One thing to be wary of is America and NATOs penchant for arming the enemy of our enemy.
In that frontline episode I posted above, they go into detail on the payments to various groups in Iraq that occurred as way to buy peace that have since been used to fund and arm radicals like these.
It's from the same playbook as the Mujahadeen.
Edit: We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars to Sunni tribes. Patreus authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in what are essentially bribes that are now being used to fund ISIS.
Too late to do anything about it right now. The only way to defeat the ISIS will be to help groups that we might in the future view as terrorist organizations.
Too late to do anything about it right now. The only way to defeat the ISIS will be to help groups that we might in the future view as terrorist organizations.
It also means working with Iran.
And Assad in Syria.
It's pretty predictable how this will play out. Eventually they will find another Saddam, play him up as a friendly dictator, and then give him the weapons he needs to stamp these things out as they happen like whack-a-mole with all brutality necessary.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Too late to do anything about it right now. The only way to defeat the ISIS will be to help groups that we might in the future view as terrorist organizations.
It also means working with Iran.
Sounds like a recipe for another foreign entanglement.
Well, really, Iraq was never more civil and safe and prosperous than when Saddam was in charge.
A brutal dictator is really what it's gonna take to keep these psychos in line. It's a sad but terrible truth.
Hate to say it but it's looking that way, Funny thing is Saddam was a sunni which only made up about 30% of Iraq population and is not near as radical as the shia muslims.
Hate to say it but it's looking that way, Funny thing is Saddam was a sunni which only made up about 30% of Iraq population and is not near as radical as the shia muslims.
Saddam Hussein was pretty secular though. From what I read, he did not worship regularly, drank alcohol and wasn't too devout (many muslims considered him a "bad" muslim). He actually supported things like the education of women and had a right-hand man who was a Christian.
I have a National Geographic magazine from the early 80s that promoted him as a man who was going to bring positive change to the ME.
Obviously he became a bit of a psychopath (his sons were probably even worse), but I am convinced that different rules apply there in general. Fear has been a tool used to govern for so long that it seems like it is ingrained.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-05-2014 at 04:56 PM.
What a cluster fata. I often have to think, are the ISIS Sunni or Shia? They are Sunni but it seems they are both almost equally awful.
Quote:
The group’s startling expansion and lust for blood are only fuelling demands for a more forceful international response. But many of the West’s potential or de facto allies are scarcely more savoury. Some of the most capable anti-IS forces are the Shia militias that once fought American soldiers and waged a vicious sectarian war against Sunnis.
Quote:
On the same day as the video of Mr Sotloff was uploaded, images circulated of men, allegedly from Asaib Ahl al-Haq, a notorious Shia militia, posing triumphantly with the charred bodies of Sunnis in Iraq. On August 22nd Shia gunmen shot 68 Sunnis dead in a mosque in Diyala province. Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby, has accused government-backed Shia militias of kidnapping and killing scores of Sunni civilians this year.
Of course when we were having the big debate here about the invasion of Iraq, this was all predictable. To bad we couldn't just leave them alone to settle their own problems. Every time we interfere it just becomes worse.
It's pretty predictable how this will play out. Eventually they will find another Saddam, play him up as a friendly dictator, and then give him the weapons he needs to stamp these things out as they happen like whack-a-mole with all brutality necessary.
NATO has said they will help the rebels in Syria, so I'm not so sure about working with Assad.
Maybe this time they will leave 'Saddam' alone, and actually let the area go through the normal cultural progression until they become 'free' and all 'US' like instead of going on a nation building exercise.
Of course when we were having the big debate here about the invasion of Iraq, this was all predictable. To bad we couldn't just leave them alone to settle their own problems. Every time we interfere it just becomes worse.
Not really (the dominate Sunni's say no anyway) they are Salafi's, which I'm told came from Saudi Arabia and is also popular in Qatar.
Salafi's are literalists, are extremely strict and have a puritanical approach to Islam. In other words they are friken ######s.
Not really (the dominate Sunni's say no anyway) they are Salafi's, which I'm told came from Saudi Arabia and is also popular in Qatar.
Salafi's are literalists, are extremely strict and have a puritanical approach to Islam. In other words they are friken ######s.
IIRC from what I've read the Saudi family is historically connected with this branch which makes their position as a so called USA ally rather convoluted.
The Following User Says Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
George W. Bush 2007 Prediction of Current Iraq Crisis
Was never a big fan of Bush but I'm really getting tired of Obama's tip-toe approach on anything military. Show some balls for a change.
Under a Bush type leader it's safe to say ISIS would never had a chance to form, Crimea would still be part of Ukraine and MH-17 would have landed safely.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Obama is forcing the various factions in Iraq to work together against ISIS. He is already forcing NATO to do something about the threat. It is unfair to expect the US to fix the problem on their own. They will probably contribute the most and have the most resources in place to help, but there is no reason you can't get help from 30-40 other nations.
There is little point in defeating the ISIS if the Kurds will continue to fight with the Iraqi government for the next 40 years. They need to find a way to keep the region stable and I absolutely agree with Obama to get everyone there working together against a common enemy.
Every single military victory the past 4 weeks against the ISIS has been made by non-US boots on the ground. From the various militias involved, to the Kurds, Iranian help, or the Iraqi Military. That is the way to solve the crisis long term. The US should continue to carry out air strikes and contribute resources and equipment, but the Iraqi Military should be working with the various groups/countries in the region to drive back the ISIS.
It also means working with Iran, which they seem to be doing. A common enemy can do a lot to unite all those groups. Something the ISIS missed in all of this. At the end of everything, we might have some semblance of peace because of the combined mission.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Obama is forcing the various factions in Iraq to work together against ISIS. He is already forcing NATO to do something about the threat. It is unfair to expect the US to fix the problem on their own. They will probably contribute the most and have the most resources in place to help, but there is no reason you can't get help from 30-40 other nations.
There is little point in defeating the ISIS if the Kurds will continue to fight with the Iraqi government for the next 40 years. They need to find a way to keep the region stable and I absolutely agree with Obama to get everyone there working together against a common enemy.
Every single military victory the past 4 weeks against the ISIS has been made by non-US boots on the ground. From the various militias involved, to the Kurds, Iranian help, or the Iraqi Military. That is the way to solve the crisis long term. The US should continue to carry out air strikes and contribute resources and equipment, but the Iraqi Military should be working with the various groups/countries in the region to drive back the ISIS.
It also means working with Iran, which they seem to be doing. A common enemy can do a lot to unite all those groups. Something the ISIS missed in all of this. At the end of everything, we might have some semblance of peace because of the combined mission.
I agree now that ISIS is here it's probably the best approach (hopefully including strikes in Syria) my point was Obama allowed ISIS to form and never should have handed over Iraq to a bunch of idiots who wanted to suppress half the country.
And allowing Putin to scoop up Ukraine while murdering its citizens is gutless and ridiculous. With a strong president Putin would run back to Moscow with his tail between his legs.
George W. Bush 2007 Prediction of Current Iraq Crisis
Was never a big fan of Bush but I'm really getting tired of Obama's tip-toe approach on anything military. Show some balls for a change.
Under a Bush type leader it's safe to say ISIS would never had a chance to form, Crimea would still be part of Ukraine and MH-17 would have landed safely.
While I do agree that Obama could take a more hard line approach, I think your vastly overestimating Bush's ability here, or the simple fact that the leader of the US just doesn't have as much influence as you think on things like this.
First of all, Bush was the one who stated the mess in Iraq by overthrowing Saddam. No Iraq war, no ISIS, simple as that.
But Bush was as instrumental in withdrawing the troops from Iraq as Obama was. A lot of those measures for withdrawal were signed into law before Obama came into office. The timelines were already set.
As for Ukraine, the US's public will for a fight simply isn't there. Most because of, you guessed it, the clusterfata that was the Iraq war that of course, Bush started.
Not only that, but the Ukraine is far more complicated than measures in the middle east. Russia is as close to a superpower as you can get without being one. The have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. And they have big economic ties with Europe, which is causing this stalemate.
As much as I want the west and NATO to do something in the Ukraine, I'm not sure if they can or should do anything militarily right now.
To say that Bush would have prevented this, or handled it better is simply revisionist history. In fact, there is significant evidence to show his actions either created this, or at least help facilitate it.
The Iraq war is hurting that country and the western world in ways that we are only seeing now. Not only has it created a bunch of this mess, it took out the Wests moral highground for intervention. Russia only has to point to America invading Iraq to justify their involvement in the Ukraine.
Obama may be doing a bad job, but he's just cleaning up the mess Bush created.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
I'm on my way out the door and don't have time right now to look it up but from memory Bush didn't want to pull the troops until the country had stable leadership and even vetoed at least one bill passed by congress. In any case the last troops left early 2012, thats 3 years after Obama took office. ..he could have stopped the full withdrawal until it was safe to do so.
There was no way they were getting stable leadership with Maliki in charge of Iraq at the time. Part of what Obama did was remove him from the equation. It didn't get much news time as the world is for some reason fixated by what is happening Israel, but it was a huge success for the US.
There will be lots of bumps in the road, but at the end of the day Iraq needs to be stable, and Iraq needs to look after their own people/country. The only way they will do that is by working together with the Kurds and the various other groups. Forcing them to work together to fight ISIS is a great move.
I'm on my way out the door and don't have time right now to look it up but from memory Bush didn't want to pull the troops until the country had stable leadership and even vetoed at least one bill passed by congress. In any case the last troops left early 2012, thats 3 years after Obama took office. ..he could have stopped the full withdrawal until it was safe to do so.
No worries. I do know Bush signed the withdrawal bill months before he left. He very well may have extended deployment had he still been in power. But guess what, Obama did extend certain missions as it was. It all went down more or less as Bush/Cheney designed it to.
If you got links or vids to prove me wrong, have at er and we can redebate then. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. But Bush signed a withdrawal timetable just before he left.
I agree now that ISIS is here it's probably the best approach (hopefully including strikes in Syria) my point was Obama allowed ISIS to form and never should have handed over Iraq to a bunch of idiots who wanted to suppress half the country.
And allowing Putin to scoop up Ukraine while murdering its citizens is gutless and ridiculous. With a strong president Putin would run back to Moscow with his tail between his legs.
Fox News called, they want their ridiculously simplistic talking points back.
The Following User Says Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
