I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years.
I will say that it is difficult to attribute any consistency to American foreign policy as presidents come and go. (I would argue that Gaddaffi was substantially more cooperative in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, but next president comes in and US starts supporting Libyan rebels)
I'd argue that the current administration has a weird habit of supporting rebels against 'secular-ish' dictators (defined as "very willing to violently suppress Islamic terrorists" - for example, Mubarak) but maybe that is an argument for a different thread.
To be honest I don't mind them going out there to fight and die so long as we are careful when they come back. Heck I wish we could stop them from coming back at all.
someone should make a kickstarter to buy them tickets. One-way.
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years.
I will say that it is difficult to attribute any consistency to American foreign policy as presidents come and go. (I would argue that Gaddaffi was substantially more cooperative in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, but next president comes in and US starts supporting Libyan rebels)
I'd argue that the current administration has a weird habit of supporting rebels against 'secular-ish' dictators (defined as "very willing to violently suppress Islamic terrorists) but maybe that is an argument for a different thread.
To be honest I don't mind them going out there to fight and die so long as we are careful when they come back. Heck I wish we could stop them from coming back at all.
someone should make a kickstarter to buy them tickets. One-way.
The US isn't a one person dictatorship and presidential elections aren't akin to something as radical as Communist revolution. Foreign policy for the most part stays the same president-to-president, especially for an imperialistic nation. Just look at your own Soviet history, or any extremely powerful country in history. I honestly don't understand your point that "things change with the president". Only by a small margin, if that. There is a whole government + lobbyists and most especially a foreign policy scheme that has existed since the US became a country. It's a lot bigger than one person and Obama is certainly no saint. I'm sorry but that's not simple to change. The primary things that has made us less aggressive is the fact we're reeling badly from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the US public is pissed as fuck, the world hates us more than ever before, and we have no idea what to do with our infinite debt. The transition from Bush to Obama is trivial by comparison on these matters.
The US has been supporting rebels against secular/progressive governments since the US started getting involved in the Mideast whenever said governments are independent of external domination. It's certainly not new. It started as early as when we overthrew the popular Iranian democracy to put a dictator back in power. For reference, that was back in 1953. Your Uncle Joe had died that year.
US action in the Middle East is consistent. It's just not to the same end as is claimed. There isn't really any desire to fight radical Islam, or bring peace or freedom or whatever. Basically all of our involvement in the Middle East comes down to protecting the Petrodollar. Basically every revolt and bout of civil unrest we've supported has been against a regime which was trying to undermine the Petrodollar.
On August 09 2014 09:25 Millitron wrote: US action in the Middle East is consistent. It's just not to the same end as is claimed. There isn't really any desire to fight radical Islam, or bring peace or freedom or whatever. Basically all of our involvement in the Middle East comes down to protecting the Petrodollar. Basically every revolt and bout of civil unrest we've supported has been against a regime which was trying to undermine the Petrodollar.
And yet another comes forward with "It's all about da money!" supposing he sounds intelligent and insightful. You do not.
If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel.
ok ok, that's reasonable, I think we can all agree with that
However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go
. wait what
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years. They were undone for strategic/political reasons, and I don't think anyone, not even in the US, believes the Iraq War or the degree or length of the embargo had any legitimacy, really.
Iraq was already horribly managed before the americans came in.
WASHINGTON, Aug 8 (Reuters) - The Iraqi government provided a planeload of ammunition to Peshmerga fighters from Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish region on Friday, a U.S. official said, in an unprecedented act of military cooperation between Kurdish and Iraqi forces brought on by an acute militant threat.
The official said Iraqi security forces flew a C-130 cargo plane loaded with mostly small-arms ammunition to Arbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, in a move that American officials hope will help the region's Peshmerga fighters keep militants from the Islamic State, an al Qaeda offshoot, at bay.
If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel.
ok ok, that's reasonable, I think we can all agree with that
However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go
. wait what
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years. They were undone for strategic/political reasons, and I don't think anyone, not even in the US, believes the Iraq War or the degree or length of the embargo had any legitimacy, really.
Iraq was already horribly managed before the americans came in.
It was still infinitely better than it is now, and a lot better than most developing countries at the time (especially in Asia). I've yet to hear of a developing country that wasn't horribly managed tbh. Given 20 years of growth rather then the opposite, it's pretty safe to say it would have evolved into a much wealthier, better managed state, instead of being thrown the other direction. That's usually the trend that happens with countries. Dunno if you're trying to deny that or not. Almost as important, Islamic terrorism in the region probably wouldn't even be a fraction of the problem it is either, with a strong anti-Islamist nation still around. To say the least, ISIS wouldn't exist. I mean, what countries are there still around that can fight jihadist factions and countries? The Saudis certainly won't oppose their jihad buddies. So, I'm not sure why you're trying to somehow implicitly justify full embargos, war, and destruction. Switzerland would be on par with some African countries if it were to experience the same two-decade period. Pretty horrific wouldn't you say.
If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel.
ok ok, that's reasonable, I think we can all agree with that
However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go
. wait what
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years. They were undone for strategic/political reasons, and I don't think anyone, not even in the US, believes the Iraq War or the degree or length of the embargo had any legitimacy, really.
Iraq was already horribly managed before the americans came in.
It was still infinitely better than it is now, and a lot better than most developing countries at the time (especially in Asia). I've yet to hear of a developing country that wasn't horribly managed tbh. Given 20 years of growth rather then the opposite, it's pretty safe to say it would have evolved into a much wealthier, better managed state, instead of being thrown the other direction. That's usually the trend that happens with countries. Dunno if you're trying to deny that or not. Almost as important, Islamic terrorism in the region probably wouldn't even be a fraction of the problem it is either, with a strong anti-Islamist nation still around. To say the least, ISIS wouldn't exist. I mean, what countries are there still around that can fight jihadist factions and countries? The Saudis certainly won't oppose their jihad buddies. So, I'm not sure why you're trying to somehow implicitly justify full embargos, war, and destruction. Switzerland would be on par with some African countries if it were to experience the same two-decade period. Pretty horrific wouldn't you say.
But many of those developing countries did not have access to such vast natural ressources. Irak has the world’s fourth largest proven petroleum reserves. With this, they should have been in a much better state than what they were in. But the Iran-Irak war and the fact that most of this money went into the military meant that it was still a very poor country.
In an alternate universe in which Americans chose John Kerry's glorious leadership over Bush jr, wouldn't there be massive Iraqi protests inspired by Tunisia that lead from the government gunning down unarmed civilians, to fighting a war against largely Sunni rebels after everyone else has fled to Turkey?
On August 09 2014 09:25 Millitron wrote: US action in the Middle East is consistent. It's just not to the same end as is claimed. There isn't really any desire to fight radical Islam, or bring peace or freedom or whatever. Basically all of our involvement in the Middle East comes down to protecting the Petrodollar. Basically every revolt and bout of civil unrest we've supported has been against a regime which was trying to undermine the Petrodollar.
And yet another comes forward with "It's all about da money!" supposing he sounds intelligent and insightful. You do not.
And yet there are people like you who are ignorant, but believe themselves to be enlightened.
Or if you prefer to go back further and examine US hegemony....perhaps read War is a Racket by General Smedley Butler.
On August 09 2014 09:25 Millitron wrote: US action in the Middle East is consistent. It's just not to the same end as is claimed. There isn't really any desire to fight radical Islam, or bring peace or freedom or whatever. Basically all of our involvement in the Middle East comes down to protecting the Petrodollar. Basically every revolt and bout of civil unrest we've supported has been against a regime which was trying to undermine the Petrodollar.
And yet another comes forward with "It's all about da money!" supposing he sounds intelligent and insightful. You do not.
As we all know, one of (if not the most) imperialistic/capitalistic countries in the world spends billions and trillions of dollars and thousands of lives of their soldiers for the greater good of mankind and worldpeace.
Worse than the "all about money shouters" are people who actually think they have figured it out. Either way.
But, since i'm interested and you think you're insightful (you certainly feel insightful enough to oppose the "all about money"-opinion), let's hear it.
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years.
I will say that it is difficult to attribute any consistency to American foreign policy as presidents come and go. (I would argue that Gaddaffi was substantially more cooperative in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, but next president comes in and US starts supporting Libyan rebels)
I'd argue that the current administration has a weird habit of supporting rebels against 'secular-ish' dictators (defined as "very willing to violently suppress Islamic terrorists) but maybe that is an argument for a different thread.
To be honest I don't mind them going out there to fight and die so long as we are careful when they come back. Heck I wish we could stop them from coming back at all.
someone should make a kickstarter to buy them tickets. One-way.
The US isn't a one person dictatorship and presidential elections aren't akin to something as radical as Communist revolution. Foreign policy for the most part stays the same president-to-president, especially for an imperialistic nation. Just look at your own Soviet history, or any extremely powerful country in history. I honestly don't understand your point that "things change with the president". Only by a small margin, if that. There is a whole government + lobbyists and most especially a foreign policy scheme that has existed since the US became a country. It's a lot bigger than one person and Obama is certainly no saint. I'm sorry but that's not simple to change. The primary things that has made us less aggressive is the fact we're reeling badly from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the US public is pissed as fuck, the world hates us more than ever before, and we have no idea what to do with our infinite debt. The transition from Bush to Obama is trivial by comparison on these matters.
The US has been supporting rebels against secular/progressive governments since the US started getting involved in the Mideast whenever said governments are independent of external domination. It's certainly not new. It started as early as when we overthrew the popular Iranian democracy to put a dictator back in power. For reference, that was back in 1953. Your Uncle Joe had died that year.
The commander in chief can make very consequential decisions even during four years in office, and I think these decisions do have a significant impact on the course of our foreign policy. For example Obama's decisions to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars completely and by X date, and his decision not to leave behind a contingency force in Iraq. These are troop movement and occupation decisions and a Republican in office could very well have made very different ones. There's also decisions on airstrikes etc.
Not only that, the neo-conservatives initiating and executing the Iraq War is presumably something a Democrat in office would not have done. Those people wanted Saddam overthrown as far back as the 90s.
Thousands of Stranded Civilians Rescued on Mount Shingal
ZAKHO, Kurdistan Region—Local officials said today that 10,000 Yezidis who were stranded on Mount Shingal for one week were rescued and settled in the town of Zakho.
Medical teams and aid organizations in Zakho have rushed in to assist the rescued families, said Rudaw reporter.
Ashti Kocher, Zakho’s security chief said that Kurdish armed forces have opened a safe corridor for the Yezidis at Mount Shingal.
“We have also cleared about 30 kilometers of the ISIL forces in order to open a road for those families,” said Kocher, who currently leads a Peshmerga unit at Sinune village near Shingal.
Kocher said that the rescued civilians were transported to the Kurdistan Region through Rojava (Syrian Kurdistan) which is under the control of Kurdish forces known as the Peoples Protection Units (YPG).
Barakat Issa, Rudaw reporter on Mount Shingal said that the number of Yezidis stranded on the mountain is higher than initially reported. He said that nearly 100,000 people are hiding on the mountain.
Issa said that in the past few days 60 children and elderly have said of hunger and thirst while there is fear that Islamic militants controlling the town of Shingal and other villages have massacred hundreds of others.
Ferhad Hamo, Rudaw reporter in the town of Derik in Rojava said that around 15,000 rescued Yezidis had arrived at Newroz camp in Rojava.
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years.
I will say that it is difficult to attribute any consistency to American foreign policy as presidents come and go. (I would argue that Gaddaffi was substantially more cooperative in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, but next president comes in and US starts supporting Libyan rebels)
I'd argue that the current administration has a weird habit of supporting rebels against 'secular-ish' dictators (defined as "very willing to violently suppress Islamic terrorists) but maybe that is an argument for a different thread.
To be honest I don't mind them going out there to fight and die so long as we are careful when they come back. Heck I wish we could stop them from coming back at all.
someone should make a kickstarter to buy them tickets. One-way.
The US isn't a one person dictatorship and presidential elections aren't akin to something as radical as Communist revolution. Foreign policy for the most part stays the same president-to-president, especially for an imperialistic nation. Just look at your own Soviet history, or any extremely powerful country in history. I honestly don't understand your point that "things change with the president". Only by a small margin, if that. There is a whole government + lobbyists and most especially a foreign policy scheme that has existed since the US became a country. It's a lot bigger than one person and Obama is certainly no saint. I'm sorry but that's not simple to change. The primary things that has made us less aggressive is the fact we're reeling badly from the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, the US public is pissed as fuck, the world hates us more than ever before, and we have no idea what to do with our infinite debt. The transition from Bush to Obama is trivial by comparison on these matters.
The US has been supporting rebels against secular/progressive governments since the US started getting involved in the Mideast whenever said governments are independent of external domination. It's certainly not new. It started as early as when we overthrew the popular Iranian democracy to put a dictator back in power. For reference, that was back in 1953. Your Uncle Joe had died that year.
The commander in chief can make very consequential decisions even during four years in office, and I think these decisions do have a significant impact on the course of our foreign policy. For example Obama's decisions to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars completely and by X date, and his decision not to leave behind a contingency force in Iraq. These are troop movement and occupation decisions and a Republican in office could very well have made very different ones. There's also decisions on airstrikes etc.
Not only that, the neo-conservatives initiating and executing the Iraq War is presumably something a Democrat in office would not have done. Those people wanted Saddam overthrown as far back as the 90s.
Of course we wanted him overthrown. He wasn't our bitch lol. If the US wanted to fight against terrorism and Islamism in the Mideast, we'd go after jihadist regimes and wipe out the Saudis and Iranians, not the nations fighting it. But considering the Saudi king sucks more of Uncle Sam's dick than a few old sorority girls used to suck mine, we're obviously not going to do that to him. Iran was, atleast according to the Bush regime, next after Iraq, but considering how disastrous Iraq was, we're not in a position to have another war.
If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel.
ok ok, that's reasonable, I think we can all agree with that
However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go
. wait what
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years. They were undone for strategic/political reasons, and I don't think anyone, not even in the US, believes the Iraq War or the degree or length of the embargo had any legitimacy, really.
Iraq was already horribly managed before the americans came in.
It was still infinitely better than it is now, and a lot better than most developing countries at the time (especially in Asia). I've yet to hear of a developing country that wasn't horribly managed tbh. Given 20 years of growth rather then the opposite, it's pretty safe to say it would have evolved into a much wealthier, better managed state, instead of being thrown the other direction. That's usually the trend that happens with countries. Dunno if you're trying to deny that or not. Almost as important, Islamic terrorism in the region probably wouldn't even be a fraction of the problem it is either, with a strong anti-Islamist nation still around. To say the least, ISIS wouldn't exist. I mean, what countries are there still around that can fight jihadist factions and countries? The Saudis certainly won't oppose their jihad buddies. So, I'm not sure why you're trying to somehow implicitly justify full embargos, war, and destruction. Switzerland would be on par with some African countries if it were to experience the same two-decade period. Pretty horrific wouldn't you say.
But many of those developing countries did not have access to such vast natural ressources. Irak has the world’s fourth largest proven petroleum reserves. With this, they should have been in a much better state than what they were in. But the Iran-Irak war and the fact that most of this money went into the military meant that it was still a very poor country.
Actually, many developing countries are extremely rich in resources. Some countries in Africa that are so poor one would think it's not even humanly possible, for example, have resources beyond anything elsewhere. Mexico has infinite resources, has been independent and without conflict except the US-Mexico War (170 years ago) and Mexican Revolution, for 2 centuries, benefits more than any country in the world from US economic trade and development, and is still an extremely shitty place to be. So, what point were you trying to make again?
But you're literally ignoring both the domestic and international conditions and history that made things the way they are in most of Asia, Latin America, Africa and even parts of Europe, like you are with Iraq.
Mmm.... considering the country was like... 20 years old by the time of the Iran-Iraq War (the monarchy for the 25 years it lasted since "independence" was pretty much still a British/western colony that sold out everything), I'd say it was doing ok by the war, when we look at things comparatively at the time. This is also immediately following the monarchy's overthrow, the US got straight to work in meddling in Iraq too. That was as early as '58. When you have foreign powers trying to undermine stability and progress in your country, it makes things a bit tough, huh?
The GDP grew over 1300% in the 1970s, and that was even before the giant economic boom that most famously China and most other developing countries in the world would experience. Rare for a developing country at the time, it put an enormous focus on education and the sciences. Seems like they had their priorities right. The Iraqi brain over the past couple decades is a pretty well-known matter of fact.
Mind you, the region now Iraq was completely raped by the Ottomans for centuries (who were a lot less nice than your European imperialists) and Mongols before that, then the British, and the monarchy. Starting from rock bottom in recent times is really tough, especially when you have big imperial powers or crazy jihads fucking you over ever since.
Define "very poor", because at the time, everywhere was magnitudes poorer. Iraq started from a GDP of a billion in '58. Even the US had about ~36% of the economy it does today when I was born, and magnitudes lower in the 50s (again, as the most developed country in the world). and that's considering it was already the world's most developed country. Think about that. All the world's wealth has come in recent decades and countries that weren't suffering embargo and total war were enjoying the benefits. Yeah, when you fight a war against the biggest jihad in history and everyone's too weak to help, most of your money is going to go into that. A country surrounded by terror states isn't supposed to have a decent military? Sorry man, this isn't Switzerland in the Alps which no one cares about. This is one of the most important strategic/geopolitical places in the world surrounded by the craziest countries and terrorist groups in the world. Like Israel, they couldn't afford not to invest in military, and the Islamic Revolution was proof of that. Nothing scared the shit out of the Arabs and Israelis more than Khomeini's takeover did.
When you consider the overwhelming majority of the developing world's economic growth came in the last 30 years, well, remove the last 20 years of embargo and war, and replace it with 20 years of progress and development, and you'll have a country that'll put "glorious" Turkey to shame,
Anyways, the fact of the matter is that there's infinitely more wealth and wealth-generation in the world than there was even 30 years ago. This is why even with significantly more corruption, and significantly worse management than before, Iraq's economy is in the $100s of billions and isn't letting up just from the last decade. Things are a lot easier now than they were then. Now if Iraq had 20 more years of that growth, rather than being forced the other way, we'd see an entirely different place than what we see today. We'd probably have another Israel, except for the fact that it wasn't build by educated European immigrants from Europe's smartest countries and infinite US investment like Israel was.
“It may be that in the coming months the British presence there will increase and a small number of specialist units will join them but that is a long way off.
“The political will for a significant British military presence in Iraq is non-existent but this humanitarian effort is enormous and these people need protecting.”
The strikes this afternoon came after Obama gave the green light to protect Christians and avert “a potential act of genocide” of tens of thousands of members of the ancient Yazidi sect.
They have taken refuge on a desert mountaintop from Islamic State forces who have threatened to exterminate them unless they take up Islam.
The Daily Mirror understands plans for British specials forces to go to northern Iraq have been underway for some weeks but they have only recently been sent.
American crack special forces troops including Navy SEALs and army Delta Force and CIA spies have been in Baghdad and Arbil for weeks helping with the Iraqi effort to tackle the growing IS threat.
Sunni Muslim fighters from the Islamic State, barred from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, are obsessed with establishing a caliphate or Muslim region and eradicating unbelievers.
On August 10 2014 08:07 Vindicare605 wrote: The British are deploying special forces to Iraq to help spot for air strikes. Hints that more special forces groups could be on the way.
“It may be that in the coming months the British presence there will increase and a small number of specialist units will join them but that is a long way off.
“The political will for a significant British military presence in Iraq is non-existent but this humanitarian effort is enormous and these people need protecting.”
The strikes this afternoon came after Obama gave the green light to protect Christians and avert “a potential act of genocide” of tens of thousands of members of the ancient Yazidi sect.
They have taken refuge on a desert mountaintop from Islamic State forces who have threatened to exterminate them unless they take up Islam.
The Daily Mirror understands plans for British specials forces to go to northern Iraq have been underway for some weeks but they have only recently been sent.
American crack special forces troops including Navy SEALs and army Delta Force and CIA spies have been in Baghdad and Arbil for weeks helping with the Iraqi effort to tackle the growing IS threat.
Sunni Muslim fighters from the Islamic State, barred from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, are obsessed with establishing a caliphate or Muslim region and eradicating unbelievers.
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves.
The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region.
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.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
I love little more than seeing examples of European hypocrisy given how much shit they give us.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't really buy the argument that the West "broke" any of these countries anyway.
You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on.
On August 10 2014 08:07 Vindicare605 wrote: The British are deploying special forces to Iraq to help spot for air strikes. Hints that more special forces groups could be on the way.
“It may be that in the coming months the British presence there will increase and a small number of specialist units will join them but that is a long way off.
“The political will for a significant British military presence in Iraq is non-existent but this humanitarian effort is enormous and these people need protecting.”
The strikes this afternoon came after Obama gave the green light to protect Christians and avert “a potential act of genocide” of tens of thousands of members of the ancient Yazidi sect.
They have taken refuge on a desert mountaintop from Islamic State forces who have threatened to exterminate them unless they take up Islam.
The Daily Mirror understands plans for British specials forces to go to northern Iraq have been underway for some weeks but they have only recently been sent.
American crack special forces troops including Navy SEALs and army Delta Force and CIA spies have been in Baghdad and Arbil for weeks helping with the Iraqi effort to tackle the growing IS threat.
Sunni Muslim fighters from the Islamic State, barred from al-Qaeda for being too extreme, are obsessed with establishing a caliphate or Muslim region and eradicating unbelievers.
I say forget Iraq and just secure a Kurdistan and completely shift support from Baghdad to Kurdistan. Of course it would all be easier if we hadn't inadvertently armed ISIS ourselves.
The Kurds are going to likely need Israeli-lite level support for as long, in order to remain a safe and secure ally in the region.
On August 10 2014 09:52 Vindicare605 wrote: If the Kurds don't get their own country after this I'm going to be furious.
Lol. Both these posts, I don't understand the logic. What substantiates these statements? I'll get to the second post in a bit. But, Vindicare, please tell that to the Turks and Iranians as well to do the same for Kurds.
What's funny though, is during the Iraq War, there was a proposition in the US Congress to split up Iraq (yes absurd as that sounds that we were deciding what to do with foreign countries) into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite sections. Iraqis were vehemently opposed to it, including Kurdish administrators. The Kurds find your fury funny :s
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.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
I love little more than seeing examples of European hypocrisy given how much shit they give us.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't really buy the argument that the West "broke" any of these countries anyway.
You broke Iraq long before you invaded the 2nd time... but then you made it even worse... Saddam looks like a nice guy now compared to what is going on.
If you've read my posts in the last few pages, you would have seen my references to the embargo. Yes, that's what crashed the country, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We (US) are the modern-era's Mongols. This is why it is not a good idea to fuck with us :3. Especially in the decade following the USSR's collapse, we ruled the world haha, making such a thing possible. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel and certainly our most valuable ally in the region.
EPT
