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 are silly. 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) 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 economy, and destroyed any semblance of economy, infrastructure, and society in the country. Let's not talk about the death toll. We 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. If only Hussein had sucked Uncle Sam's dick. The country would be the one decent society/economy in western Asia aside from Israel.
I know you have your facts right i was replying to the other guy.
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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy and least productive dictator in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone, including his own party, to leave office, and the US is looking forward to a new Iraqi leader and reorganized government to cooperate with. At this point, people are just waiting for him to give his formal resignation. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
So, conclusively, once Iraq reorganizes its government and the US has an administration they'll work a lot more closely with, and as the Iraqi counter-offensive is put into full swing, the Kurdish fighting effort will be swept under the rug, or remembered for being beaten back by ISIS until the Iraqi military got its shit together and won.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s and teamed up with the Turks to commit genocide against Armenians and Assyrians (the latter who is from Iraq), so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. They're not "buying" any right. And the shift in military importance is quickly moving to the standard Iraqi military's as the peshmerga are increasingly in deep shit, especially after the loss at Sinjar.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On August 09 2014 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. We're literally waiting for Maliki to resign. Everyone in Iraq and even the US wants Maliki to step down so there can be a new Iraqi leadership. We are so focused on Baghdad that we're watching their politics more than we're watching anyone else. With the amount of focus we have on Baghdad, you'd forget there was a KRG.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On August 09 2014 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On August 09 2014 01:30 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. Taking this legit is like the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit. And it doesn't surprise me this news comes from a Kurdish site, either.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric of "their goal" from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement with me.
But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks simply for their religion. We did it for the Jews, most of whom were not even from the Mideast, so why not with Assyrians who still largely live in their ethno-religious homeland (at least until the mass diaspora of the Iraq War just years ago)? lol
But more related to the matter, you see, ISIS realized something. They realized they don't know precisely what they're doing in Syria (including dropping an expected attack on Aleppo), and they can't really push inward from Anbar and northern Iraq. So they've made the primary focus the Kurds. Right now, ISIS's primary goal is taking Arbil. This means the Kurds are going to be feeling the brunt of the fight against ISIS, and it could be devastating for them.
Fortunately for the KRG, the Iraqi military is entirely backing them in this fight. Iraq is also arming the Kurds. Without Iraq, the Kurds could very well be overrun. Unfortunately for KRG, this means the Iraqi government has the trump card in any sort of post-conflict negotiations, the whole "we saved your asses" kinda. If ISIS even takes Arbil, then that'll pretty much destroy Barzani's leadership. But if something THAT extreme were to happen, and Iraqi forces were to retake the city later on, then Barzani and other Kurdish fanatics who support him would have literally no say in this independence stuff. That would certainly be a very unfortunate scenario for them.
Considering the Turks, a close US ally, are on pretty bad terms with Kurds overall, and the fact that the US's primary focus is on its cooperation with Baghdad, don't expect the Kurds to get too much support.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote: [quote]
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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme.
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war.
So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
.
Erdrogan is exporting Kurdish oil as we speak, he would be totally fine with a Kurdistan that doesnt involve any of his territories, and compared to the Shiites he doesnt trust in Baghdad or Syria he'd welcome it since it would be wholly dependent on his good will. -- but I agree, people who are viewing Kurds as some sort of Israel 2.0 need to wake up, Iraqi Kurdistan is divided between two families. The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme.
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war.
So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that.
I'm not even really sure what the 'status quo' really means? Looking at the Kurdish history it looks like independence isn't something only a few of them want...?
Either way the way the world has been working they seem like a likable enough people (more so than the leaders in all of their resident countries), so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age.
I don't know, perhaps the Kurds have some ISIS like agenda I'm unaware of? But I don't see how at least breaking them off a piece of Iraq is bad, other than it upsets bigger despots in the region. Is there something from common people showing antihises toward independence?
I guess since I see a huge regional/global conflict as inevitable (if not already brewing) I guess I don't see the benefit in stalling? Unless there is some important tech just over the horizon?
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme.
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war.
So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that.
I'm not even really sure what the 'status quo' really means? Looking at the Kurdish history it looks like independence isn't something only a few of them want...?
Either way the way the world has been working they seem like a likable enough people (more so than the leaders in all of their resident countries), so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age.
I don't know, perhaps the Kurds have some ISIS like agenda I'm unaware of? But I don't see how at least breaking them off a piece of Iraq is bad, other than it upsets bigger despots in the region. Is there something from common people showing antihises toward independence?
I guess since I see a huge regional/global conflict as inevitable (if not already brewing) I guess I don't see the benefit in stalling? Unless there is some important tech just over the horizon?
I think the main problem of partisioning off Kurdistan is that the rest of Iraq is also split in a northern part, mostly controlled by ISIS now and a southern part. That partision would also be needed to assure peace, if not more important since the conflict between the needs of these regions in Iraq was what gave rise to ISIS. Not that the fanatic salafists from ISIS should be recognized, but it is not from nothing they control most of the land they control. The conflict between the Sunnis in the north and Shiites in the south is important to address too if you want a more lasting peace. Calling it Assyria or whatever is unimportant.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy and least productive dictator in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone, including his own party, to leave office, and the US is looking forward to a new Iraqi leader and reorganized government to cooperate with. At this point, people are just waiting for him to give his formal resignation. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
So, conclusively, once Iraq reorganizes its government and the US has an administration they'll work a lot more closely with, and as the Iraqi counter-offensive is put into full swing, the Kurdish fighting effort will be swept under the rug, or remembered for being beaten back by ISIS until the Iraqi military got its shit together and won.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s and teamed up with the Turks to commit genocide against Armenians and Assyrians (the latter who is from Iraq), so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. They're not "buying" any right. And the shift in military importance is quickly moving to the standard Iraqi military's as the peshmerga are increasingly in deep shit, especially after the loss at Sinjar.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On August 09 2014 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. We're literally waiting for Maliki to resign. Everyone in Iraq and even the US wants Maliki to step down so there can be a new Iraqi leadership. We are so focused on Baghdad that we're watching their politics more than we're watching anyone else. With the amount of focus we have on Baghdad, you'd forget there was a KRG.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
Why are you so opposed to them having their own state? Lets not forget how saddam killed thousands of them with gas supplied by western powers like your own country. I would like them to be able to have their own country and live peacefully with all the other peoples around them.
Middle Eastern kurds live and have possible territorial claims in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. even if you see the kurdish lands in Syria and Iraq as up for grabs and Turkey backing some form of semi-autonomous Kurdistan, you're still left with Iran. it would be then easy to use kurds to start stuff with Iran. Israel would favor that i'm sure.
Some of the rebel groups in Syria that the US and some European countries are funding have now joined with ISIS. What a failure the West's policy was- Better to leave Assad in power than let these lunatics take over.
According to Samer al-Ani, an opposition media activist from Deir Ezzor, several fighting groups affiliated to the western-backed Military Council worked discreetly with Isis, even before the group's latest offensive. Liwa al-Ansar and Liwa Jund al-Aziz, he said, pledged allegiance to Isis in secret, with reports that Isis is using them to put down a revolt by the Sha'itat tribe near the Iraqi border.
He warned that money being sent through members of the National Coalition to rebels in Deir Ezzor risks going to Isis. Another source from Deir Ezzor said that these groups pledged loyalty to Isis four months ago, so this was not forced as a result of Isis's latest push, as happened elsewhere. Such collaboration was key to the takeover of Deir Ezzor in recent weeks, especially in areas where Isis could not defeat the local forces so easily.
This is not the first, or the only, time in which groups affiliated to the military structures backed by the US and the Gulf states have worked with Isis. Saddam al-Jamal, a top commander for the Free Syrian Army's eastern front, pledged allegiance to Isis in November and fought in its ranks, wreaking a grisly carnage in his hometown of Abu Kamal in April. Other groups affiliated to the western-backed military councils that have pledged allegiance to Isis include Liwa Fajr al-Islam in Homs.
Moderate religious groups that had been established mostly to fight jihadists are now working closely, if quietly, with Isis. Liwa Ahl al-Athar, for example, has discreetly pledged allegiance to Isis. The Salafi-leaning rebel alliance, which has a strong presence in many areas in Deir Ezzor and beyond, is financially backed by private donors from the Arab Gulf states, but is said to be in the "good guys" list by governments that back the Syrian opposition.
Really sad to see what's going on over there to so many tens of thousands of people forced to leave their ancestral homeland or face brutal death.
Here's my rant:
The western media for the most part is a complete joke to me. Not until the first 72 hour cease fire in Gaza began, did anyone care about what was happening in Iraq or Syria, where indeed much more people are dying and more severe crimes against humanity are being committed. The pictures of the torture going on, little kids beheaded, etc.etc. is so f*cking disgusting and I wish there was more sympathy for what's going on. There is one doctor from Sweden treating the Yazidis who escaped the mountains, but no UN doctors or doctors from other organizations. They are all in Gaza or in process of going to Gaza... A tragedy there too for sure, but there is so much hypocrisy..
The threat of IS has just started to be taken seriously by Western countries, which is ridiculous. You'd think that with a radical Islamist army recently capturing a city with a population of 2 MILLION would cause people to wake up...
@tomatriedes I was against the idea of aiding rebels from the start. I mean seriously, how hard was it to realize what kind of chaos might ensue from further destabilizing Syria? This is the age of political correctness, without any logic.
The threat of IS has just started to be taken seriously by Western countries, which is ridiculous. You'd think that with a radical Islamist army recently capturing a city with a population of 2 MILLION would cause people to wake up...
why? Radical Islamist armies sometimes control whole countries and except those rare times when they provide homes for terrorists attacking the West no one really cares how many women they execute or how many goats they sexually assault. The reality is that if there was no oil in the middle east then everyone would treat this as another African scenario.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
.
Erdrogan is exporting Kurdish oil as we speak, he would be totally fine with a Kurdistan that doesnt involve any of his territories, and compared to the Shiites he doesnt trust in Baghdad or Syria he'd welcome it since it would be wholly dependent on his good will. -- but I agree, people who are viewing Kurds as some sort of Israel 2.0 need to wake up, Iraqi Kurdistan is divided between two families. The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize.
Of course Erdogan is okay with that, as long as it isn't HIS own Kurds doing the same. He's okay with anything that can destabilize the "evil" Arab countries and "evil" Israel. The Turks are pretty much the country no one in Europe, the Mideast, or their ethnic Turkic relatives in Central Asia like, so best to continue playing the villain. I lol'd when he publicly denounced Israel as the new Nazi Germany a week or two ago. Fun guy.
I agree, the Kurds are so underdeveloped and unorganized that they're practically the furthest thing away from an Israel 2.0. They'd be closer to Albania 2.0 than to Israel.
The only reason they arent at each others throats is they taste a bigger prize.
So independent Iraqi Kurdistan, which is pretty tribal, results in chaotic feudalism between Kurdish groups, and then Iraqi forces move in, conquer the territory, and absorb it as a non-autonomous part of Iraq. Doesn't seem like they'll achieve much lol.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone to lead office, and the US is looking forward to a new leader and reorganized government. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s, so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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.
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
The total number of Kurdistani voters participating in the referendum was 1,998,061 people.
- 1,973412 people voted for independence.
- 19650 voted for Kurdistan to remain as part of Iraq.
Thus 98.8% of the people of Kurdistan have voted for independence.
The committee stated that the referendum was held in all Kurdish areas including Kirkuk, Khanaqin and Kurdish areas in Mosul province. But it excluded the Kurds living in Baghdad and other Arab cities and towns.
Seems like the Kurdish people disagree with your assessment of their desires. I suppose the ones outside of where it would be probably feel less motivated toward independence.
It seems like the US's focus is to reduce agitation and independence struggles are pretty much the opposite.
“From now on, we won’t hide that that’s our goal,” Massoud Barzani, president of the Regional Kurdistan Government, told the BBC in an interview. “Iraq is effectively partitioned now. Are we supposed to stay in this tragic situation the country’s living? It’s not me who will decide on independence. It’s the people.”
LOL! 98%? Also, 99% of people voted for Saddam Hussein, and 97% of Crimeans voted to join Russia. Do you believe these numbers as well? You are telling me you trust Saddam Hussein and Putin? Because that's exactly what you're telling me. And as far as I'm aware the Kurds have very dirty politics, like everywhere else in the region. Nothing says otherwise, so this claim by Kurdish administrators doesn't surprise me. It looks like business as usual in the Mideast to me. You're about the same as the Russians who believe the 97% in Crimea was legit.
Please, results are never that ridiculously one way or the other. All it says is a dead giveaway that someone's obviously giving bs numbers. All it tells us, is the person telling us the results is full of shit, whether it's a 3rd world government or a highly-politically-motivated 3rd world faction.
And I don't know man, overall, Kurdish leaders are overall not necessarily on any side on the matter: http://rudaw.net/english/kurdistan/30032014 We can't go with the rhetoric from one fanatic like Barzani and claim it as the entire opinion of the KRG leadership or that of millions of people. Now that's absurd. Unless we should do things the Putin way and just throw sham numbers around.
In any case, lots of things from my last post went unaddressed. I'll treat it as your agreement. But one of many points from my last post, perhaps we should give the land back to the Assyrians. Having faced genocide and persecution, they deserve to be restored in their homeland, and their actual ethnic/racial where they've been living for millenia, constantly persecuted and devastated by Arabs and Kurds and Turks. We did it for the Jews, so why not with Assyrians? lol
I didn't agree with them I just assumed they weren't directed at me.
I'm not arguing the Kurds should get the land for any reason related to their historical treatment so I don't think that is the precedent that would be applicable. I was speaking from a mostly pragmatic standpoint. Honestly, I don't see a solution that doesn't take us into WWIII anyway so I'm all for throwing the 'first punch' I'd love to still think peace without war was possible but I just don't see it happening. (I guess this would still be the yelling escalating into shoving stage). The shit brewing is not something that can be 'settled' this fight is happening whether the 'people at the party' want it to or not. I was just suggesting that we try to give support and weapons to the guys that will be least likely to use them against us. We can settle the humanitarian stuff after the war when people are more amiable to peaceful resolutions.
I wasn't suggesting my opinion was unassailable truth, just my perspective. What resolution to this did you have in mind?
What resolution? Well, let's see the situation with Barzani. Give Barzani an inch, and he'll want a planet. But, how I see it, the concern bigger than Barzani's wet fantasies is that if we give Barzani what he wants (which no one wants except him and his supporters, numbering only among some Kurds) there is a good chance of a "Kurdish spring", and this wouldn't be the first time. You see, this whole matter isn't simply an insulated Iraqi or an Iraqi Kurdish thing. This also very much concerns the Iranian and Turkish and Syrian governments and affects the Kurds there as well. Turkey has been fighting Kurdish radicals since at least the 1980s, who, also influenced Iraqi Kurdish insurgency and (vice versa) against Iraq, conveniently timed while Iraq was fighting Khomeini. Even back then, Kurdish action was influenced even across borders. And the Kurds in Turkey are pretty rowdy folks. The PKK is rather extreme.
So let's say this happens. How will Iran and Turkey respond to a "Kurdish spring"? They'll absolutely crush it. Assuming Iraq didn't already have "permission", this will prompt Iraq to do the same, and all national govts. involved will establish a much tighter leash on their Kurdish populations and a stronger effort for "Turkization", "Arabization", and "Persianization". This is why Barzani is a short-sighted village idiot. Just like Maliki's idiocy promoted sectarianism, Barzani's already doing a good job of pissing everyone off with his rhetoric, at a time where he needs outside help more than he ever did.
You're right. Peace without war sometimes isn't possible. But here, war is a disastrous option. The Kurds will get quadruple-penetrated if they tried open armed revolt in their 4 host countries. And considering the US is significantly more interested in its NATO alliance with Turkey and relations and cooperation with Iraq, don't expect the US to be helping them. Even now, they're dependent on Iraq for ammunition shipments and heavy firepower against the terrorists. It would very much behoove the Kurds not to take the path of war.
So what is the resolution, you ask? Keep the status quo for now. Any action in the short term will only be disastrous for Kurds. They should be worrying more about the terrorists poised to invade Arbil and thanking based god for the Iraqi support, despite Barzani's extremism and rhetoric. Hopefully, ISIS will meet its maker in Iraq soon enough, and then in Syria. Then decapitate all of them and send their corpses to Riyadh. Perhaps the Saudis will reconsider their limitless support for terrorism and jihad. Or maybe the Saudis and Iranians will do the whole world a favor and destroy each other. It would cripple the world's two biggest backers of Islamic terrorism. Can't argue with that.
I'm not even really sure what the 'status quo' really means? Looking at the Kurdish history it looks like independence isn't something only a few of them want...?
Either way the way the world has been working they seem like a likable enough people (more so than the leaders in all of their resident countries), so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age.
I don't know, perhaps the Kurds have some ISIS like agenda I'm unaware of? But I don't see how at least breaking them off a piece of Iraq is bad, other than it upsets bigger despots in the region. Is there something from common people showing antihises toward independence?
I guess since I see a huge regional/global conflict as inevitable (if not already brewing) I guess I don't see the benefit in stalling? Unless there is some important tech just over the horizon?
If it isn't already apparent, one Kurdish agenda is land-grabbing, which is what they were doing in June/July before ISIS pushed them back. They want to do a lot of it. Historically speaking, they even want Mosul under their control. But they're at the very least about land-grabbing, and the Kurds are not very intelligent, and could just try more of it somewhere down the line, assuming they aren't completely overrun by ISIS. The US doesn't want Irbil to be conquered because we have a consulate there, but if it did happen, it would fracture Kurdish political goals and what little organization they have. The Kurds aren't very peaceful people either. Assuming an independent Kurdistan isn't destroying itself from within (lots of internal divisions and whatnot that's kept at bay for the time being due to the independence dream), they're going to be fighting to take more Iraqi land. I don't know what other sinister goals Barzani and his mates have, and I probably don't want to know. But it's never a good sign when Mideastern guys are as fanatical as him.
they seem like a likable enough people
lol. I guess, I'll be a smart ass and say any people are likable, but in terms of politics and society and whatnot, the Kurds? lol. They're on par with aggressive Arab tribal guys. In fact, they are tribal guys themselves. Many Kurdish tribes and conflicting powerful families. Given the internal divisions that are only kept at bay by the fact that the Kurdish independence thing is a bit of a glue, I think Kurdish independence would end up with them killing each other lol, and then Iraq comes in to clean up the mess.
so I could imagine a situation where we back a modest independence plan and when the other countries go all ballistic on them, we use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age.
This is an astonishing comment, I'm sorry. Are you for real dude? For one, the US is not going to go in anywhere. Also, the US is still reeling badly from the last couple wars. The US is finally learning that for the past 60 years, it's only caused chaos, destruction, and death in the Mideast, so we're not about to go make a major war again. Also, everyone fucking hates us.
I've mentioned this in a previous post, but, you conveniently forget that Turkey is a US ally in NATO. The US will back Turkey any day of the week over Kurds, and will back Turkey against Kurdish insurgency or any Kurdish matters, like we have for the past 30 years. The US is also very focused on fostering cooperation and relations with Iraq. Even in this current conflict, we're purely focusing on the government in Baghdad, not Irbil. In fact, we give zero fucks about the Kurds except for the fact that we have a consulate in Irbil. As for Iran, we certainly don't want to touch them, and I don't know what we think about Syria. So basically, in this scenario you have given us, what we're going to have a quadruple-penetration that'll send the Kurds from the stone age to the wood age, because that's all that will happen in your scenario.
But in all honesty, as I theorized and Sub40APM too, the Kurds will end up with lots of civil war and violence if given independence. Considering the internal fissures and the fact the Kurds are not very socially developed (think Arab tribes in less developed society settings in the Mideast, Kurds have the same thing), Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria won't even have to do anything. Then, Iraq will use the inevitable human disaster as a pretext to go in and set the whole region back to the stone age. Incredible how that plot twist happened! I even used your last sentence word for word. :O
Also, I have no idea why you're promoting more massacring and war from Uncle Sam. We've done enough damage to the world, and particularly that region. You make us sound like a rogue terrorist nation that likes to massacre people.
On August 10 2014 10:54 Vindicare605 wrote: The reason I say it is because the Kurds in Syria and the Kurds in Iraq are for all intents and purposes their own country, they govern themselves completely independently and up until now have been fighting the IS entirely on their own also.
I say we just recognize their own state. Give them their own nice chunk of Iraq after we finish taking it back from the IS.
I think the people deserve it, they're already fighting to defend their homeland, they're buying their right to be recognized.
About as much as Native American reservations. But they're as reliant on state authorities and Washington as the Kurds are on Baghdad, and especially Turkish Kurds on Ankara. I guess if most of your money, resources, and development comes from the rest of the country you're a part of, but "govern" yourself, that sounds like"completely independently"? Just trying to understand your logic. Actually the Kurds are almost entirely economically reliant on Baghdad. Your claim of "govern themselves completely independently" is not something I've heard. Even the Kurds are not directly for secession, except fanatic groups like PKK or whatever.
More important, the Kurdish forces are currently very overextended, and will have to cede a lot of their "gains". In fact, they're in a state right now where they're relying heavily on the regular Iraqi military, especially for heavy firepower and munitions. I read a couple days ago that they're literally running out of ammo too. Basically the situation's becoming worse for Irbil and better for Baghdad, if we're to look at this like the political struggle you're exhibiting it as.
But if you think that's bad for the dreams of Kurdish fanatics for independence, that's not all. This isn't even the most important thing in all of this! Nuri Al-Maliki, arguably the most unpopular guy and least productive dictator in Mesopotamian history, is being told by everyone, including his own party, to leave office, and the US is looking forward to a new Iraqi leader and reorganized government to cooperate with. At this point, people are just waiting for him to give his formal resignation. If history says anything, it's most likely going to be a strong, Iraq-minded guy who's going to do away with Maliki's tradition of sucking Iranian Ayatollah cock and fucking up Iraq, and fix things, firstly with the ISIS invasion.
So, conclusively, once Iraq reorganizes its government and the US has an administration they'll work a lot more closely with, and as the Iraqi counter-offensive is put into full swing, the Kurdish fighting effort will be swept under the rug, or remembered for being beaten back by ISIS until the Iraqi military got its shit together and won.
Yeah, let's have Turkey and Iran do the same. Divide and conquer amirite? Let's also give most of the USA back to the natives we exterminated while we're at it. Or California and Texas to the Mexicans. Yeah, over my dead body.
While we're talking about Iraq, let's also give Assyria back to the Assyrians. Sound good? They've always been peaceful people too, silently suffering massacres by Turks/Kurds or Islamic extremists for the past century. No insurgency or terrorism from them. Seems like they'd deserve it more imo.
They were also fighting against their own country in support of the Khomeini's jihad in the 1980s and teamed up with the Turks to commit genocide against Armenians and Assyrians (the latter who is from Iraq), so for all I care, they're just starting to make up to their countrymen for past wrongs. They're not "buying" any right. And the shift in military importance is quickly moving to the standard Iraqi military's as the peshmerga are increasingly in deep shit, especially after the loss at Sinjar.
On August 10 2014 10:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
On August 10 2014 10:12 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On August 10 2014 08:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 10 2014 10:09 ImFromPortugal wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:56 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:44 xDaunt wrote:
On August 09 2014 02:23 BallinWitStalin wrote:
On August 09 2014 01:30 xDaunt wrote: [quote] 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.
Iraq in whole is going to be a mess for decades. Trying to fix what the Bush Administration broke is a lost cause at this point. The Kurds are potentially our most loyal allies in the region and have practically the most acceptable social structure of the region. It makes more sense, to me at least, to defend a Kurdistan, than to try to forge an Iraq that just isn't going to happen.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
Without arms support from countries such as the United States, the Kurds face uncertainty in direct battles with the Islamic State. Recent talks between U.S. and Kurdish officials focused on unifying Iraq. As Iraq shows signs of fragmentation and a decreasing hold on power, the Kurds are pushing for independence.
“The right to independence is a legitimate right of any nationalistic country. We have history and have suffered as Kurds of Iraq. Historically and geographically, Iraq is divided both spiritually and physically,” Mr. Hikmet said. “The Kurds want their independence and autonomy.”
As for Kurds spread into other regions, yeah those countries should probably make concessions too, but that seems like something that would come much further down the road.
Actually, what George Bush Jr. did didn't even damage Iraq as bad as George Bush Sr. did with the embargo. Yes, two terrible murderers and brutes, but one had less violent means of destruction. The Kurds are not specifically loyal to anyone really, especially not to imperial warmongers lol, and the term "ally" is very loosely used, especially in US politics. However, when we actually look at the reality rather than your own painted scenario, they're not who we're pushing for. That's why the entire US policy and security in Iraq is focused on and working with Baghdad and Iraqi govt. politicians, not the Kurds.
Obviously, you see something that everyone in the US government doesn't see for the sake of American interests. Considering the US govt. acts strictly in line with US interests, it says a lot that their focus is on Baghdad. We're literally waiting for Maliki to resign. Everyone in Iraq and even the US wants Maliki to step down so there can be a new Iraqi leadership. We are so focused on Baghdad that we're watching their politics more than we're watching anyone else. With the amount of focus we have on Baghdad, you'd forget there was a KRG.
I bet if you asked the Kurds now they wouldn't be so opposed to it.
You'd lose a lot of money on that bet. At the height of chaos in Iraq during the Iraq War, Kurdish leaders were against secession, even when the US Congress voted to split up Iraq. At the height of Kurdish nationalism in the 70s-00s, only fanatic militant groups like PKK and Peshmerga were really pushing for secession in Turkey and Iraq. Both realizing the realities and critical importance of the reliance on and cooperation with Baghdad, and the fact that, for all intents and purposes, most Kurdish leaders and Kurds are normal level-headed people, who are alright with the status quo, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. When asked directly, Kurdish region leaders can't even give a straight answer on what they want on the matter. Hell, there's a lot of internal political division among the Kurds themselves (on all matters, not necessarily this one). They're hardly a united faction.
Why are you so opposed to them having their own state? Lets not forget how saddam killed thousands of them with gas supplied by western powers like your own country. I would like them to be able to have their own country and live peacefully with all the other peoples around them.
Yeah, what are you supposed to do against violent insurgencies killing your people and treason while you're single-handedly fighting history's greatest jihad? High-five them? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
However, let me present to you a more justified scenario. Let's not forget how the Turks and Kurds (yes, the Kurds) killed off 100,000s of Assyrians, or how Islamic terrorists have eliminated much of the 1.5 million Christians (mostly Assyrians) in Iraq since 2003. In all of this, the Assyrians have been a peaceful people who go about their daily lives, whether they lived in big Iraqi cities or their own ethnic towns, never causing trouble.
By your argument, it looks like we should be giving Assyrians their own land lol!
This is an incredibly idiotic comment, I'm sorry. For one, the US is not going to go in anywhere. Also, the US is still reeling badly from the last couple wars. The US is finally learning that for the past 60 years, it's only caused chaos, destruction, and death in the Mideast, so we're not about to go make a major war again. Also, everyone fucking hates us.
I've mentioned this before, but, you conveniently forget that Turkey is a US ally in NATO. The US will back Turkey any day of the week over Kurds, and will back Turkey against Kurdish insurgency. The US is also very focused on fostering cooperation and relations with Iraq. Even in this current conflict, we're purely focusing on the government in Baghdad, not Irbil. As for Iran, we certainly don't want to touch them, and I don't know what we think about Syria. So basically, we're going to have a quadruple-penetration that'll send the Kurds from the stone age to the wood age, because that's all that will happen in your scenario.
Also, I have no idea why you're promoting more massacring and war. You make us sound like a rogue terrorist nation that likes to massacre people.
I think you completely misunderstand my perspective so I think that makes this discussion a little tough. First, the US hasn't engaged in what I would call full scale war in generations. So while the killing in the middle east is horrific, a country like the US or Israel fully unleashed would wreck total and complete havoc. What you have seen from the US around the world has merely been real world trials of new technologies.
We could essentially "knock on" the entire middle east and then turn every major city other than the ones for the refugees into craters.
I'm not advocating it, I actually detest the idea on many levels. I just see it as inevitable. The Middle East had the opportunity to accept the closest thing they were going to get to an open hand with the Obama administration and they slapped it away (after taking cash and weapons). So it will inevitably end up as either 'the silent treatment' where our enemies will gain strength and influence until they are stupid enough to wake the giant again and it comes bumbling over there to kill a bunch more people and destroy a bunch of infrastructure. Then it's conscious kicks in and it takes loans from other countries to rebuild what it destroyed and we start the cycle again. Or, they get the 'fist', and we crush them soon while they are cocky and thinking they are running stuff, which emboldens a regional conflict bubbling into a global one (really just semantics).
I also don't put as much stock in the value of current 'alliances' in the Middle East as you do. I guess in general I don't see a future set of conditions when the massive conflict will be more favorable in conditions to the US than it is right now/ in the near future.
Not like I am making any decisions (or have any real influence) so I'm just making predictions from observations. I wouldn't say I'm super confident in them but I really don't see how this doesn't turn into an all out slugfest within the next couple of decades whether the world wants it or not. So I'm just offering a cynical perspective that suggests better fight now then wait for everyone to get more armed (unless of course we think we can realistically field significant unmanned forces in a similar time frame that could mean far fewer American deaths in such a large conflict).
But truthfully I expect the 'silent treatment' option and we'll be back at this in a generation asking the same questions with new names as placeholders.
The threat of IS has just started to be taken seriously by Western countries, which is ridiculous. You'd think that with a radical Islamist army recently capturing a city with a population of 2 MILLION would cause people to wake up...
why? Radical Islamist armies sometimes control whole countries and except those rare times when they provide homes for terrorists attacking the West no one really cares how many women they execute or how many goats they sexually assault. The reality is that if there was no oil in the middle east then everyone would treat this as another African scenario.
Yes, oil is definitely a factor and IS has plenty of it, having control the largest oil refinery in Iraq. This army is different than other radical Islamist armies in many ways and they are all terrorists btw. There are so many foreign fighters from western countries and Al Qaeda thinking they are too brutal definitely says something. Their wealth is increasing rapidly, as is their recruitment and number of allies. The Kurds will be gaining momentum from US support, but will unlikely defeat IS anytime soon. However, I think it is dangerous to ignore the threat they pose to western countries in terms of future terrorist attacks.
EPT
Yeah, over my dead body. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg)
