ISIS

[Quick Karl]

Thank you President Obama!

http://online.wsj.com/articles/militants-seize-provincial-hq-in-mosul-city-iraq-1402387098?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[albrecht]

Thank you President Obama!

http://online.wsj.com/articles/militants-seize-provincial-hq-in-mosul-city-iraq-1402387098?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Well, it is certainly an easier way to get munitions and weapons into the hands of radicals than trying to run them secretly through Turkey via Benghazi!

[Quick Karl]

Well, it is certainly an easier way to get munitions and weapons into the hands of radicals than trying to run them secretly through Turkey via Benghazi!

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so... oh wait, never mind.

[Zoo]

Thanks Bush for getting us into a war over WMD"S that did not exist. You and your VP killed thousands of people and were never charged with war crimes.

As for Obama thanks for escalating the war in Afghanistan and killing more of are soldiers. Also civilians with your drone strikes and no war crimes for you too.

I am glad we are leaving both of these places and hope we never return. We should have never went to Iraq and we should have never went to Afghanistan. We solved nothing buy going, nothing but debt!!1

[Quick Karl]

Thanks Bush for getting us into a war over WMD"S that did not exist. You and your VP killed thousands of people and were never charged with war crimes.

As for Obama thanks for escalating the war in Afghanistan and killing more of are soldiers. Also civilians with your drone strikes and no war crimes for you too.

I am glad we are leaving both of these places and hope we never return. We should have never went to Iraq and we should have never went to Afghanistan. We solved nothing buy going, nothing but debt!!1

I know you aren't paying attention to the details and trying to make a larger point but, opponents will focus on small mistakes and try to discredit your entire argument, over a typo...

Are: present 2d singular or present plural of be

Our: relating to or belonging to us : made or done by us

[Zoo]

Thank you for your concern but I have been on here for a while and know how people are. They think they are perfect and never make a mistake. It does not effect me at all or my points. They know what I mean they are just being word gangsters that is all. It makes them fell good about themselves. I think it is funny but thank you for the heads up!!1 

[Quick Karl]

Thank you for your concern but I have been on here for a while and know how people are. They think they are perfect and never make a mistake. It does not effect me at all or my points. They know what I mean they are just being word gangsters that is all. It makes them fell good about themselves. I think it is funny but thank you for the heads up!!1

LOL "Word Gangsters!"

I'm going to remember that one 

[PB the Deplorable]

Obama showing new weakness letting those 5 'Never to be released' Taliban thugs invites these sort of actions.

The Pakistan version of the Taliban is attacking the airport in Karachi right now

[albrecht]

More good news for Obama and the other radicals of the Sunni bent:

"Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (Isis) has become the richest terror group ever after looting 500 billion Iraqi dinars - the equivalent of $429m (£256m) - from Mosul's central bank, according to the regional governor."
http://tinyurl.com/mcw7pgx

[b_dubb]

George W Bush broke it.  America bought it.

[Quick Karl]

George W Bush broke it.  America bought it.

It's.. it's... it's NIXON'S fault!

[albrecht]

It's.. it's... it's NIXON'S fault!

I know it was a Republicans 's fault but not sure who. Maybe Eisenhower? If he would've let the English, French, and Israelis take and keep the Suez Canal maybe Obama and his fellow Sunni radicals wouldn't be causing so much trouble?

[ItsOver]

LOL "Word Gangsters!"

I'm going to remember that one 

If we're "word gangstuh's,"  Noory has to be a "word pornographer."

[pyewacket]

If we're "word gangstuh's,"  Noory has to be a "word pornographer."

GN is also a fluent flounderer in flummox

[pyewacket]

Seriously, After 14 years, thousands of our military killed, a trillion or more dollars, 100ks civilians dead, - what was accomplished? Saddam Hussein was a dictator, no doubt about that - but he was secular. Would he have let these fanatics gain a foot hold there? It's astonishing how badly this is turning out considering what the last few administrations have told us. I fear for what comes next.

[PB the Deplorable]

Seriously, After 14 years, thousands of our military killed, a trillion or more dollars, 100ks civilians dead, - what was accomplished? Saddam Hussein was a dictator, no doubt about that - but he was secular. Would he have let these fanatics gain a foot hold there? It's astonishing how badly this is turning out considering what the last few administrations have told us. I fear for what comes next.

You are correct of course.  It was in our interests to keep Saddam in power - he counterbalanced the nuts in Iran, and kept Islamic Jihad out of Iraq.  No one in DC seemed to have an end game or wonder what would come next. 

Attacking Iraq the 2nd time may be our worst foreign policy blunder to date.  Attacking Afghanistan made even less sense, if that's even possible.


By the way, it was in our interests to keep Khadaffi, Mubarek, and Assad in power as well as Saddam.  None of these places are or were going to turn into peaceful democracies in our lifetimes, but they don't need to be run by Islamists either.

[pyewacket]

You are correct of course.  It was in our interests to keep Saddam in power - he counterbalanced the nuts in Iran, and kept Islamic Jihad out of Iraq.  No one in DC seemed to have an end game or wonder what would come next. 

Attacking Iraq the 2nd time may be our worst foreign policy blunder to date.  Attacking Afghanistan made even less sense, if that's even possible.


By the way, it was in our interests to keep Khadaffi, Mubarek, and Assad in power as well as Saddam.  None of these places are or were going to turn into peaceful democracies in our lifetimes, but they don't need to be run by Islamists either.

PB- you beat me to this ^^^ It makes no sense at all to take out all of these secular governments. It's as if the goal is to establish the caliphate that we were supposedly trying to prevent.

[b_dubb]

It's.. it's... it's NIXON'S fault!

When I posted my remark I was thinking of Colin Powell's remarks to George W Bush regarding the Iraq invasion. Dubbya broke it.  The entire region destabilized. We'll be paying for that for decades. Centuries perhaps. And all for a lie.

[albrecht]

When I posted my remark I was thinking of Colin Powell's remarks to George W Bush regarding the Iraq invasion. Dubbya broke it.  The entire region destabilized. We'll be paying for that for decades. Centuries perhaps. And all for a lie.

Only if you are naive enough to think destabilization is not the goal. To wit: now in Ukraine. (and Syria, Egypt, etc etc.) Right out of a Brzezinski or Kissinger playbook (or more recently the neo-con's). It is not like these guys don't telegraph their punches. It wasn't for a "lie" but for profits. Lotsa money being made, being disappeared, being lost, and changing hands in this deal.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

fault... fault... fault....

it's damned hard enough to overcome some of ones own human nature.

war, regardless of fault... not only seems to be part of human nature, but the solution to overcome the human nature of others.

[Quick Karl]

When I posted my remark I was thinking of Colin Powell's remarks to George W Bush regarding the Iraq invasion. Dubbya broke it.  The entire region destabilized. We'll be paying for that for decades. Centuries perhaps. And all for a lie.

b_dubb - I was just having fun. I know you mean well, even if we disagree on problems and remedies.

[Quick Karl]

fault... fault... fault....

it's damned hard enough to overcome some of ones own human nature.

war, regardless of fault... not only seems to be part of human nature, but the solution to overcome the human nature of others.

There will always be people that will kill you for your stuff (it's a cold hard fact, and a metaphor for social respect). In all of man's history, being nice to people that will kill you to take your stuff, hasn't worked out too well for the nice, or perceived weaker, guys.

No decent person ever wants to harm another, or even insult them for their belief, but what do you do when someone is trying to kill you, or worse, trying to kill someone you love?

It sure would be nice if everyone were nice and respectful to each other, but a person can't even have a contrary belief without having their dignity attacked, so the likelihood of the world waking up and becoming one huge hug-fest, is remote.

You can die, or fight back.

I might die, but I am going to die fighting, and taking a few with me.

When the politicians and intellectuals run out of bullshit, average people pay the price for what those paragons do, with their lives - every time.

That fact alone ought to make every one of them "paragons" disgusted to look in the mirror.

A degree, and or a measure of intelligence (real or self-fantasized), should not equal a right to shit upon people with whom you disagree, then call them names when they fight back with the same, or in my case, stronger tactics, used against them, but THAT is the History of humans, because the "average man" isn't the guy planning the mass-murders -- excuse me -- I mean wars of justice, and sending 23-yr old kids to die and have their legs blown off, for the sake of their "legacy"...

The average guy really just wants you to leave him the fuck alone, and let him feed and protect his family, and live in relative peace, and he doesn't really give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom -- he just doesn't want someone else, indoctrinating his children.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

There will always be people that will kill you for your stuff (it's a cold hard fact, and a metaphor for social respect). In all of man's history, being nice to people that will kill you to take your stuff, hasn't worked out too well for the nice, or perceived weaker, guys.

No decent person ever wants to harm another, or even insult them for their belief, but what do you do when someone is trying to kill you, or worse, trying to kill someone you love?

It sure would be nice if everyone were nice and respectful to each other, but a person can't even have a contrary belief without having their dignity attacked, so the likelihood of the world waking up and becoming one huge hug-fest, is remote.

You can die, or fight back.

I might die, but I am going to die fighting, and taking a few with me.

When the politicians and intellectuals run out of bullshit, average people pay the price for what those paragons do, with their lives - every time.

i already acknowledged that as part of our nature. never suggested anything along the lines of a "hug-fest" i am a firm follower of you can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than you can with just a kind word. when required.

i've held a local office in the past, been spit upon when in uniform and have had a mob of twenty so angry with me that i feared for my immediate health. i did what was needed to protect my crew and aircraft when it was the only piece of family and home when far away from both. i have never had an attack on my dignity where it didn't emerge intact or more deeply felt. it does that when tempered with humility better than it does with delusion or a blind following.

politicians and intellectuals vs average people. if your reference is to war... i never met a single person in the service that is average. politicians and intellectuals.... not so much.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

The average guy really just wants you to leave him the fuck alone, and let him feed and protect his family, and live in relative peace, and he doesn't really give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom -- he just doesn't want someone else, indoctrinating his children.

uh... ok. 

[bigchucka]

The average guy really just wants you to leave him the fuck alone, and let him feed and protect his family, and live in relative peace, and he doesn't really give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom -- he just doesn't want someone else, indoctrinating his children.

uh... ok. 

Could also go in the Spec Sheet thread...

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

The average guy really just wants you to leave him the fuck alone, and let him feed and protect his family, and live in relative peace, and he doesn't really give a flying fuck what you do in your bedroom -- he just doesn't want someone else, indoctrinating his children.

Could also go in the Spec Sheet thread...

The Spec Sheet now comes to you from my bedroom.  I knew you'd be happy to learn this.  New episode coming sooooooon.

ok.... we can fault MV for that one. hope it is better than his pee cam   

[bigchucka]

ok.... we can fault MV for that one. hope it is better than his pee cam   

Reading this site by "recent posts" on the home page instead of thread by thread can sometimes bring some funny matchups....

[Yorkshire pud]

Thank you President Obama!

Or we could have a more measured account:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27802746

The borders of the modern Middle East are in large part a legacy of World War One. They were established by the colonial powers after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.

Those borders could now be in peril for two main reasons - the continuing fighting and fragmentation of Syria and the ISIS assault in Iraq Unless the military gains of ISIS can be reversed, the Iraqi state is in peril as never before. The dual crises in Syria and Iraq combine to offer the possibility of a "state" encompassing eastern Syria and western Iraq where the jihadists of ISIS hold sway.

This would have huge implications for the region and beyond. Iraq has to a large extent staggered from crisis to crisis, so what went wrong?

'Original sin'

For some, Iraq's problems begin at the creation, with the founding of the modern Iraqi state itself. Britain, as the colonial power, established a Hashemite kingdom that took little account of other communities like the Shia or the Kurds - a theme that was to recur throughout Iraq's turbulent history.

The monarchy was eventually overturned by a Baathist coup similar to the secular, nationalist and modernising forces that propelled the Nasser regime to power in Egypt.

It is this edifice that was eventually headed by Saddam Hussein whose Sunni-dominated regime dealt harshly with Shia and Kurdish sentiment.

Western support for Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War only seemed to consolidate his brutal regime.

Operation Iraqi Freedom

The Baathist state was destroyed by the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003. Saddam Hussein was deposed and ultimately tried and executed by the new Iraqi government. Iraq's military was largely dismantled and a new security force created.

The war which some US neoconservatives saw as an explicit attempt to bring democracy to the region, established new political arrangements, which while seeking to unite all communities, effectively produced a state dominated by the Shia majority.

Many had actually wondered if Iraq could actually hold together as a unitary state, not least because the Kurds in the north had been able to carve out a significant degree of autonomy for themselves.

US pull-out

Despite initial plans to keep some forces in Iraq to assist the local army, no agreement could be reached between Baghdad and Washington, and the last US troops pulled out in December 2011 leaving security in the hands of the often less-than-effective Iraqi military.

The US had chalked up some significant successes in courting Sunni groups to help fight al-Qaeda-linked jihadist terrorism. Without the Americans these arrangements quickly broke down.

Sunnis found themselves increasingly the victims of the Shia-dominated government's security forces.

Indeed, the heavy-handedness of Iraqi forces may have effectively acted as a "recruiting sergeant" for ISIS.

Sectarianism in the new Iraq

The great paradox of the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein is that by destroying Iraq as a regional player they accelerated and facilitated the rise of Iran. Tehran saw the Shia in Iraq as its allies in a wider regional struggle.

Maybe emboldened by support from Iran, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's Shia triumphalism antagonised many Sunnis worsening the security situation on the ground.

Economic and social failure

Sectarianism and the Sunni-Shia divide is seen by many commentators in a kind of chicken and egg situation.

Is it the sectarian differences in themselves that are the problem or is it that the Iraqi state's social and economic failure prompted more bitter divisions?

Iraqis - despite their country's oil wealth - are generally poor and levels of corruption in the country are very high.

Regional context

Nothing that happens in the Middle east occurs in a vacuum. Iraqis, while fixated inevitably on their own problems, have watched as the currents of the Arab Spring have come and gone; the almost circular political transformation in Egypt; and of course crucially the upheavals in neighbouring Syria. The jihadist surge there has inevitably had implications across the border in Iraq.

Backing for extreme Sunni fighters from the Gulf States has also facilitated the emergence and consolidation of groups like ISIS with a broader regional agenda.

And while direct collusion between the Syria's Assad regime and the jihadists is hard to prove, there have been consistent reports that the Damascus government's military has paid far less attention to such groups while concentrating its fire on more moderate Western-backed fighters. This has given ISIS room to establish its own administrative structures in the areas it controls.

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

Or we could have a more measured account:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27802746

well that was easy 

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

Reading this site by "recent posts" on the home page instead of thread by thread can sometimes bring some funny matchups....

eeyup.
if the site as a whole were a single person they would be committed to an institution or start a world religion.