I really believe that somebody will have to put boots on the ground to stop IS. Airstrikes won't cut it.
Well, we'll see. Fucking with UN peacekeeping forces seems like a recipe for IS to invite an international escalation to come and stomp their faces. Well, either that, or the security council disbands, because if even IS doesn't have to take them seriously, nobody will again ever... and there is no use for an utterly impotent international peace force at all (and I doubt anymore nations will offer forces if they don't get backup when in danger).
IS is praying for USA to put boots on the ground. USA is seen as the big scary monster in the region and the lack of their presence is hampering the recruitment. UN peacekeeping have weapons but against a well equipped militia like ISIS they stand no chance. The important question is more likely: Why were UN peacekeepers there to begin with when it was known that the combattants had full military equipment, were known for kidnappings and a relentless slaughter of anyone with a different religion? Seems to me UN made a grave miscalculation in sending them in to begin with. Now they will have to negotiate how large a donation they have to give to ISIS' cause...
Those UN troops have been there for like 30 years to oversee the Israeli Syrian border. It's not like the UN just now decided to send them there for no reason at all.
On August 29 2014 05:40 zatic wrote: Those UN troops have been there for like 30 years to oversee the Israeli Syrian border. It's not like the UN just now decided to send them there for no reason at all.
Which still seems troubling doesn't it? Surely the UN would've realized that those troops were in danger in a war torn region like Syria.
Are they THAT incompetent to not realize that? That's a scary thought.
On August 29 2014 05:40 zatic wrote: Those UN troops have been there for like 30 years to oversee the Israeli Syrian border. It's not like the UN just now decided to send them there for no reason at all.
Which still seems troubling doesn't it? Surely the UN would've realized that those troops were in danger in a war torn region like Syria.
Are they THAT incompetent to not realize that? That's a scary thought.
That same article says that a couple of countries had already quit their participation in that peacekeeping force. Presumably each country makes the calculation individually? Although I do agree that having people there at all seems like a crazy risk right now...
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, & the Kurds all have the secret weapon to destroy ISIS. Each other, the problem is they don't like or even remotely trust one another. They could form a coalition and drive ISIS out, with support from US Intel. A true Arab League bringing peace in the region.
On August 29 2014 06:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, & the Kurds all have the secret weapon to destroy ISIS. Each other, the problem is they don't like or even remotely trust one another. They could form a coalition and drive ISIS out, with support from US Intel. A true Arab League bringing peace in the region.
Won't happen.
I think a problem with this would also be the giant war after it as they all try to redefine the borders in the region.
On August 29 2014 06:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, & the Kurds all have the secret weapon to destroy ISIS. Each other, the problem is they don't like or even remotely trust one another. They could form a coalition and drive ISIS out, with support from US Intel. A true Arab League bringing peace in the region.
Won't happen.
TIL Kurds and Turks are Arabic-speaking people.
Jokes aside, in what you listed, there's 1) a lunatic Wahhabist monarchy that backs Islamic terrorism and quite honestly is the one country that US should have had any business fucking up in the past 60 years, 2) a small nation, 3) a country that sees itself superior to everyone else because they had a genocidal empire at one point in time and that everyone hates for their political arrogance and inflammatory rhetoric, 4) the once strong, stable, influential secular core of the Middle East that was utterly devastated for 20 years by yours truly, and 5) an aggressive, deeply tribalistic society whose leaders' rhetoric of independence is probably the only thing keeping them from killing themselves off (and how their leaders keep them at bay).
Yeah, I can see why there's not a coalition among the 5 nations you mentioned. Iraq + KRG (except for Barzani's asshattery) + Jordan + Syria is pretty reasonable though. Egypt has been a long-time ally of other Arab republics, but I think they're too poor and have always had too many issues within Egypt itself to be able to do anything regarding IS.
Aren't you forgetting Turkey is sort of backing IS, and Saudi Arabia is arguably the world's largest supporter of Islamic terrorism? .
250 SAA soldiers being paraded around in their underwear after being captured by Islamic State forces near Tabqa. Unverified reports are coming in that they were later executed.
why do these idiots keep surrendering to ISIS. Its a fight to the death.
War weariness takes a toll on people man. These guys have been non-stop running and gunning against all sorts of terrorist groups for the past 3 years.
I might be sensitive on that topic but can we stop saying Turkey backing up IS or whatever? I know Turkey helped rebels before under the cover but please put a solid relatively trusty source or stop saying bullshit ok?
Its common knowledge that USA,Saudi Arabia, Turkey supported the opposition/terrorists/rebels in the early stages of the conflict in Syria but now they created a monster so huge they cant control.
Turkey and USA probably want to clear their involvement from ISIS but its clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar(?) are the main supporters/funders of that organization.
When will the west learn to stop medling in middle eastern affairs? They are clearly not ready for democracy and I would rather have a dictator in power than madmen like ISIS. Both are bad but you gotta pick the lesser evil. In every country where USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least. Maybe they will improve when they will remove religion from state government.
On August 29 2014 20:15 Laserist wrote: I might be sensitive on that topic but can we stop saying Turkey backing up IS or whatever? I know Turkey helped rebels before under the cover but please put a solid relatively trusty source or stop saying bullshit ok?
AngryMag unloaded a truckload of things on page 213 and before and 3 Turkish intelligence agents were caught fighting for ISIS near the besieged down of ISIS posted on page 215 and there's probably lots more going on that obviously hasn't been posted here. To say the very least, Turkey is neither against nor neutral with IS, but if anything is evident, they're in support of them. We cannot take the Vladimir Putin path of denial.
I guess they're a nice proxy war to keep Arabic-speaking people down in the dust like during Ottoman times. You would think that after 30 years of war, embargo, more war, and even more war, people like Erdogan would give places like Iraq a break, or at the very least, not be a destabilizing force in the Mideast. The US has done more than enough of that. Why is Turkey following?
On August 29 2014 22:28 SkelA wrote: Its common knowledge that USA,Saudi Arabia, Turkey supported the opposition/terrorists/rebels in the early stages of the conflict in Syria but now they created a monster so huge they cant control.
Turkey and USA probably want to clear their involvement from ISIS but its clear that Saudi Arabia and Qatar(?) are the main supporters/funders of that organization.
When will the west learn to stop medling in middle eastern affairs? They are clearly not ready for democracy and I would rather have a dictator in power than madmen like ISIS. Both are bad but you gotta pick the lesser evil. In every country where USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least. Maybe they will improve when they will remove religion from state government.
Any time there was democracy or semblance of democracy in the Mideast, the US overthrew it to put in a submissive autocrat... lol. And even in many of the places where there were authoritarian government, Islam did NOT rule. They were secular regimes. In fact, Iraq was extremely secular politically, and was the premier opponent of Islamism and Islamic radicalism, before the US utterly devastated it over a 20 year period and introduced a social/legal system of sectarianism and ethnic/religious identification (even made much worse by the outgoing tyrant Maliki and his brutality) and putting an Islamic radical group (Islamic Dawa) in power. Bravo, Uncle Sam. Hell, it was apparently even taboo to disclose your religious affiliation. Boy have things changed.
And that's just Iraq. There's lots more places to talk about. Jeez, and people say Americans are ignorant. But the fact you're even implying that the goal of the US has ever been to bring "democracy" in the Mideast is ludicrous. This is usually something only the most illusioned minority of Americans state, so I'm honestly surprised. Why not bring "freedom and democracy" to the insane Wahhabist regime in Saudi Arabia, that executes people like mad and has one of the most socially oppressed societies thanks to extremist Islam? Ah, they suck Uncle Sam's mighty genitalia. Can't harm them under any conditions. The US is an imperial power just like any other in history with specific interests and goals, far away from being just or righteous.
On August 29 2014 22:28 SkelA wrote: ere USA interveneed the sitation became worse than before. Egypt,Lybia,Iraq,Syria,Afganistan are the clear examples.
As long as islam rules there cant be democracy in a country. I dont know a country where there is democracy like in the western world. They are all ruled by dictators or a autocratic government at the very least
Indonesia, Malaysia, Tunesia so far seemed to be doing ok.
(Reuters) - A mounting death toll in President Bashar al-Assad's armed forces is causing alarm among some government loyalists who are worried about Islamic State's territorial gains and are turning their anger on the authorities in Damascus.
The execution of scores of Syrian soldiers taken captive by Islamic State at an air base in Raqqa province has triggered unusually harsh social media criticism of the Damascus government by people who have taken its side in the civil war.
Some, including one of Assad's cousins, have called for the resignation of the defense minister, blaming him for the loss of the Tabqa air base that represented the government's last foothold in a province otherwise controlled by Islamic State.
With the flow of information from Syria greatly restricted, it is not possible to gauge how widely such sentiment is felt. And it is not the first time the Syrian government has faced criticism from its supporters during the three-year conflict.
But it points to a potential pressure point for Assad, who draws support from minority groups including his own Alawite community for whom Islamic State is an existential threat.
With Maliki's reign of terror ended, Sunni tribal leaders are willing to fight against IS IF they are given proper rights in post-Maliki Iraq. This is a pretty big development in the conflict, especially considering Sunni Arab militias were critical in defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq during the Iraq War. The new regime has the biggest opportunity for stability in the country since Hussein's overthrow, and should not squander it.
Stifled by the Islamic State (IS) militants in their own areas, Iraqi Sunni rebels who took up arms against the Shia-dominated government of Nouri Maliki are signalling for the first time that they are ready to turn against IS if Sunni rights are enshrined in a reformed political order in Baghdad.
The rebels, including tribal militants and former army personnel organised in military councils throughout the Sunni areas, see American and international guarantees as crucial to any such deal.
"We don't want guns from the Americans, we want a real political solution, which the US should impose on those people it installed in the Green Zone," said Abu Muhammad al-Zubaai, referring to the Iraqi political leaders who took over after the US-led occupation in 2003.
"The IS problem would end. If they guarantee us this solution, we'll guarantee to get rid of IS," said Mr al-Zubaai, a tribal leader from Anbar province speaking on behalf of the rebels, using a nom de guerre.
The tribal and military rebels, who had been fighting government forces since January, played a role in the spectacular advances scored after IS - in its previous guise as Isis - erupted into Iraq from Syria in June and captured the second city, Mosul, among other mainly Sunni areas.
But since then, the Sunni groups have been suppressed, with IS ordering them to join its own ranks or disarm.
"Living with IS is like holding burning coals in your hand," said Mr al-Zubaai. "They do not tolerate any other flag to be raised. They control all Sunni areas now."
He said tribal militants from the military councils clashed with IS at Garma, near Falluja recently, killing 16 of the Islamic radicals.
"We had to choose between a comprehensive confrontation with IS, or ceding control of that area and keeping a low profile," he said.
"We decided to stand down, because we are not ready to fight IS in the current circumstances - who would we be fighting for?"
Interesting little study about what Hussein said in private and public, trying to answer the question whether in private dictators have more nuanced views and their public speeches are mostly for consumption of domestic/foreign audiences.
Interesting little study about what Hussein said in private and public, trying to answer the question whether in private dictators have more nuanced views and their public speeches are mostly for consumption of domestic/foreign audiences.
Not related to the wars going on but... the whole point is Hussein was horrifyingly honest and consistent for a politician (I didn't even know that). It seems almost unreal. Try finding one of those in the Kremlin or Washington. But obviously, his internal government discussions are going to be more detailed and complex than what he tells to the media. The whole point of public speaking is to get the general point across. Quite honestly, I don't think being a 'dictator' has anything to do with this. Most lie through their teeth on every given occasion, so he's more of an exception than the rule. Poor subject for extrapolation IMHO.
EPT
. 
