Iraq and ISIS Discussion

lindy said:
Who gives a shit? Seriously. What are our national interests in who owns the sea of sand?

It isn't oil anymore. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ependence-by-2035-on-shale-boom-iea-says.html
Israel could kick the crap out of any of those countries if (when) needed.
Regional stability only enabled the previous two "goals".

Why not just lay down some "rules" like:

"Do what ya gotta do, but if you try to export that shi'ite to the West, we'll give you a cordite ride to paradise. Cool? Ok, have a good one. Oh, here's a Serbian made AK and PKM for cheap. Tell your friends you bought them here."

One thing that annoys me is the ISIL vs ISIS debate. Based on an Arabic language scholar's input (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-debate-over-what-to-call-iraqs-terror-group/), it should be ISIS but the dipshits running the Dawla want the entire Levant, so I tend to give more weight to the guys with guns than the POV of a guy in front of a computer. :D
Click to expand...

You could just call it al-Sham (the global jihad) - that's their other name and they refer to themselves as that a lot.

Why should we care? I don't think anyone will have answer for you. There's no 1 answer and will never be. If you're looking for a good versus evil war, I think you're going to have to wait a few years until World War 3 breaks out between the evil ATM army that won't release any funds and the transformers.

However, in the 21st century, this is the new normal with lots of slightly larger states battling over control of a region. You have to ask yourself, use your imagination, what would happen if Iran became the dominant power in the Middle East? Likewise, would happen to Saudi Arabia and the Salafis became the dominant power in the region? Then think about what would happen to America, her prestige, and eventually, her ideas should this occur. I think if you imagine that what's good is just strict national interests and what's good for us is just preventing another 9/11 misses the point.

Events like 9/11 occurred because we're the enemy of a large number of people... and I don't want those people to win and become powerful than us over than there then we are.

Don't you?
 
ScribblerSix said:
You could just call it al-Sham (the global jihad) - that's their other name and they refer to themselves as that a lot.

Why should we care? I don't think anyone will have answer for you. There's no 1 answer and will never be. If you're looking for a good versus evil war, I think you're going to have to wait a few years until World War 3 breaks out between the evil ATM army that won't release any funds and the transformers.

However, in the 21st century, this is the new normal with lots of slightly larger states battling over control of a region. You have to ask yourself, use your imagination, what would happen if Iran became the dominant power in the Middle East? Likewise, would happen to Saudi Arabia and the Salafis became the dominant power in the region? Then think about what would happen to America, her prestige, and eventually, her ideas should this occur. I think if you imagine that what's good is just strict national interests and what's good for us is just preventing another 9/11 misses the point.

Events like 9/11 occurred because we're the enemy of a large number of people... and I don't want those people to win and become powerful than us over than there then we are.

Don't you?
Click to expand...

Actually, they refer to themselves as just "the State".

Point of order: 9/11 occurred because some men killed innocent people on some planes only to kill more innocent people in the US instead of manning up and taking it to the battlefield. I'm sure that's what Mohammad intended his followers to do...no, I really don't think so: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman. nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock. save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"

You mean that Iran IS NOT the dominant power in the ME? They are projecting power in SY and AF and soon IQ. Salafis in The Kingdom of Saud? Ummm, like NOW (and since the Wahhabi revival in the '20s)? According to the Saudi Emb, Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on justice, shura (consultation) and equality according to Islamic Sharia. (sounds pretty salafi to me)

Regarding 9/11, as per UBL's fatwa in 1998 he clearly cited US bases in the Arabian peninsula, Operations Desert Storm/Fox, and turning Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Sudan into puppet states as reasons for the global jihad.

Ultimately our expansion into the ME, so we can have big SUVs and cheap gas, has fueled...:hmm:...anti-American sentiment in the Muslim community, why don't we try a different approach: withdraw, isolate, and expel those from the ME here on cultural exchanges. If plan A isn't working, why are we continuing on plan A? PACE works for a reason.
 
lindy said:
Actually, they refer to themselves as just "the State".

Point of order: 9/11 occurred because some men killed innocent people on some planes only to kill more innocent people in the US instead of manning up and taking it to the battlefield. I'm sure that's what Mohammad intended his followers to do...no, I really don't think so: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman. nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock. save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"

You mean that Iran IS NOT the dominant power in the ME? They are projecting power in SY and AF and soon IQ. Salafis in The Kingdom of Saud? Ummm, like NOW (and since the Wahhabi revival in the '20s)? According to the Saudi Emb, Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on justice, shura (consultation) and equality according to Islamic Sharia. (sounds pretty salafi to me)

Regarding 9/11, as per UBL's fatwa in 1998 he clearly cited US bases in the Arabian peninsula, Operations Desert Storm/Fox, and turning Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Sudan into puppet states as reasons for the global jihad.

Ultimately our expansion into the ME, so we can have big SUVs and cheap gas, has fueled...:hmm:...anti-American sentiment in the Muslim community, why don't we try a different approach: withdraw, isolate, and expel those from the ME here on cultural exchanges. If plan A isn't working, why are we continuing on plan A? PACE works for a reason.
Click to expand...

I respect that opinion, it's the opinion of most Americans who are skeptical of whether 70 years of our direct involvement (from our occupation of Beirut under Eisenhower and our rejection of the Sue invasion onward) would say.

I think everything is said is very fair... indeed we have inadvertently handed Iran the keys to the Greater ME by taking out Saddam and the Taliban.

Also, yes Saud does export more ideology than oil and someday our need for them will dimish as soon as we're independent in terms energy.

However, your post muddles two very different things... namely it imagines that if we did nothing there without being threatened things would naturally get better so as far as we would have less bin Ladens and non state actors threatening us with Jihad. Secondly, it imagines the GWOT was decided when we decided to put bases there in the 1990s.

My answer:

1) bin Laden, in the great scheme of things, became irrelevant when we invaded and captured Kandahar. He no longer controlled a worldwide network.

That meant any new adaption of AQ would tie it to a pretender government in exile or a nation state like Iraq. Contrary to popular belief al Zarqawi worked out of a Baathist office.

Saudi, had its own ties to AQ like organizations, Iran with Hezollhah and the Sadrists, etc.

An organization like AQ cannot breath with a state becoming entangled with it. It becomes a tool, a tool for promoting state power across the ME.

2) Given AQ (and other organizations) is a tool of governments, the second question is do you want a AQ state or Shia theocracy that could eventually obtain chemical weapons, an arsenal of other deadly material, and pose the threat the Soviet Union once did against the US? You don't have to look far to see Lenin was once a German agent, like al Zarqawi was an Iraqi one, and that small regional threats can morph into immense ones.

3) lastly, is American policy decided by these concerns or that we will be dictated to by Islamiats who would cherish seeing us no longer appearing to stand up for the little guys (as we were once when France helped us, even if it wasnt for most idealist of reasons. Surely, American policy shold be conducted regardless of a radical cleric issuing a fatwa against us?
 
lindy said:
Actually, they refer to themselves as just "the State".

Point of order: 9/11 occurred because some men killed innocent people on some planes only to kill more innocent people in the US instead of manning up and taking it to the battlefield. I'm sure that's what Mohammad intended his followers to do...no, I really don't think so: "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman. nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock. save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"

You mean that Iran IS NOT the dominant power in the ME? They are projecting power in SY and AF and soon IQ. Salafis in The Kingdom of Saud? Ummm, like NOW (and since the Wahhabi revival in the '20s)? According to the Saudi Emb, Governance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on justice, shura (consultation) and equality according to Islamic Sharia. (sounds pretty salafi to me)

Regarding 9/11, as per UBL's fatwa in 1998 he clearly cited US bases in the Arabian peninsula, Operations Desert Storm/Fox, and turning Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Sudan into puppet states as reasons for the global jihad.

Ultimately our expansion into the ME, so we can have big SUVs and cheap gas, has fueled...:hmm:...anti-American sentiment in the Muslim community, why don't we try a different approach: withdraw, isolate, and expel those from the ME here on cultural exchanges. If plan A isn't working, why are we continuing on plan A? PACE works for a reason.
Click to expand...
Look I like this post for the most part but what it's missing is the consideration of the balance of power. An extremely destabilized ME with Iran pulling the strings has us sucking hind tit as Russia and possibly China gain more influence and power via Iranian proxy. If our economy was stronger than it is now than we might be able to pull of isolationism in this case because we could still maintain our global influence thus being able to balance power....but it's not.

It's a no brainer, gimme six gunships with JTACS to ride on board and we can take care of ISIS right now while they are in the open. I'd Winchester the fuck out of my ride in 30 mins and do it everyday for a month to at least allow Iraq some breathing room to handle their shit. We shouldn't be comfortable watching a pro Iran/Russia caliphate come together when we could stop it fast in its tracks. That being said we may already missed the window to do so because of our leadership deficit in the WH.
 
I heard today's news that ISIS have taken ground to the west of Bagdad by negotiation with local tribes & also secured a supply route from Syria into the northern Iraq. Looks like Bagdad is the destination.
 
Vat_69 said:
Look I like this post for the most part but what it's missing is the consideration of the balance of power. An extremely destabilized ME with Iran pulling the strings has us sucking hind tit as Russia and possibly China gain more influence and power via Iranian proxy. If our economy was stronger than it is now than we might be able to pull of isolationism in this case because we could still maintain our global influence thus being able to balance power....but it's not.

It's a no brainer, gimme six gunships with JTACS to ride on board and we can take care of ISIS right now while they are in the open. I'd Winchester the fuck out of my ride in 30 mins and do it everyday for a month to at least allow Iraq some breathing room to handle their shit. We shouldn't be comfortable watching a pro Iran/Russia caliphate come together when we could stop it fast in its tracks. That being said we may already missed the window to do so because of our leadership deficit in the WH.
Click to expand...

I liked a lot of what your saying.

My issue is we need fundamental change in Iraq. We need one of two things to happen IMHO. We need to either break Iraq into 3 ethnic based countries or we need to have a government that incorporate all the parties to create a unified country.

Can we put down ISIS and prop up Iraq? Sure we can but that doesn't fix the fundamental problems with Iraq.

Many times our government goes to the practical easy answer that doesn't address the real problems. We do that domestically and internationally.

Hopefully, we won't make that same mistake but I'm not holding my breadth.
 
CQB said:
I heard today's news that ISIS have taken ground to the west of Bagdad by negotiation with local tribes & also secured a supply route from Syria into the northern Iraq. Looks like Bagdad is the destination.
Click to expand...

I don't see Baghdad falling to them. I can't imagine Iran and the Shia allowing that to happen.
 
Symbolism and PR matter. ISIS can get a lot of mileage out of even making it to the outskirts of B-dad, much less taking all or a portion of the city.
 
I just want to add something regarding the etymology of ISIS: the final S in ISIS refers to بلاد الشام (blad aSham), which is the Arabic name for the Levant.
 

Similar threads

Blizzard
ISIS Reportedly Attacks Iranian Parliament
Replies
7
Views
2K
Blizzard
Blizzard
goodvibes33
Mexican Army Special Operations Forces History and the War on Drugs
2
Replies
20
Views
11K
goodvibes33
goodvibes33
DA SWO
Secretive U.S. Spy Plane Crashes in Iraq
Replies
2
Views
2K
LimaOscarSierraTango
LimaOscarSierraTango
Ooh-Rah
Hero SAS sniper saves father and eight-year-old son from being beheaded by ISIS maniac
Replies
2
Views
3K
Dame
Dame
CQB
IS takes control of Muthanna
Replies
10
Views
2K
pardus
pardus
Back
Top