Iraq and ISIS Discussion

[Diamondback 2/2]

I have a lot of buddies who bailed on the WPS mission in Iraq over the last two years. The current Iraqi government is very corrupt (as to be expected) but the security has been going down hill the last two years fast.

Crazy shit is the Baghdad embassy is the largest and most expensive in the world. Glad we built that compound for them...

 

[Brill]

From 2012:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/w...-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

On Oct. 21, Mr. Obama held another videoconference with Mr. Maliki — his first such discussion since the talks began in June. The negotiations were over, and all of the American troops would be coming home.

The White House insisted that the collapse of the talks was not a setback. “As we reviewed the 10,000 option, we came to the conclusion that achieving the goal of a security partnership was not dependent on the size of our footprint in-country, and that stability in Iraq did not depend on the presence of U.S. forces,” a senior Obama administration official said.

It is too soon to fully assess that prediction. But tensions have increased to the point that Mr. Barzani has insisted Mr. Maliki be replaced and Iraq’s lone Sunni vice president has fled to Turkey to avoid arrest.

 

[CQB]

I heard that to try to get some way forward, the govt there couldn't raise a quorum.
The only bright side is that I hope every disaffected conservative Muslim is any country you can name will flock to this new Islamic proto Caliphate. They can have a nice time whiling away the hours crucifying and beheading each other. I'm sure there'll be some takers.

 

[Red-Dot]

I would not waste another single hellfire on Iraq, unless it was to get their oil.

 

[AWP]

Uh....are you kidding me?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/world/meast/iraq-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

In his interview with Yahoo!News, Kerry didn't say that cooperation with Iran is under active discussion inside the administration.
"Let's see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements," he said.
But he went on to say that the he "wouldn't rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability."

To even suggest such a thing, negotiate ot cooperate with a nation we consider to be a threat to this country and the world, the whole Axis of Evil, the nuke program, the Embassy in '79...I can't even wrap my head around this. The fall of Iraq is so important as for us to even consider, however remotely, to work with Iran?

ADMIN Note: I've changed the title of this thread to reflect the situation as a whole.

 

[DA SWO]

Uh....are you kidding me?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/world/meast/iraq-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



To even suggest such a thing, negotiate ot cooperate with a nation we consider to be a threat to this country and the world, the whole Axis of Evil, the nuke program, the Embassy in '79...I can't even wrap my head around this. The fall of Iraq is so important as for us to even consider, however remotely, to work with Iran?

ADMIN Note: I've changed the title of this thread to reflect the situation as a whole.

Ignore the fact that Iran was doing everything they could to destabilize Iraq and kill our troops a few years ago.

Proof that most nations are run by idiots.

 

[AWP]

Ignore the fact that Iran was doing everything they could to destabilize Iraq and kill our troops a few years ago.

Or that Iran has actively worked w/ Pakistan to kill troops in Afghanistan.

I cannot fathom a scenario where the mere suggestion of working with Iran is acceptable.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Yeah I agree its insanity to imagine our government working with Iran on anything.

Besides that the Suadi's won't be having that shit at all.

 

[DA SWO]

Or that Iran has actively worked w/ Pakistan to kill troops in Afghanistan.

I cannot fathom a scenario where the mere suggestion of working with Iran is acceptable.

To be fair, Lindsey Grahamnesty is also advocating this.

 

[AWP]

To be fair, Lindsey Grahamnesty is also advocating this.

Then we can add him to the list of morons supporting this nonsense. Our leadership has lost its mind.

---

What do we gain by partnering with Iran to save Iraq? I know it is a bare suggestion at this point, but if we follow through...what do we gain? At best on the "con" side, we've entered into the Sunni/ Shia split on the side of the Shia and there's no way that ends well. Siding with either party is madness, but we'll do just that in the eyes of the Sunni.

How does the fall of Iraq offset/ overcome the negatives of siding with Iran? That what it will be seen as, us taking the Shia's side.

 

[CQB]

Some more OSINT.
m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtube_gdata_player&v=FsF3HspQY6A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DFsF3HspQY6A%26feature%3Dyoutube_gdata_player

 

[Totentanz]

I cannot fathom a scenario where the mere suggestion of working with Iran is acceptable.

What if we were planning to invade a mutual enemy? (to be specific, Crocker meeting with Iranian military officials in Geneva prior to OEF: link, link, link) I'll grant you that almost a decade and a half later, the many variables have changed (e.g. thanks for the EFPs, assholes), but it has happened within contemporary history.

What do we gain by partnering with Iran to save Iraq? I know it is a bare suggestion at this point, but if we follow through...what do we gain? At best on the "con" side, we've entered into the Sunni/ Shia split on the side of the Shia and there's no way that ends well. Siding with either party is madness, but we'll do just that in the eyes of the Sunni.

Depends what you mean by "partner"... I won't advocate skipping down the yellow brick road with them (I'd give that option an emphatic "fuck that"), but I'd be perfectly ok letting Quds Force take it on the jaw achieving our goals (stabilizing Iraq) rather than our own forces.

 

[Chopstick]

Just saw this on the news.
http://abc11.com/news/president-obama-275-us-military-troops-will-deploy-to-iraq/116337/

- President Barack Obama is notifying Congress that about 275 U.S. military personnel could deploy to Iraq.

Obama says the forces are going to provide support and security for U.S. personnel and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He says the forces are equipped for combat and will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that they are no longer needed.

About 160 troops are already in Iraq, including 50 Marines and more than 100 Army soldiers. Some of those soldiers have only recently arrived.

Under the authorization Obama outlined, a U.S. official says the U.S. will put an additional 100 soldiers in a nearby third country where they would be held in reserve until needed.

The White House says the U.S. military personnel are entering Iraq with its consent.

 

[DA SWO]

The Iranians are involved because this is a Sunni-Shia Battle, a battle they helped instigate.
Iran is involved because they never envisioned a Sunni uprising ( remembering the last Sunni to Rule Iraq).

Do not get involved in another man's Civil War (sell arms for cash if you must, but never allow yourselves to take sides with manpower).

 

[ScribblerSix]

I hope everyone knows that to side with Iran is to side against Kurdistan.

 

[RetPara]

I hope everyone knows that to side with Iran is to side against Kurdistan.

Well we do... but most Americans.... please.... So obviously we will ally with Iran...

 

[Brill]

Well we do... but most Americans.... please.... So obviously we will ally with Iran...

If we're friendly to them, they will like us again! If POTUS cannot get good polling numbers here, why not try to get positive numbers overseas? :-/

 

[DA SWO]

I hope everyone knows that to side with Iran is to side against Kurdistan.

Sadly, to side with Kurdistan is to side against Turkey (or so they say).

I actually think Kurdistan is a good idea (within some well defined political boundaries)

 

[ScribblerSix]

It's a weird thing, should we have left a Middle East with 6 sides all fighting one another, with a kind of foreign policy certainty where we had the Saudi and Salafis on one side, the Shias (Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria) on another, the Gulf States and Monarchies, and Saddam and the ("tribal") Iraqi Sunnis, the Turks and Israel (who were allies for a while), and lastly the Kurds all fighting each other? Some say having 6 sides canceling each other out is a good thing.

But, really is what we have today, a consolidated Shia versus Sunni civil war really better? I'd agree with The Spectator, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/dougla...le-east-is-far-bigger-than-isis-and-al-qaeda/

This is going to be a long war. The lid has opened and everything in pandora's box is going out.

 

[Brill]

It's a weird thing, should we have left a Middle East with 6 sides all fighting one another, with a kind of foreign policy certainty where we had the Saudi and Salafis on one side, the Shias (Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria) on another, the Gulf States and Monarchies, and Saddam and the ("tribal") Iraqi Sunnis, the Turks and Israel (who were allies for a while), and lastly the Kurds all fighting each other? Some say having 6 sides canceling each other out is a good thing.

But, really is what we have today, a consolidated Shia versus Sunni civil war really better? I'd agree with The Spectator, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/dougla...le-east-is-far-bigger-than-isis-and-al-qaeda/

This is going to be a long war. The lid has opened and everything in pandora's box is going out.

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.