47 replies to this topic

[Blade 619]

 

 

.....

 

Indeed... could you imagine the potential for carnage if they got hold of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Or even just the equipment for a partially modernised army? 

 

I don't want to be a doomsayer, but I seriously wonder if world "when" isn't more suitable here.

 

 

I suppose it depends on the route they take... I think the US would be obligated to defend Afghanistan (for a bit at least). The Saudi's might decided to get properly involved if things get closer to them (they have already offered after all). The other problem is that while the western media is focused on ISIS / ISIL, there is still significant unrest in most of Northern Africa and even sub-sahara you have groups like Boko Haram doing equally vile things. which really should be intervened against (though Africa should really be more than capable of dealing with that). Additionally, the more involved western powers get in the affairs of the middle east the more stress will be placed on their own internal security systems. 

 

Who knows, maybe one day ISIS will be a threat so large Europe, America, Russia, China, India, Saudi, Japan (only as they have stated a side) and whoever else stands to be impacted will work together and in doing so briefly usher a period of unprecedented international cooperation. Even if we all know they'd end up infighting over how to split up the land afterwards as I can't see Russia / China not wanting some degree of territorial spoils.

[James]

 

The west hates Kurdistan just a litttttle less than they do ISIS. Impractical, not going to happen.
The Kurds were created by the Soviets.

The Kurds were not created by the Soviets... Where the hell did you get that from? The Kurds are an ancient people far older than Iraq, USSR or any western nation. And we don't hate them. We're rather fond of them in comparison to their neighbors.

 

The United States will not let the two countries (Saudi Arabia and Iran)
get involved on the level that they want too. We like the stale mate,
and we like the region destabilized and killing each other. The logic
goes, we keep you alive you give us your oil. This is how the United
States has created so many monsters. They will come after the west in
force eventually.

Umyeahno... We don't want the area destabilized. We want the opposite so we can actually access said oil. That's why we propped up the government we did. And the US has no control over whether Iran and Saudi Arabia to get involved. Iran is already quite involved in the situation. More so than we are, and for good reason. IS is quite literally waging war against Iran as we speak. They HAVE to be involved.

 

If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the 50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.
 

 

 

Take it easy, the US wont send ground troops in an active duty there. They have said it like a hundred times. The only thing the US is doing is assisting Irak with air superiority, surveillance and training. 

Fuck Iraq. The Shia government in the east has already lost all credibility in the eyes of both Sunnis and Kurds. I don't think there is any repairing that.

The only involvement I'm OK with is arming the Kurds. Air strikes and training can be handled by the people actually there. Like Jordan. Jordan is always boasting it's military. They're obsessed with it. Let them prove their worth.

 

And I agree with you on that. It is the best choice.

 

And this is for  you James (they might not get independence but UK, Germany and Italy are surely arming and training them):  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/06/world/meast/isis-coalition-nations/index.html

 

 

They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

[Ali bin Turban]

I don't think Africa is a concern to the West. It does not have much strategical value. If natives will not be able to fight on their own Boko Haram and other groups will continue to thrive. Saudis are not endangered directly as long as Iraq exists and even then USA will probably be very motivated to help them survive (loosing SA would mean definitive end to USA politics in Middle east). I expect there to be a status quo with neither of the parties being able to take down their opponents (not until we face another wave of crisis - for how much longer will America be able to print $ ?)

 

What I'm almost certain is that there will be no global alliance against ISIS. There are so many divergent interest groups. For instance why should ever China get concerned with something that's not a direct threat to them? (sure they have Uyghur minority - but that's minority and as soon as some serious shit hits the fan worldwide they will be able to stomp them easily on their own) They're to smart to get their hands dirty with cleaning someone's else shit. Same goes for Russia. Weakened West is their opportunity to playing their imperial politics unhindered.

Other thing is that ISIS won't be able to seriously threat non arabic cultures until they get their hands on the nuclear stockpile or at least get a billion souls worth Muslim nations under their feet. That's because fighting organized and ethnically different nation is not the same as praying on post Saddam Iraq which as a country has no soul and no ideology to gather people around against ISIS.

[Ali bin Turban]

 

 

If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the 50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.

 

You're mostly right though it's not just setting fires for the fun of the fire. There's no love in USA for causing trouble and not many nations are running to them for help (show me a nation that begs for their help, even new Iraqi gov said "give me your money and GTFO"). They're in fact spending a lot of their political capital on such game (they're no saviors, arab world - not gov but those common people hate them). 

It's always a game between dominant powers (we do have a clear picture on how it goes currently in Ukraine) and there were players from all over the globe in Africa&Middle East, even China (who wasn't doing it old Russian&USA style with political&military force but rather economical influence).

[Khandov]

So much is being said here and yet the only sentence I will share with you is..

"Not our war. We ought to have known that right from the start."

[Fox Fire]

If the United States wants a stable and unified middle east why do they
keep, admittingly, starting revolutions and overthrowing stable
governments. I just don't see how someone can say the United States
wants a stable middle east when they over throw a functioning government
and kill half a million of it's civilians. This has happened on far
more than one occasion. The funding of Iraq's invasion of Iran, choking
aid when Iraq made progress and increasing the flow when they began to
lose ground. The borders around Israel Osciliated all throughout the
50s-70s. The overthrow of Ghadaffi by extremists was done by the United
States. Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the
CIA. They admitted to organizing the protests. The United States support
a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small
percentage of Syria. The United States loves it when their is trouble
because everyone comes running to them. As soon as their is a sign of
stability we overthrow someone and create a power vaccuum.

Stable or not stable, it's about control. Iraq was just over pretty much nothing other than Bush trying to fill daddys shoes. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, aiding Iraq against Iran is just because Shia are a minority and less profitable to exploit. It makes no sense to hold such a stance. It's just overall competition between much larger powers for influence over resources.

You have to understand that instability is not the goal. Division however is. The world chopped up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and divided it amongst foreign powers to fuel our own industrialization. We created fake lines in the sand and instilled false senses of nationalism. The goal was not instability. It was to permanently erase the Caliphate from history or future and exploit the entire region to fuel industrialization. 

The Islamic State is very aware of that, which is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.

 

Countless revolutions during the arab springs were done by the CIA.

Citation needed.
 

 

The United States support a very weak group in Syria, a group that makes up a very small percentage of Syria.

We support the FSA solely because they are the only group who aren't necessarily Sunni extremists who want Assad removed. That being said, FSA is a garbage ally of Al Nusra with no political goals. They are simply Sunni defectors who hate Alawites.

 

They will give just enough for to prevent ISIS from advancing, but
nothing more. The Kurds are an ethnic group that have been around for a
long time, but were funded and organized by the Soviet's in response too
Iran aligning with the United States. This period is when they grew in
to what they are now. After Iran took their country back from the United
States, the Soviets promptly abandoned the Kurds breaking way to the
modern day conflicts between the kurds and Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

The Kurds are not even a single united faction. The US relations with the Kurds are pretty damn good in modern times. I mean, we are the ones who created the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. According to our own government, there is nothing to suggest they will not support an independent Kurdistan, but quite the opposite.

The modern day conflicts between the Kurds and their neighbors, specifically Iran is a conflict that predates the United States. They have been trying to get an independent Kurdistan for hundreds of years. The Soviets by no means "created" the Kurds.
                   

[James]

Stable or not stable, it's about control. Iraq was just over pretty much nothing other than Bush trying to fill daddys shoes. Afghanistan was retaliation for 9/11, aiding Iraq against Iran is just because Shia are a minority and less profitable to exploit. It makes no sense to hold such a stance. It's just overall competition between much larger powers for influence over resources.

You have to understand that instability is not the goal. Division however is. The world chopped up the Ottoman Empire after WWI and divided it amongst foreign powers to fuel our own industrialization. We created fake lines in the sand and instilled false senses of nationalism. The goal was not instability. It was to permanently erase the Caliphate from history or future and exploit the entire region to fuel industrialization. 

The Islamic State is very aware of that, which is exactly why they are doing what they are doing.

I fail to see how our opinions differ on this. Divide and Destabilize are interchangeable in this context. 

 

Citation needed.
 

I thought it was common knowledge that the organizers were trained on campaigning and given software to avoid detection by the governments. The New York Times did a couple articles on it, hell it even popped up on CNN prime time! But if you don't want to type into Google search I'll be more than happy to track down some articles when I have time over the weekend.

 

We support the FSA solely because they are the only group who aren't necessarily Sunni extremists who want Assad removed. That being said, FSA is a garbage ally of Al Nusra with no political goals. They are simply Sunni defectors who hate Alawites.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you denying the logic defying nature of the US support?
 

The Kurds are not even a single united faction. The US relations with the Kurds are pretty damn good in modern times. I mean, we are the ones who created the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan. According to our own government, there is nothing to suggest they will not support an independent Kurdistan, but quite the opposite.

The modern day conflicts between the Kurds and their neighbors, specifically Iran is a conflict that predates the United States. They have been trying to get an independent Kurdistan for hundreds of years. The Soviets by no means "created" the Kurds.
                   

The United States will not support a Kurdistan regardless of how disunified the Kurdish nations are. Turkey will not allow it, and Turkey is one of three relevant 'allies' in the middle East. If Iraqi Kurdistan exists than Turkey's Kurdistan will use it to justify their right to exist. It simply will not happen unless we lose Turkey as an ally. Then an Iraqi Kurdistan would be created to subvert the Turks and Iranians. 

In 1953 after the Iranian coup solicited by the United States, the Soviet Union lost influence of Iran. In response the Soviets used the large kurdish population they had to subvert Iran. They enabled, if you will, the Kurds to establish themselves again. If it were not for Soviet influence the Kurds would not be where they are today; Hence, their marxist views.

[Fox Fire]

I thought it was common knowledge that the organizers were trained on
campaigning and given software to avoid detection by the governments.
The New York Times did a couple articles on it, hell it even popped up
on CNN prime time! But if you don't want to type into Google search I'll
be more than happy to track down some articles when I have time over
the weekend.

I actually take that back. I do specifically remember the CIA was funneling anti govt media into Syria for years.
 

 

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you denying the logic defying nature of the US support?

Nope. Just trying to make sense of it.

 

The United States will not support a Kurdistan regardless of how
disunified the Kurdish nations are. Turkey will not allow it, and
Turkey is one of three relevant 'allies' in the middle East. If Iraqi
Kurdistan exists than Turkey's Kurdistan will use it to justify their
right to exist. It simply will not happen unless we lose Turkey as an
ally. Then an Iraqi Kurdistan would be created to subvert the Turks and
Iranians. 


In 1953 after the Iranian coup solicited by the United States, the
Soviet Union lost influence of Iran. In response the Soviets used the
large kurdish population they had to subvert Iran. They enabled, if you
will, the Kurds to establish themselves again. If it were not for Soviet
influence the Kurds would not be where they are today; Hence, their
marxist views.

That's not what our own government has implied. Granted, they've pushed the implied date back like 2 decades, but have implied that an independent Kurdistan could exist in the future. And lets be honest, of all the factions involved, they deserve it the most. Turkey is still struggling to meet the demands we've placed on them to become a "modernized, civil country."

And I still wouldn't say the Kurds were made by the Soviets at all. The conflict of Kurdish independents still predates the USSR and through history has ebbed and flowed. Even without USSR, it would rise again.

[James]

Nope. Just trying to make sense of it.

Aren't we all? It crosses ethical lines that boggles the mind.

 

 That's not what our own government has implied. Granted, they've pushed the implied date back like 2 decades, but have implied that an independent Kurdistan could exist in the future. And lets be honest, of all the factions involved, they deserve it the most. Turkey is still struggling to meet the demands we've placed on them to become a "modernized, civil country."

And I still wouldn't say the Kurds were made by the Soviets at all. The conflict of Kurdish independents still predates the USSR and through history has ebbed and flowed. Even without USSR, it would rise again.

The Kurds had the same experiences as Jews. They were dispersed through central asia. I'm (Pretty) certain that Kurdistan is the USSR equivalent of Israel. They allowed them to migrate back to 'fight' for their land. I think something like 300,000 Kurds were in the USSR at the time. That was the majority of the Kurdish Population.

[MrElastic]

The way I see it is can anyone truly squash out IS? Its like trying to destroy America, you can do as much damage as possible but as long as the spirit is still America lives on. Same goes for IS when one goes down another takes the place and keeps the terror rolling.   

[James]

The way I see it is can anyone truly squash out IS? Its like trying to destroy America, you can do as much damage as possible but as long as the spirit is still America lives on. Same goes for IS when one goes down another takes the place and keeps the terror rolling.   

They can. They are self destructive, so ultimately they will destroy themselves. How we speed up the decay is a totally different debate though.

[onbekende]

Well I guess they smuggle in more then we think...

[Fox Fire]

I think something like 300,000 Kurds were in the USSR at the time. That was the majority of the Kurdish Population.

Do you have a source for that?

[Fox Fire]

ISIS
fighters are desperately trying to obtain VIAGRA, spending money on
kinky underwear for their ‘wives’… then subjecting them to ‘brutal,
abnormal’ sex acts according to doctors in Syria

I would totally believe that. According to IS fighters (too lazy to look up a source ATM), they have been amassing a huge stockpile of all sorts of different drugs.

 

But hey, who doesn't want to get laid before they get in a car wreck with a US Hellfire Missile?

[ccabal86]

I would totally believe that. According to IS fighters (too lazy to look up a source ATM), they have been amassing a huge stockpile of all sorts of different drugs.
 
But hey, who doesn't want to get laid before they get in a car wreck with a US Hellfire Missile?

 

Just in case the 72 virgins turn out to be raisins after all, eh?

[DeathMerchant]

Or little boys.

[Perez]

What can you expect from animals...

[Fox Fire]

Where is the Iraqi Army?

[Lysistrata]

Iraq has not had a real army since we destroyed it.

The "new" army were men that needed a job.

They took the money and when ISIS attacked, they dropped their weapons and ran away.

 

Nation building at it's finest.

[James]

Iraq has not had a real army since we destroyed it.

The "new" army were men that needed a job.

They took the money and when ISIS attacked, they dropped their weapons and ran away.

 

Nation building at it's finest.

You always have a funny gif in your signature.