On August 08 2014 21:44 Laserist wrote: I'd say a good majority of the people commenting here is analyzing the situation wrong or partially wrong due to looking the situation from another planet. As a very close resident to middle-east(Turkey), the political sides and their actions are very different, and the motives are not as many posters referred.
As far as I have heard the situation in Iraq was that the corrupt and repressive regime was getting excedingly unpopular in the northern part of the country. At some point ISIS started conquering areas which lead to the truely corrupt and badly equipped part of the army located in the north just retreating. With the help of local leaders who saw anything as better than the iraqi government, ISIS was able to spread their control. What I am hearing from people knowing people living in the areas they are scared now and several hope for the return of the iraqi army. The internal stability will be a problem down the line for IS.
The Kurds is a very sensitive subject in particularly Turkey since they were systematically repressed in the past. The public support for them is still moderate and EU is not loved since they don't understand the PKK and their war against Turkey. The war was only cease fired in 2013 when the former terrorists withdrew to their partially independent regions in... Iraq. They are not exactly "friends" since they are on the terrorist list in EU and USA. So supporting the Kurds is also pretty bad.
The area is populated by groups of pest, cholera and eternal headache. No matter who you support they are corrupt and most of them are opportunists with terror tendencies if they get repressed.
I didn't say it was your view either, I just explained why I think its a terrible point of view. I do however think its close to the view of the Obama administration and of a large part of the american population (and the parts of rest of the west) and doing nothing now will bite us in the ass in the long run.
It's up to our leaders to have the courage to make the right call, doing the popular thing is easy. You honestly can't expect the general public to have an informed opinion on 80% of government decisions, especially when it comes to foreign policy, so you have to elect someone that does the right thing and public opinion shouldn't come into the calculus all that much.
Except we don't have much of a choice who to elect. As the comic Foxtrot puts it best... heads, I elect the slightly balding guy, or tails, I elect the fat guy. We just pray that the person who had enough influence to get to that position, might just have enough empathy to do "what is right". And given how government works, you need support, and a shit-ton of money to do that. And people in your own party in the USA, can't even agree with their own policies, never mind they have to work together with the opposing party, it's a train-wreck of bureaucracy.
Similar to that, we need people who are brave enough in Iraq to stand up, and stabilize their region. Of course, most of time people realize that if you kill/oppress your opposition, maybe they'll go away. (History reflects that sad truth, Native Americans cough, purges in the name of religion, purges in the name of ethnicity, in the name of being insulted... (yea), all around the world). Uniting the Warlords will take an unusual feat, for that to occur. Reminds me of the unification war(s) that happened in China hundreds of years ago. It took a brutal dictator to do that... lovely example I'm sure.
On topic, what the Kurdish forces need, above all, is probably coordination, as their forces are from opposing parties that had a brutal civil war not too long ago. Also, from what I am reading, a lot of their forces are from retirement, or too fresh to be experienced. Not a good combination, when faced with fanatics who have warred for months, if not years. Weapons will do nothing, until they are organized enough to deploy their forces appropriately. Also, apparently ISIS has been disguising themselves as Kurdish forces, so the Kurdish should probably set up a military code/ identification in that regards.
On August 08 2014 22:13 mahrgell wrote: Now the US realized their threats and bombed IS positions as a response to IS artillery shelling the kurdish capital of Erbil.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
France took care of the jihadists in Mali on its own, mainly using ground troops.
Regarding Iraq the US has some responsibilities now since it played a big role in getting it to the current state. What has shown to be worthless in Iraq is the Iraqi military built by the US. And really just sending over some drones wont even be a noticable bump in the US defense budget.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
Don't forget who started this mess in the first place.
That being said, sending in airstrikes was the correct move here. ISIS is too significant a threat to just ignore.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
France took care of the jihadists in Mali on its own, mainly using ground troops.
Regarding Iraq the US has some responsibilities now since it played a big role in getting it to the current state. What has shown to be worthless in Iraq is the Iraqi military built by the US. And really just sending over some drones wont even be a noticable bump in the US defense budget.
Yea I agree and as someone as war weary as anyone in the US that hasn't lost a family member over there can be, I can't believe I'm actually supporting an American military operation again.
But you're right, we have a certain responsibility for what IS is doing since it's our fucking fault for destabilizing Iraq in the first place. Those are our guns (mostly) those guys are using.
Plus, we're already waging a counter-productive and highly unpopular drone war in Pakistan already, if this means we get to use those drones in an area that's more productive then that's just a plus.
We hit IS artillery that was shelling the Kurdish capital of Irbil according to the Pentagon.
The Pentagon said American aircraft attacked artillery that was being used against Kurdish forces defending the northern city of Irbil.
President Barack Obama authorised air strikes on Thursday, but said he would not send US troops back to Iraq....
According to the Pentagon statement, two F/A-18 aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on mobile artillery near Irbil, where US personnel are based.
The air strike is the first time the US has been directly involved in a military operation in Iraq since American troops withdrew in late 2011.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said the world needed to wake up to the threat posed by the IS group.
Its "campaign of terror against the innocent, including the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and its grotesque targeted acts of violence show all the warning signs of genocide," he said.
Since someone linked the video in the reddit thread I figure I'll share it here too. Here's an example of one of the bombs we hit em with.
The Pentagon said American aircraft attacked artillery that was being used against Kurdish forces defending the northern city of Irbil.
President Barack Obama authorised air strikes on Thursday, but said he would not send US troops back to Iraq....
According to the Pentagon statement, two F/A-18 aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on mobile artillery near Irbil, where US personnel are based.
The air strike is the first time the US has been directly involved in a military operation in Iraq since American troops withdrew in late 2011.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said the world needed to wake up to the threat posed by the IS group.
Its "campaign of terror against the innocent, including the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and its grotesque targeted acts of violence show all the warning signs of genocide," he said.
Yes, they were a legitimate target because there's a couple of hundred military advisers and CIA staff in Erbil, which qualifies under protecting americans. Obama also made a caveat for protecting the people on the mountain but he's not starting air strikes on ISIS.
We hit IS artillery that was shelling the Kurdish capital of Irbil according to the Pentagon.
The Pentagon said American aircraft attacked artillery that was being used against Kurdish forces defending the northern city of Irbil.
President Barack Obama authorised air strikes on Thursday, but said he would not send US troops back to Iraq....
According to the Pentagon statement, two F/A-18 aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Gulf dropped 500-pound laser-guided bombs on mobile artillery near Irbil, where US personnel are based.
The air strike is the first time the US has been directly involved in a military operation in Iraq since American troops withdrew in late 2011.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said the world needed to wake up to the threat posed by the IS group.
Its "campaign of terror against the innocent, including the Yazidi and Christian minorities, and its grotesque targeted acts of violence show all the warning signs of genocide," he said.
Yes, they were a legitimate target because there's a couple of hundred military advisers and CIA staff in Erbil, which qualifies under protecting americans. Obama also made a caveat for protecting the people on the mountain but he's not starting air strikes on ISIS.
Whether or not ISIS gets hit depends on them.
Yea but you can't call it redline 2.0 when we actually bombed them. It's not a mere threat when the bombs have already been dropped.
Agreed that IS can probably avoid being hit with airstrikes if they pick their targets carefully, but considering that IS is fighting an open ground war with the Kurds, if their capital is one of the places they can't attack that drastically cuts down on their tactical options.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
EPT
