doesn't. Being scared as a european or american is just dumb, really, really dumb.
On August 05 2014 20:49 Velr wrote: Which success?
Yeah, they got land in Iraq, but how does this "endanger" the west? It juts doesn't. Being scared as a european or american is just dumb, really, really dumb.
Don't get me wrong I'm not fearing for my own life at the hands of these Jihadists in any way, what I am afraid of is an ever worsening of the situation the middle east.
The War in Syria has already gone on for 3 years and has already killed 250,000 people at least. IS is essentially a spill over from that conflict, and with their border clashes now happening in Lebanon we have yet a third country that could become embroiled in this mess.
I'm not afraid for my life, but seeing the entire region divulge into a massive blood bath isn't something I particularly want to see.
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
In the end it will come down to oil. Will this interupt oil supplies/prices in a long run? If so how much? Right now as pointed above its enemies fighting enemies. For the most part at least.
It's the reason why some people wants china to act : the oil in Iraq belong to China for the biggest part. The US does not care since it is now the third or second producer in the world.
Actually, we're number 1 now, with production continuing to increase dramatically. We really don't care and are happy to see our enemies bleed each other dry.
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
In the end it will come down to oil. Will this interupt oil supplies/prices in a long run? If so how much? Right now as pointed above its enemies fighting enemies. For the most part at least.
It's the reason why some people wants china to act : the oil in Iraq belong to China for the biggest part. The US does not care since it is now the third or second producer in the world.
Actually, we're number 1 now, with production continuing to increase dramatically. We really don't care and are happy to see our enemies bleed each other dry.
Why wouldn't we care? It's not like our oil is nationalized, we are selling everything on the global market. If Iraqi oil is taken out of the supply chain, then we pay more for oil.
And it is just absurd that the West is completely unwilling to do anything about it, especially seeing the insane overreactions to Islamic terror of the past decade.
Once tricked by Republican 'strategists', twice shy. The question whether IS can pose even a tangible threat is debatable, it seems like every time IS 'records' a victory a week later some other region they record a defeat. Imo the West likes the way things are right now ISIS-Gulf-Arabs vs. Iran and its proxies, both sides invest their energies into killing each other. ISIS so far hasnt even been as successful as the Taleban in terms of actually creating a functioning state. Mosul is already bucking, all they have are the poor backwaters and if the West got serious about interdicting Gulf Arab dollars then they would probably crack. But like I said, imo Western intelligence is perfectly fine for Saudi-Qatari money being used to kill Iranian-Hizballah types and vice versa.
In the end it will come down to oil. Will this interupt oil supplies/prices in a long run? If so how much? Right now as pointed above its enemies fighting enemies. For the most part at least.
It's the reason why some people wants china to act : the oil in Iraq belong to China for the biggest part. The US does not care since it is now the third or second producer in the world.
Actually, we're number 1 now, with production continuing to increase dramatically. We really don't care and are happy to see our enemies bleed each other dry.
Why wouldn't we care? It's not like our oil is nationalized, we are selling everything on the global market. If Iraqi oil is taken out of the supply chain, then we pay more for oil.
But increasing prices would mean higher profit margins for American businesses so maybe it evens out the increased costs for the average consumer?
EPT
