reds8n wrote: so, to clarify, your argument is you/we/whomever cannot/should not use airstrikes/similar as this will kill innocent people and their friends/families/rest of the Middle East will develop a grudge or somesuch against America...
.. whilst at the same time suggesting that these same people should be nuked.
Which presumably, will have no repercussions whatsoever.
Of course not, it's hard to hold a grudge if you've been vaporised.
reds8n wrote: so, to clarify, your argument is you/we/whomever cannot/should not use airstrikes/similar as this will kill innocent people and their friends/families/rest of the Middle East will develop a grudge or somesuch against America...
.. whilst at the same time suggesting that these same people should be nuked.
Which presumably, will have no repercussions whatsoever.
I'm suggesting, if you're going to go, go all the way. We have no reason to kill people and break things here.
reds8n wrote: so, to clarify, your argument is you/we/whomever cannot/should not use airstrikes/similar as this will kill innocent people and their friends/families/rest of the Middle East will develop a grudge or somesuch against America...
.. whilst at the same time suggesting that these same people should be nuked.
Which presumably, will have no repercussions whatsoever.
Of course not, it's hard to hold a grudge if you've been vaporised.
Whether we are there or not shiites and sunnies will be killing each other. Thats something those groups have to work out.
When two pit bulls go at it, sticking your hand in will only get your arm chewed up, and both are liable to attack you instead.
For example, when the Tutsis were being exterminated by the Hutus?
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
A snippet:
Burundi genocide (1993)[edit]Main article: Burundian Genocide
In 1993, Burundi's first democratically elected president, Melchior Ndadaye, a Hutu, was assassinated by Tutsi officers, as was the person entitled to succeed him under the constitution.[21] This sparked a genocide in Burundi between Hutu political structures and the Tutsi military, in which "possibly as many as 25,000 Tutsi" were murdered by the former and "at least as many" were killed by the latter.[22] Since the 2000 Arusha Peace Process, today in Burundi the Tutsi minority shares power in a more or less equitable manner with the Hutu majority. Traditionally, the Tutsi had held more economic power and controlled the military.[23][citation needed]
Jihadin wrote: Drone strikes are not going to hold up ISIS Iran might actually go in Iraq to deal with the problem
Per news it appears they are lready are. Firues as maliki is merely an extension of them at this point. You want to live like a shiite regime, you got it. Don't call us.
Frankly things would be a lot better if the world was run by wiener dogs. Maybe the occasional snarl bite over food but otherwise we just resort to wrestling to settle disputes. Plus everyone gets naptime from 3-5 every day.
Mistakes were made when post-war the British and French divided up the Middle Eastern and drew arbitrary lines on a map, without much thought to the tribes that they were cutting in half and mixing up.
Since then, iron-fisted control from a secular government was necessary to keep things in check. Now that the central control has been removed, it was only ever going to end in one way.
The issue is now, we can't change what has happened in history. We can't change that we went in and essentially lit a tinder box under the whole thing by removing Saddam, and then making such spectacularly short-sighted decisions with the creation of post-invasions Iraq; throwing loads of weapons into the country and not replacing it with a government and state that was capable of self sustaining.
The leaders of ISIS are hard-bitten survivors of the 2003 invasion, they've lived from war and obtained their positions as warlords by being the meanest, most vile, extreme and aggressive people imaginable - they're not going to say "ok we've carved out a state for ourselves in Northern Iraq, time to hang up my gun and go home". Their edict is one that the other, more moderate muslims are infidels, and need to be either converted or killed. Something that it seems they are prepared to do, and also have enough financial backing to support.
I am genuinely scared for not only for the future of Iraq, which is going to disappear in an inferno, but for the rest of the middle east and by extension the rest of the world. We are going to be feeling the repercussions of this for the next twenty or thirty years. At this point, I honestly don't know what the best scenario is; other than we've monumentally fethed up everything we have been involved in so far, and that it might be best to let things burn themselves out (as incredibly cruel as that seems) and hope that Iraq will eventually achieve some level of stability through Balkanisation.
Meh
How is it different then any other time? Wars and revolutions have been going on in the ME since before humans figured out that whole writing thing. It hasn't been peaceful since the fall of the Turks.
It wasn't peaceful during the Turks.
It wasn't peaceful before the Turks.
Empires ebbing and flowing. Rebellions, reprisals, oppression.
And as Pacific has noted, if we (US and before the UK) have made of mess of an existing mess with our efforts, then clearly we don't know any better than anyone else and should stay out.
On the positive maybe the Kurds there will be free. Maybe the sunnis and shiites sort themselves out that conflict falls away there.
Once again Switzerland shows us the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Believe ISIS has the finance, capabilities, and the dedication to pull off an attack on the US.
Not if we close our borders.
Not if they have a running gun battle with the Kurds, the Iranians, and the Syrians.
Frazzled wrote: Meh
How is it different then any other time? Wars and revolutions have been going on in the ME since before humans figured out that whole writing thing. It hasn't been peaceful since the fall of the Turks.
It wasn't peaceful during the Turks.
It wasn't peaceful before the Turks.
Empires ebbing and flowing. Rebellions, reprisals, oppression.
And as Pacific has noted, if we (US and before the UK) have made of mess of an existing mess with our efforts, then clearly we don't know any better than anyone else and should stay out.
On the positive maybe the Kurds there will be free. Maybe the sunnis and shiites sort themselves out that conflict falls away there.
Once again Switzerland shows us the way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Believe ISIS has the finance, capabilities, and the dedication to pull off an attack on the US.
Not if we close our borders.
Not if they have a running gun battle with the Kurds, the Iranians, and the Syrians.
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
No shame for us. We weren't involved and barely knew anything about it until it was almost over.
Trying to keep two warring tribes separate that don't want peace sounds like craptown, kind of like Iraq.
Kilkrazy wrote: Until the creation of Iraq in 1932 it was not a nation. Would it matter if the present day Iraq split up into three separate countries?
How about a federal solution -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could have semi-autonomous regions under a federal government.
I'm pretty sure that after all the fighting and the religious basis for this conflict, neither faction would be happy to be 'equal' under a federal goverment. Each faction would probably try to increase its power and influence, perhaps in diplomatic ways, more likely by force.
I would guess that three completely autonomous states, created after the fighting that we see today and that will probably continue for years, might be the most feasible, final outcome. They might still hate each other at that point, but with each faction having its own territory marked out and somewhat homogenous populations in each territory, we might see diplomacy and trade evolve again.
Oh boies! I never anticipated this at all. /sarcasm
I am a bit surprised the media has bothered to cover it as much as it has. I thought that Iraq would just turned into a crazy, volent torn-up craphole and nobody would care or notice. I guess people do?
If Iraq separate into three "countries" they will still fight amongst themselves being there are no "neutral" forth party to keep them apart. I'm actually thinking the Kurds might establish their own "nation" in northern Iraq. Believe Turkey would go along with that being the Kurds to them are a known entity and predictable.
Jihadin wrote: If Iraq separate into three "countries" they will still fight amongst themselves being there are no "neutral" forth party to keep them apart. I'm actually thinking the Kurds might establish their own "nation" in northern Iraq. Believe Turkey would go along with that being the Kurds to them are a known entity and predictable.
If history is any guide, Turkey might not. They wouldn't want their own Kurdish regions attempting to break away and join. Turkey's been one of the largest frustrators of that effort.
I know they really hate each other but I think Turkey would like to have a buffer with whatever ISIS nation to comes out in that region. I can see the relationship between them warming up being the Kurds would control the oil rich north
That might be true, especially if ISIS does gain control, a buffer would be nice, though Turkey has been notoriously intransigent about such things in the past.
Per news it appears they are lready are. Firues as maliki is merely an extension of them at this point. You want to live like a shiite regime, you got it. Don't call us.
Frankly things would be a lot better if the world was run by wiener dogs. Maybe the occasional snarl bite over food but otherwise we just resort to wrestling to settle disputes. Plus everyone gets naptime from 3-5 every day.
Wiener Party in 2014! A blanket in every kennel!
I endorse this, I can't wait to see what the first bitch will be wearing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Until the creation of Iraq in 1932 it was not a nation. Would it matter if the present day Iraq split up into three separate countries?
How about a federal solution -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could have semi-autonomous regions under a federal government.
Given the religious schism between Shiites and Sunnis, I don't see arbitrary borders stopping the madness. I think that assumes rational discourse, which if there is one thing the two groups have shown, is that they very much lack that. When one group's declared goals is to establish a caliphate across the entire Middle East, forcing Sharia law on towns the moment they capture them and making apostates dig their own graves while massacring them...well I wouldn't want us to sit down with that barbarity anyways.
Russia might support a Kurdistan carved out of chunks of Syria and Iraq. They don't get along great with Turkey so the problems it would create for Turkey would work in their favor. The west would be forced to choose between pissing off one of our best allies in the region or screwing the kurds. Itwould cost their ally Syria chunks of Syria, but Assad retaking those parts is unlikely and all they really care about is keeping Syria open to their navy. It would solidify Assad's control over Syria while creating a new state that would be friendly towards Russia. I would not write off Kurdistan as a possibility.
Kilkrazy wrote: Until the creation of Iraq in 1932 it was not a nation. Would it matter if the present day Iraq split up into three separate countries?
How about a federal solution -- Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could have semi-autonomous regions under a federal government.
Interesting article in the Guardian this morning about that subject
The problem is now, that even though those people might have lived happily together before, they probably won't now.
It's amazing how things can change - on a much smaller level, even seeing the affects of the forthcoming vote for Scottish Independence (I work with a number of Scotts).. it's just really sad the way these political movements drive a wedge between people that would otherwise be living happily together.
It's kind of fascinating that so many people talk about fighting their government in case it ever 'goes bad', but remain dismissive of people fighting in other countries to secure governments of their own liking.
Also, every time people mention ISIS I think of Archer.
Quite a gross misrepresentation of the history of Iraq. While it's self-evident that the current conflicts along the lines of ethnicity and religion are as young as the "-isms" we use to define them, the region has been in strife for centuries. There's a reason Iraq was practically depopulated by the 19th century, and this reason is not that tribal Arabs, metropolitan Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Christians, Jews and so on were sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya until evil Saddam was dropped from a U.F.O.
It's funny how most people are talking about the split-up of Iraq as if that was an academic exercise when it's already a fact. Iraq *has been* split up; all the three parts are missing is their own official flags and international recognition. And all three parts are at each others' throats in varying degrees, so this was not exactly part of a solution to the conflict, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: They don't get along great with Turkey so the problems it would create for Turkey would work in their favor. The west would be forced to choose between pissing off one of our best allies in the region or screwing the kurds.
Erdogan's Turkey is an ally on paper, no better than our "good friends" in Saudi Arabia. This doesn't mean I would cheer if the West consciously escalated the conflict in the region by supporting a Kurdistan born out of the Iraq wars, but my least consideration would be what this meant for the "alliance".
A bit of a slant to the topic, but I've been struck with a concern, especially given that Mosul is now in the hands of ultra-dumbass Islamists now.
Nineveh, ancient capital of Assyria, is located there. Prior to it's official "rediscovery" relics dug up in that region were routinely destroyed by the locals due to their "heresy", and we all know how the Taliban treated cultural icons that weren't strictly Islamic.
Has anyone seen any word on if the international community needs to worry about all of the history there?
How will current events affect the Saudis and the peninsula at large? I under stand that Saudi and their direct neighbours are Sunni majority.
One cannot help but notice that ISIL's claims end at the Saudi border.
But seriously, it's a complex situation for Saudi Arabia. On one hand, the Saudis are (by proxy) the biggest sponsor ISIL has, so it seems that they should get along just fine. On the other hand, an ISIL victory will be a huge boon to *all* Wahhabi movements, including the barely suppressed, al Qaeda-affiliated ones in Saudi Arabia. Those are on the monarchy's payroll as well, but at some point, they are bound to ask themselves why they do not simply cut out the middle man (the monarchy) and take direct control of all the assets. Alas, the Sauds have been between a rock and a hard place for decades now, so this is nothing new, the situation would just be even more explosive.
The U.A.E. are very similar; maybe a bit more vulnerable, maybe a bit less interesting as a target, so their fate is largely up to luck if Saudi Arabia ever gets into serious trouble. The same goes for the dwarf states of Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait.
Oman has an Ibadhi majority under Iran's protective umbrella - their outlook will depend largely on how the Shi'ite parts of Iraq, also an undeclared Iranian protectorate, make it out of this mess. Still, it's the most liberal country on the peninsula and thus probably a prime target for acts of terrorism.
Yemen is a failed state right now and will continue to be one in every scenario.
In the end, a stable Wahhabi Caliphate cannot coexist with anybody - it's doomed to perpetual conflict with all the unbelievers around it, so a total ISIL victory, which I can not imagine with Israel in the mix, would be a major catastrophe. The much more likely scenario is an eternal state of civil war (like in pre-invasion Afghanistan) in Iraq and Syria with a continuous terror campaign stretching from Lebanon to Jordan. The Sauds will do what they do best; offer tribute to the extremists, pay lip service to the West and hope they're dead when their problems come to bite the dynasty in the ass.
Quite a gross misrepresentation of the history of Iraq. While it's self-evident that the current conflicts along the lines of ethnicity and religion are as young as the "-isms" we use to define them, the region has been in strife for centuries. There's a reason Iraq was practically depopulated by the 19th century, and this reason is not that tribal Arabs, metropolitan Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Christians, Jews and so on were sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya until evil Saddam was dropped from a U.F.O.
It's funny how most people are talking about the split-up of Iraq as if that was an academic exercise when it's already a fact. Iraq *has been* split up; all the three parts are missing is their own official flags and international recognition. And all three parts are at each others' throats in varying degrees, so this was not exactly part of a solution to the conflict, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
schadenfreude wrote: They don't get along great with Turkey so the problems it would create for Turkey would work in their favor. The west would be forced to choose between pissing off one of our best allies in the region or screwing the kurds.
Erdogan's Turkey is an ally on paper, no better than our "good friends" in Saudi Arabia. This doesn't mean I would cheer if the West consciously escalated the conflict in the region by supporting a Kurdistan born out of the Iraq wars, but my least consideration would be what this meant for the "alliance".
I don't see Obama stepping on Turkey's toes he's too (insert timid or cautious here depending on your opinion of him).
Putin on the other hand, well let's just say a destabilized Turkey would probably be to his advantage. I think it's going to be the east that escalates the conflict in the region by supporting Kurdistan.
Once Putin puts that ball in motion I don't see Obama stepping on the Kurds dream of independence because he's too (insert timid or cautious here depending on your opinion of him).
Automatically Appended Next Post: We also have the EU, which Turkey is keen to join but so far has been refused ostensibly due to their poor human rights record but more likely due to finance and anti-Islamic feeling.
IMO it would be on the whole a good thing to bring Turkey in, though I acknowledge the difficulties.
At any rate, the prospect of EU membership ought to be a lever to influence Turkey.
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
No shame for us. We weren't involved and barely knew anything about it until it was almost over.
Bullgak of the Nth degree. Lt. Gen. Dallaire was practically begging for an International intervention, the US (and France and Belgium) just ignored it becuase it wasn't in the US's percieved interests to get involved. Claiming ignorance isn't going to fly. The world knew and just turned a blind eye.
Cons
-ISIS "owning" land in Syria and Iraq
-Possibility of three new "nations"
-ISIS with a hardline Muslim agenda
-Possibility of Kurdistan in northern Iraq
Pro's
-Turkey going with the "Kurdistan" solution since it does not involve any of Turkey lands
-A favorable petroleum deal between Kurdistan and Turkey
-Possible acceptance into the EU (think our brethren in Europe has a much better understanding of that then I do)
-Favorable NATO military packages
-With Turkey as the "go to guy" with Kurdistan a western "presence" in another part of the Middle East
This is all ball park dead reckoning. Though Kurdistan appeals to me just by the Pro's I came up with...
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
No shame for us. We weren't involved and barely knew anything about it until it was almost over.
Bullgak of the Nth degree. Lt. Gen. Dallaire was practically begging for an International intervention, the US (and France and Belgium) just ignored it becuase it wasn't in the US's percieved interests to get involved. Claiming ignorance isn't going to fly. The world knew and just turned a blind eye.
I'll double down, knew and didn't care BECAUSE IT DIDN"T HAVE ANYTHING I REPEAT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Yep, and the outrages before and after by each tribe against the other. Remember, Tutsi's held the power in Rwanda when they were a colony .
Yeah, I'm familiar (at an intermediate level) with the history of Rwanda--I'm just rather shocked you condone our action (or inaction) in it. I consider it a modern day equivalent of the holocaust, except in this scenario, no one intervened (Much to our country's shame).
In fact, in modern day history, I would consider it one of the clearest cut cases of when the international community should get involved...yet didn't.
No shame for us. We weren't involved and barely knew anything about it until it was almost over.
Bullgak of the Nth degree. Lt. Gen. Dallaire was practically begging for an International intervention, the US (and France and Belgium) just ignored it becuase it wasn't in the US's percieved interests to get involved. Claiming ignorance isn't going to fly. The world knew and just turned a blind eye.
I'll double down, knew and didn't care BECAUSE IT DIDN"T HAVE ANYTHING I REPEAT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE UNITED STATES.
So why claim that the US didn't know in the first place then? Because it'd show a weak point of your non-interventionist policy? That's pretty much what it's coming across like to me at least.
Kilkrazy wrote:We also have the EU, which Turkey is keen to join but so far has been refused ostensibly due to their poor human rights record but more likely due to finance and anti-Islamic feeling.
IMO it would be on the whole a good thing to bring Turkey in, though I acknowledge the difficulties.
At any rate, the prospect of EU membership ought to be a lever to influence Turkey.
Anti-Islamic feelings do play a role in this (and not all of those are unfounded), but right now it *is* about their appalling political development, both domestically and in terms of foreign politics. Europe has hoped for, what, 30 years by now that a promise of membership would prompt it to make the final step and "become" European, but it didn't work. Admitting Turkey in its current state to the Union is completely unthinkable, no matter how much our ivory tower elite craves it to make another quick buck.
Jihadin wrote:
Pro's
-Turkey going with the "Kurdistan" solution since it does not involve any of Turkey lands
-A favorable petroleum deal between Kurdistan and Turkey
-Possible acceptance into the EU (think our brethren in Europe has a much better understanding of that then I do)
-Favorable NATO military packages
-With Turkey as the "go to guy" with Kurdistan a western "presence" in another part of the Middle East
This is all ball park dead reckoning. Though Kurdistan appeals to me just by the Pro's I came up with...
I don't see any pros on your list...
Just to clear this up: Turkey will not and can not support the formation of an independent Kurdistan if it doesn't want to suffer the risk of half of Anatolia blowing up in unrest again in five to fifteen years' time. Turkey is ruled (yes, ruled, not governed) by a dictator in the making who hardly even tries to disguise his autocratic agenda these days; the ties with the EU and NATO only hindered the necessary steps against him that should have been taken at least a year ago. That's the same guy who is breaking bread with the Turkish extremists from Millî Görüş and similar organizations, who has been trying to resurrect an Ottoman policy of supremacy in the Middle East and Northern Africa and was quite content to watch Syria go down in flames in hopes of expanding Turkey's influence in the region. The Kurds in Iraq (and their oil) are just a stepping stone to greater power for this man.
When some Americans talk about Turkey, it's like they only have access to postcards from Istanbul, while in reality most of the country rather reminds you of Tehran these days.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Auschwitz. Case proof one of why you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, get your bingo cards out everyone.
Yugoslavia is another good example, as is Korea. Intervention doesn't have to fail.
True
The US mission in Somalia ended in 25 March of 94. We all know why Clinton removed troops. Why would the US commit troops to Rwanda almost two weeks after deploying back out of Somalia.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Auschwitz. Case proof one of why you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, get your bingo cards out everyone.
What? no one intervened in WWII on humanitarian reasons.
Yugoslavia is another good example, as is Korea. Intervention doesn't have to fail.
Bosnia is crap now run by druggies. Kosova is not much better.
Korea? We're still in freaking Korea. It also was not for humanitarian reasons, but because US forces were attacked and it was that whole Cold War thing.
Try harder.
Here's some counterexamples:
Africa.
Border between Lebanon and Israel.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Auschwitz. Case proof one of why you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, get your bingo cards out everyone.
What? no one intervened in WWII on humanitarian reasons.
Yugoslavia is another good example, as is Korea. Intervention doesn't have to fail.
Bosnia is crap now run by druggies. Kosova is not much better.
Yeah, that's so much worse than death camps and ethnic cleansing.
Take Mexico as an example of what happens when you're content to just "sit back and trade".
As for Korea, while the whole domino theory was more or less a made-up justification, it also meant South Korea didn't become part of North Korea.
"Sit back and trade" is very comfortable when you've already stacked the deck in your favour (and don't get me wrong, us Europeans are just as complicit in this), but pretending that the world isn't connected is rather dangerous.
Take Mexico as an example of what happens when you're content to just "sit back and trade".
We've intervened in Mexico three times already.
Strangely I'm not seeing Europe leap out to get involved with its massive armies. It currently seem to be screaming for the US to help in the Ukraine because it doesn;t want to pay more for gas.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Auschwitz. Case proof one of why you're wrong, in my opinion. Also, get your bingo cards out everyone.
What? no one intervened in WWII on humanitarian reasons.
The USA was quiet happy to sell weapons for patents and gold.
Right up untill Japan caught you with your pants down, and gave you a torpedo or two up the back side.
America did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on America, in support of Japan.
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—The Kurds of Iraq have the right to decide the future of their land, said Huseyin Celik, a spokesman for Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) on Friday.
“The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of the entity they are living in,” Celik told Rudaw in an interview to be published soon.
The AKP is the party of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan under whom Ankara and Erbil have built strong economic and diplomatic relations.
In case Iraq gets partitioned, said Celik, “the Kurds, like any other nation, will have the right to decide their fate.”
Celik believes that Iraq is already headed towards partition thanks to “Maliki’s sectarian policies.”
In the past several days fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have occupied most of Iraq’s Sunni areas in the center of the country.
They have declared war on Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite government whom they accuse of persecuting the Sunni population.
“Turkey has been supporting the Kurdistan Region till now and will continue this support,” said Celik.
Turkey and Kurdistan have signed a 50-year energy deal and Kurdish oil is exported via a pipeline that connects the autonomous region to the port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean.
Frazzled wrote: Indeed. Case Proof one on why the US should never intervene militarily unless its in its absolute vital military interests.
You continue to ignore the importance of economic interests. After maybe four years of me pointing out to you the military's role in protecting economic interests it's getting fairly boring.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loki old fart wrote: The USA was quiet happy to sell weapons for patents and gold.
Right up untill Japan caught you with your pants down, and gave you a torpedo or two up the back side.
America did not declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on America, in support of Japan.
While America charged a price for weapons supplies before their direct involvement, they only sold to one side, and the price charged was hardly the reason for their involvement.
Meanwhile the US was also acting directly to control Japanese expansion, up to and including denying them oil supplies from the Philippines, which directly led to the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour.
This idea that America was just doing nothing and letting the world do as it pleased is not true. The US was clearly aware of the threat posed by both Germany and Japan, and doing what it could to control them. It can be said that they ought to have done more, but then the same could said of Britain and France before the invasion of Poland, and arguably even after the invasion of Poland.
Turkey is supporting an independent Kurdistan is one hell of a surprise. I can see it working far more in their favor if they help solidify Kurdistan as a neighbor rather than fight it tooth and nail only to have it happen anyways. It's pragmatic decision, but it feels unnatural to use that words in describing the actions of a nation in the middle east.
I think they're doing the "go with the enemy that we know" thing. The Kurds in that area are tough as nails, if the Iraqi kurds get their own state, they'll be a "buffer" to these crazy groups springing up in Iraq helping to keep Turkey's border safer.
Sure it's going to cause issues with their own Kurdish population, wanting to break off, but they may figure those issues will be better then dealing with groups like ISIS.
djones520 wrote: I think they're doing the "go with the enemy that we know" thing. The Kurds in that area are tough as nails, if the Iraqi kurds get their own state, they'll be a "buffer" to these crazy groups springing up in Iraq helping to keep Turkey's border safer.
I think it also defines the problem as something outside of Turkey's borders. Kurds would now be mad to fight for part of Turkey to be added to Kurdistan and lose their first and only ally.
schadenfreude wrote: Turkey is supporting an independent Kurdistan is one hell of a surprise.
The keyword being "independent".
Strip off the rhetorics, and nothing changed to last year: there's a de-facto Kurdistan in the north of Iraq, and the Turks are very active to put it into their sphere of influence. That deal has been in the making for many months, and will make Turkey the Kurds' most important trade partner. Apart from the deal itself being profitable, it's an insurance against the Kurds getting uppity. This is not a step towards independence in the original sense of the word, but a necessary phase of making Kurdistan a client state.
The Germans (among others) have been competing for this deal since 2013 as well; Erbil is practically stuffed with Germans. I'd love to know what prompted the Kurdish authorities to go with Turkey in the end, but I hope they did what was in the Kurds' best interest as opposed to their own.
In effect, Turkey is trying to take a slice off Iraq for itself. Iran might yet do the same with the south east. No reason to get positively excited.
I think it also defines the problem as something outside of Turkey's borders. Kurds would now be mad to fight for part of Turkey to be added to Kurdistan and lose their first and only ally.
Yeah, I think that's what should be taken away from that "The Kurds of Iraq can decide..." sentence. "First and only ally" might be a bit much, but the gist of it is certainly true. Kurdistan is, for its age and location in the world, an economic powerhouse - the amount of money allegedly coming her way from exile Kurds with a Turkish passport is huge. Now, Turkey at least controls Kurdistan's income from her oil, which will give it increased leverage in many issues.
EDIT: Found an article in English about the latest developments in the so-called Solution Process, which are an interesting piece of background information if one wants to guess Turkey's intentions:
Jihadin wrote: I don't think the Kurds are going gamble that freaking big. I'm betting their going for the sure thing to create within Iraq borders.
What I find funny is we're kind of alright if Iraq breaks into individual tribal nations and a some of us had issues with Ukraine/Crimea
The worry in the Ukraine/Crimea is that Putin is clearly aiming to re-establish a Russian Empire by grabbing land around the edges from the former Soviet Soviet Republics. That has very obvious super-power implications of creating instability.
The situation in the Middle East is less obviously destabilising. Tribal or religious nations would only be a problem if one of them became so dominant that it started casting around for what other prey it might devour. Or, if one of the areas became a solid base for anti-western extremist terrorism and guerillas.
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region—The Kurds of Iraq have the right to decide the future of their land, said Huseyin Celik, a spokesman for Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) on Friday.
“The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of the entity they are living in,” Celik told Rudaw in an interview to be published soon.
The AKP is the party of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan under whom Ankara and Erbil have built strong economic and diplomatic relations.
In case Iraq gets partitioned, said Celik, “the Kurds, like any other nation, will have the right to decide their fate.”
Celik believes that Iraq is already headed towards partition thanks to “Maliki’s sectarian policies.”
In the past several days fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have occupied most of Iraq’s Sunni areas in the center of the country.
They have declared war on Nouri al-Maliki’s Shiite government whom they accuse of persecuting the Sunni population.
“Turkey has been supporting the Kurdistan Region till now and will continue this support,” said Celik.
Turkey and Kurdistan have signed a 50-year energy deal and Kurdish oil is exported via a pipeline that connects the autonomous region to the port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean.
Frazzled wrote: Indeed. Case Proof one on why the US should never intervene militarily unless its in its absolute vital military interests.
You continue to ignore the importance of economic interests. After maybe four years of me pointing out to you the military's role in protecting economic interests it's getting fairly boring.
If it were important enough to send young men and women to die, the whole world would do it. I don't see China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico etc doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I don't think the Kurds are going gamble that freaking big. I'm betting their going for the sure thing to create within Iraq borders.
What I find funny is we're kind of alright if Iraq breaks into individual tribal nations and a some of us had issues with Ukraine/Crimea
Very true.
A Caesar would attempt to keep stoking the sunni/shiite fires to keep the focus on internal conflict.
A normal person would hope maybe divorce will bring the conflict down.
Jihadin wrote: I don't think the Kurds are going gamble that freaking big. I'm betting their going for the sure thing to create within Iraq borders.
What I find funny is we're kind of alright if Iraq breaks into individual tribal nations and a some of us had issues with Ukraine/Crimea
The worry in the Ukraine/Crimea is that Putin is clearly aiming to re-establish a Russian Empire by grabbing land around the edges from the former Soviet Soviet Republics. That has very obvious super-power implications of creating instability.
The situation in the Middle East is less obviously destabilising. Tribal or religious nations would only be a problem if one of them became so dominant that it started casting around for what other prey it might devour. Or, if one of the areas became a solid base for anti-western extremist terrorism and guerillas.
If Russia expanded right back to NATO borders...so?
With the exception of oil disruption this doesn;t matter to us either.
AKP party is pro-kurd. If you knew anything about Turkish politics you would understand this. Too bad they are anti Turk....but that is another subject altogether....
%70 of Turkey's trade with Iraq is in KRG area and thousands of Turkish companies have investments in the area.
The KRG have what Turkey needs most: energy resources. KRG is a far more stable trading partner than rest of Iraq.
Ceyhan is a pivotal energy hub for Turkey. Oil is also fed from Azerbaijan.
schadenfreude wrote: Turkey is supporting an independent Kurdistan is one hell of a surprise.
That deal has been in the making for many months, and will make Turkey the Kurds' most important trade partner. Apart from the deal itself being profitable, it's an insurance against the Kurds getting uppity. This is not a step towards independence in the original sense of the word, but a necessary phase of making Kurdistan a client state.
This is already the case.
The Germans (among others) have been competing for this deal since 2013 as well; Erbil is practically stuffed with Germans. I'd love to know what prompted the Kurdish authorities to go with Turkey in the end, but I hope they did what was in the Kurds' best interest as opposed to their own.
Germany does not share a border with KRG territory and has much much much less of an ability to reasonably commit military forces to the region.
Germany has less to gain than Turkey does, and more to lose. Turkey on the other hand has more to gain with a KRG partnership and much much more to lose if they do not press ahead with KRG partnership.
In effect, Turkey is trying to take a slice off Iraq for itself. Iran might yet do the same with the south east. No reason to get positively excited.
If that were really the case, part of Irak would already be cyprus'ed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I think they're doing the "go with the enemy that we know" thing.
Kurds themselves are not an enemy to Turkey. The enemy was/is(?) Kurdish separatism and nationalism. There is an important distinction to make.
One could argue, an independent Kurdistan would ba a safety valve where Kurdish Turks could go if they feel oppressed. Like America but without the pizza.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
They dont have to move them far to be a major factor in any moves they make... hell, if they do make a weapon, and make it as far as baghdad, or Kirkuk with them... hitting a major Iraqi city would be a big deal for anyone., and would change the face of any Western response.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
They dont have to move them far to be a major factor in any moves they make... hell, if they do make a weapon, and make it as far as baghdad, or Kirkuk with them... hitting a major Iraqi city would be a big deal for anyone., and would change the face of any Western response.
Those in any way get used and it would be a world wide dog pile on ISIS.
Frazzled wrote: If it were important enough to send young men and women to die, the whole world would do it. I don't see China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, Mexico etc doing it.
It is important enough to send young men off to die, that's why countries have been doing it for centuries.
You are right that right now much of the developed world have underfunded their militaries so they can't do it anymore, on the assumption that the US will do the heavy lifting. That isn't okay, and I think most of the developed world, including my country, have defense obligation far greater than what they're spending right now.
But at no point in any of that does it make sense to pretend that the US can just withdraw from its role in preserving stability across the globe. Your own economy is way too dependent on the rest of the planet for that to make sense.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
WMD weapons are there. Declared ones are not WMD? 44Ronin, your more concern about the US invasion and not what was seized at this compound? ISIS "foot print" is in both Iraq and Syria. You think maybe they might have "acquire" a delivery system? Being Syria/Assad have used a nerve gas agent in the past using air and artillery systems. Maybe ISIS manage to acquire two chambers 155mm rounds , along with a 155mm artillery, with a transport. They have a source to fill couple rounds up. Before you say the agents are inert how do you know? Maybe its harmless since its dried up and in a powder form. What if you add water. Now that's an agent that will literally make your body liquified.
Bullockist. He claims to conduct interviews for the Mint Press News. So not a teacher nor a uni student.
Sarin and VX gas which both the Bush and Obama adminstrations left in Iraq fell into the hands of ISIS. I know it's true because I read it on the internet. On a side note 9/11 was an inside job, Obama was born in Kenya, the moon landing was faked, MMR vacines cause autism, and a Nigerian prince is about to wire 2 million dollars into my bank account
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
WMD weapons are there. Declared ones are not WMD? 44Ronin, your more concern about the US invasion and not what was seized at this compound? ISIS "foot print" is in both Iraq and Syria. You think maybe they might have "acquire" a delivery system? Being Syria/Assad have used a nerve gas agent in the past using air and artillery systems. Maybe ISIS manage to acquire two chambers 155mm rounds , along with a 155mm artillery, with a transport. They have a source to fill couple rounds up. Before you say the agents are inert how do you know? Maybe its harmless since its dried up and in a powder form. What if you add water. Now that's an agent that will literally make your body liquified.
If you can't be bothered to read the source material which gives the very answers to the questions you just made, then please don't bother replying to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Eg., The U.S state department says they can't make weapons.
]"We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials." - Jen Psaki,
I would love to have a civil, intelligent debate with you, if you would simply knock off the ad hominem. I never claimed anything about mint news....
djones520 wrote: A bit of a slant to the topic, but I've been struck with a concern, especially given that Mosul is now in the hands of ultra-dumbass Islamists now.
Nineveh, ancient capital of Assyria, is located there. Prior to it's official "rediscovery" relics dug up in that region were routinely destroyed by the locals due to their "heresy", and we all know how the Taliban treated cultural icons that weren't strictly Islamic.
Has anyone seen any word on if the international community needs to worry about all of the history there?
I'm curious, are you aware of the hypocrisy displayed here?
schadenfreude wrote: Whiskey Tango Foxtrop Telegraph UK just went full slow on their live coverage. The headline is scary but there is no readily available article.
In short ISIS has a sealed bunker full of dismantled and expired WMD that holds no military value.
That's it.
With the media you have deliberately misleading and sensationalist headlines with weapon names taken out of context and chaos ensues when you have an audience that has the average attention span of a four year old.
Islamist militants in Iraq have occupied Saddam Hussein's former chemical weapons production facility, which contains a stockpile of old chemical weapon, the US government has said.
US military officials don't believe the militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS, would be able to create a new weapon from the stockpiles left behind at the Muthanna complex about 60 kilometres north-west of Baghdad, according to the Wall Street Journal. Nonetheless, the rapid loss of control of the key site in Iraq has unsettled US authorities after weeks of rapid gains by the Sunni militants.
"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, according to the media outlet. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."
However, one US official said that had they known Iraq would become so destabilised after the 2011 pullout of US troop, they would not have left the stockpiles in place. ISIL, an offshoot of al-Qaeda-linked fighters in Syria, has rapidly swept through large parts of Iraq in recent weeks, undermining security in the country.
The claim that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to world security was the basis for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Before the invastion, the weapons at Muthanna had been found by UN inspectors but were dismantled with chemical stocks militarily useless and closed off in bunkers.
The US stressed the takeover of the site did not comprise a major military gain.
Psaki said it. I am 110% reassured. WTH does she know about Chemical Weapons.
So when you
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
Which I provided more information then you. Which I admit I set you up for total failure to see what you actually know.
Who do you work for? Kronk ask you that question and now Bullockist asked you a similar question. So far all your replies/debate/whatever remarks you make sounds like a fortune cookie "fortune". Which are in general "right" most of the time but you lack any real knowledge of the subject.
WMD agents being one of them you blew big time
You also claim Bergdahl was apparently treated better then GITMO detainee's which we have found out he has not. Two years in a small box will make one brain go off the reservation. Yet you stand by your claim.
You cannot debate, you go on the attack and you try to "inflame" a topic. I though saw one post you made lately that I liked which was well written.
Psaki said it. I am 110% reassured. WTH does she know about Chemical Weapons.
So when you
This is usually my reaction when ANYONE from State dept. says anything in regards to some form of "military" entity.... I mean, it'd be one thing if she had said, "we inspected the area with some Chem-Dawgs and they confirmed that these items are of no military value" or something to that effect... It'd convey a probably true statement with "expert" knowledge without attempting to sound like SHE was the expert (which, unless she worked Chemical Corp in the military, she probably aint)
I can see some DoS rep telling me its safe to go down in sealed harden bunkers that just been open and see what's there. I would have a very colorful reply Depending what was stored and open down there is a crap shoot.. Some agents might be inert and activation requires moisture. One thing everyone is doing is sweating
Edit
Retired General Scales went in depth a bit more. Mostly Sarin and Mustard gas in their component states. Equipment to mix is unreliable. Anyone know if they captured something similar in Syria? 13 years its degraded. Which means it takes more of one component to make it effective. Fuel air bombs
Jihadin wrote: Mostly Sarin and Mustard gas in their component states. Equipment to mix is unreliable. Anyone know if they captured something similar in Syria?
As far as we know, Assad remains in control of all of his declared facilities.
How difficult is it to produce that gak anyway? Do you even require a plant, or could you whip up some small scale production in a workshop? Do you need any hard to come by components? (I'm no weapons expert, to put it politely.)
Jihadin wrote: Mostly Sarin and Mustard gas in their component states. Equipment to mix is unreliable. Anyone know if they captured something similar in Syria?
As far as we know, Assad remains in control of all of his declared facilities.
How difficult is it to produce that gak anyway? Do you even require a plant, or could you whip up some small scale production in a workshop? Do you need any hard to come by components? (I'm no weapons expert, to put it politely.)
You don't even need facilities to produce that stuff. If your aim is to terrorise civilians, then dumping concentrated doses of pesticides and chlorine (all ready available commercial stuff) can, unfortunately, be just as effective. Normally, that stuff would bounce off a proper military force with its troops suited for CBW, but against unprotected civilians
As far as we know, Assad remains in control of all of his declared facilities.
How difficult is it to produce that gak anyway? Do you even require a plant, or could you whip up some small scale production in a workshop? Do you need any hard to come by components? (I'm no weapons expert, to put it politely.)
Sarin can be produced relatively easily (though quality tends to be lacking). A cult in Japan was able to pull it off.
What worries me more is the possibility that this was the real objective of the whole thing. Iraq in particular had serious issues with the shelf life of it's chemical agents. How they got around it was to keep the precursors in a binary state, extending it's storage life by decades. If, in Syria, they got their hands on one half of said binary agents, hitting Iraqi sites that might have a remaining stockpile of the other half of the equation, so to speak.
The other things they've been making off with are also problematical. They've managed, from what I've heard, to get their hands on US made 155mm artillery and a lot of other US gear that was left in Iraqi hands. If they've gotten sarin or something similar in a binary state, those 155s give them an effective delivery system.
And, on this current to do: I told you all so. But, hey, what do I know?
Kilkrazy wrote: The main reason for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was to get rid of the WMDs.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Besides, getting rid of a chemical weapon is easy. Getting rid of the ability to produce precursors is not. All you need for Phosgene is chlorine, carbon monoxide, and activated charcoal.. Sarin's a little more exotic, requiring methylphosphonyl difluoride and a mixture of isopropyl alcohol and isopropylamine. The last two are fairly common, the first is not.
Kilkrazy wrote: The main reason for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was to get rid of the WMDs.
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Besides, getting rid of a chemical weapon is easy. Getting rid of the ability to produce precursors is not. All you need for Phosgene is chlorine, carbon monoxide, and activated charcoal.. Sarin's a little more exotic, requiring methylphosphonyl difluoride and a mixture of isopropyl alcohol and isopropylamine. The last two are fairly common, the first is not.
Of course I don't believe it. It was an obvious lie at the time, which why there was so much popular opposition to the war.
If we count stuff like phosgene as a WMD we basically need to take industry back to the mid-Victorian tech level, which is not a realistic idea.
The argument is not about people misusing common industrial chemicals, though, it is about the origins and results of the war which ever increasingly show it to have been probably the most disastrous foreign intervention in the past 50 years, and what if anything can be done to sort it all out.
Kilkrazy wrote: The argument is not about people misusing common industrial chemicals, though, it is about the origins and results of the war which ever increasingly show it to have been probably the most disastrous foreign intervention in the past 50 years, and what if anything can be done to sort it all out.
Stopping it is easy. Break their will, leave them with no desire to fight anymore. Mind you, to do that you'd need to be willing to wage 'total' war. To match and then exceed their ruthlessness and brutality. The Genghis Khan approach. If they snipe at you, you kill every man, woman, and child in the place, and leave a pyramid of their heads outside the burned out town.
But we all know that John Q Smith of Anytown USA would not have the stomach for it until they murder a large number of Americans, again.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
They dont have to move them far to be a major factor in any moves they make... hell, if they do make a weapon, and make it as far as baghdad, or Kirkuk with them... hitting a major Iraqi city would be a big deal for anyone., and would change the face of any Western response.
Someone needs to explain to me how we can have hundreds of thousands of troops there for years, have WMDs supposedly being the freaking point of going there, and yet that still exists. Unless the crap is inert people need to be fired. I'd say impeachment proceedings need to be considered but its too late isn't it.
Fraz, sometimes that stuff is such a mess and the storage so bad that sealing the bunker is the cheapest and best way to handle it.
Clean up of a badly contaminated site is expensive and dangerous.
EDIT: My understanding is that if ISIS (or any other group) was to attempt to use this, they'll likely have a bunch of their own dudes doing the kickin' chicken way before they get it deployed.
CptJake wrote: Fraz, sometimes that stuff is such a mess and the storage so bad that sealing the bunker is the cheapest and best way to handle it.
Clean up of a badly contaminated site is expensive and dangerous.
EDIT: My understanding is that if ISIS (or any other group) was to attempt to use this, they'll likely have a bunch of their own dudes doing the kickin' chicken way before they get it deployed.
They'll get the locals to do it, at the point of a gun.
CptJake wrote: Fraz, sometimes that stuff is such a mess and the storage so bad that sealing the bunker is the cheapest and best way to handle it.
Clean up of a badly contaminated site is expensive and dangerous.
EDIT: My understanding is that if ISIS (or any other group) was to attempt to use this, they'll likely have a bunch of their own dudes doing the kickin' chicken way before they get it deployed.
They'll get the locals to do it, at the point of a gun.
Jebus. Imagine if the "Good Idea Fairy" whisper to a ranking member to ISIS to give that a try.
EDIT: My understanding is that if ISIS (or any other group) was to attempt to use this, they'll likely have a bunch of their own dudes doing the kickin' chicken way before they get it deployed.
I have to point out the obvious: do you think they care? However, I'm again doubtful.
This part is a big problem: "Some of the bunkers contained large quantities of unfilled chemical munitions"
Again, the Iraqis used binary systems. The precursor chemicals are mixed in flight once the projectile is fired. While some are toxic, they are much less so and more stable than the agents are once mixed. If they're old US style chemical artillery rounds, as long as they don't beat on them with hammers once loaded, they're actually fairly idiot proof. The round has to actually be fired before the mixing process even begins.
Islamist militants in Iraq have occupied Saddam Hussein's former chemical weapons production facility, which contains a stockpile of old chemical weapon, the US government has said.
US military officials don't believe the militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS, would be able to create a new weapon from the stockpiles left behind at the Muthanna complex about 60 kilometres north-west of Baghdad, according to the Wall Street Journal. Nonetheless, the rapid loss of control of the key site in Iraq has unsettled US authorities after weeks of rapid gains by the Sunni militants.
"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said, according to the media outlet. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."
However, one US official said that had they known Iraq would become so destabilised after the 2011 pullout of US troop, they would not have left the stockpiles in place. ISIL, an offshoot of al-Qaeda-linked fighters in Syria, has rapidly swept through large parts of Iraq in recent weeks, undermining security in the country.
The claim that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to world security was the basis for the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Before the invastion, the weapons at Muthanna had been found by UN inspectors but were dismantled with chemical stocks militarily useless and closed off in bunkers.
The US stressed the takeover of the site did not comprise a major military gain.
Psaki said it. I am 110% reassured. WTH does she know about Chemical Weapons.
Spokesperson for your state department.
So you believe your government's world security threat theory but now denying a simple statement issued by your state dept? Nice pick and choose there.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
Which I provided more information then you. Which I admit I set you up for total failure to see what you actually know.
What are you talking about? I mentioned I spoke to a former inmate by means of informal interview at Sydney APEC 2007 rally @ hyde park sydney.
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mustard gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quantitiesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
You mean....talk about an anti-climax
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place
They dont have to move them far to be a major factor in any moves they make... hell, if they do make a weapon, and make it as far as baghdad, or Kirkuk with them... hitting a major Iraqi city would be a big deal for anyone., and would change the face of any Western response.
Someone needs to explain to me how we can have hundreds of thousands of troops there for years, have WMDs supposedly being the freaking point of going there, and yet that still exists. Unless the crap is inert people need to be fired. I'd say impeachment proceedings need to be considered but its too late isn't it.
BaronIveagh wrote: What worries me more is the possibility that this was the real objective of the whole thing. Iraq in particular had serious issues with the shelf life of it's chemical agents. How they got around it was to keep the precursors in a binary state, extending it's storage life by decades. If, in Syria, they got their hands on one half of said binary agents, hitting Iraqi sites that might have a remaining stockpile of the other half of the equation, so to speak.
I think it's more likely that ISIS is capturing parts of Syria and Iraq to form the united state that it has always claimed it wants to form, than building all that as an elaborate front to capture exactly the right abandoned chemical weapons plants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Stopping it is easy. Break their will, leave them with no desire to fight anymore. Mind you, to do that you'd need to be willing to wage 'total' war. To match and then exceed their ruthlessness and brutality. The Genghis Khan approach. If they snipe at you, you kill every man, woman, and child in the place, and leave a pyramid of their heads outside the burned out town.
Binary systems need methyphosphonyl diflouride aka DF as one of the 2 parts.
The shelf life of DF is 5 years.
The stockpiles are over 23 years old, most are closer to three decades old. They are inert, damaged, or contaminated, and that's what the wall street journal is reporting.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
and now
What are you talking about? I mentioned I spoke to a former inmate by means of informal interview at Sydney APEC 2007 rally @ hyde park sydney
You said
Spokesperson for your state department.
So you believe your government's world security threat theory but now denying a simple statement issued by your state dept? Nice pick and choose there.
but missed what I said
I can see some DoS rep telling me its safe to go down in sealed harden bunkers that just been open and see what's there. I would have a very colorful reply
Depending what was stored and open down there is a crap shoot.. Some agents might be inert and activation requires moisture. One thing everyone is doing is sweating
Edit
Retired General Scales went in depth a bit more. Mostly Sarin and Mustard gas in their component states. Equipment to mix is unreliable. Anyone know if they captured something similar in Syria? 13 years its degraded. Which means it takes more of one component to make it effective. Fuel air bombs
I should have add "Drop Fuel Air Bombs". You a bit loss on Department of State credibility eh
Now you said
The occupation was a corrupt failure
Clarify the corruption. Your "fortune cookie" here
I think it's more likely that ISIS is capturing parts of Syria and Iraq to form the united state that it has always claimed it wants to form, than building all that as an elaborate front to capture exactly the right abandoned chemical weapons plants.
Because the leadership strikes me as being smart enough to realize they can't win a two front war or likely hold most of the ground they've taken. So this drive into Iraq has to have had a goal besides 'charge and hope for the best.'
I'm betting they have a source of DF and are looking for a reliable dispersal system and someone formerly in Saddam's army clued them in as to where they could likely get some.
The Russians did not even come close to what I'm talking about in Chechnya. How many cities there ceased to exist? How many severed heads did they pile up?
BaronIveagh wrote: Because the leadership strikes me as being smart enough to realize they can't win a two front war or likely hold most of the ground they've taken. So this drive into Iraq has to have had a goal besides 'charge and hope for the best.'
I'm betting they have a source of DF and are looking for a reliable dispersal system and someone formerly in Saddam's army clued them in as to where they could likely get some.
I don't know man, that seems pretty fanciful. A more simple motive would be to score some quick successes to draw more fighters to the cause.
The Russians did not even come close to what I'm talking about in Chechnya. How many cities there ceased to exist? How many severed heads did they pile up?
Okay then, the Nazis in Eastern Europe. It still didn't work.
And it just occurred to me I think we've had this debate before.
The Russians did not even come close to what I'm talking about in Chechnya. How many cities there ceased to exist? How many severed heads did they pile up?
So, are you actually, honestly, arguing in favour of genocide?
And people are supposed to take your opinion seriously, about anything, from that point forward?
sebster wrote: I don't know man, that seems pretty fanciful. A more simple motive would be to score some quick successes to draw more fighters to the cause.
You told me my prediction that the war in Syria would spread to surrounding countries into a larger regional conflict was pretty fanciful too. But we'll see.
Okay then, the Nazis in Eastern Europe. It still didn't work.
But,no, not quite the same (though they did that a few times, and it was much more effective than you seem to be giving them credit) no, I'm talking more about things like the (near) annihilation of entire cities by the allies. Load up with willie pete and and napalm and just incinerate them. They want to ride to heaven in a pillar of fire we can arrange that.
So, are you actually, honestly, arguing in favour of genocide?
And people are supposed to take your opinion seriously, about anything, from that point forward?
Don't get me wrong, historically, genocide does actually work (if there is no one left alive, they can't make war, can they?) but no. I'm advocating no quarter and total war, which is a different set of crimes against humanity all together.
Here the thing: 'hearts and minds' does not work when dealing with religious fanatics. You can win that sort of things with a foe that's political, but not one that's motivated by a sincere religious belief that you're the devil.
Here the thing: 'hearts and minds' does not work when dealing with religious fanatics. You can win that sort of things with a foe that's political, but not one that's motivated by a sincere religious belief that you're the devil.
You know one other thing that works and that doesn't involve killing millions of innocent people? Stop meddling in their affairs! No one in the entire middle east cared if the US was "the devil" or not until you started interfering in the region during the cold war. Heck, the vast majority of the people that hate you now are those that you trained and funded in the first place just to betray or abandon afterwards!
Stop invading them, stop bombing them, stop actively arming and supporting those that they consider to be their enemies. Stop trying to subvert their culture and trying replace it with your own.
I would guess that you would have a whole less people thinking that you're "the devil" if you did those things.
North America in general, but the United States in particular (Sherman's Georgia Campaign, the suppression of Native Americans both spring to mind). Japan (suppression of the Ainu, the US bombing campaign there during WW2))
The difference between the two is that one is done to eliminate the will and or ability of the civilian population to make or support war. Depending on who you ask, genocide is actually a bit nebulous. The underlying goal is to destroy all members of religious or ethnic group. Technically, the entire war on terror would qualify under this very broad definition.
You know one other thing that works and that doesn't involve killing millions of innocent people? Stop meddling in their affairs! No one in the entire middle east cared if the US was "the devil" or not until you started interfering in the region during the cold war. Heck, the vast majority of the people that hate you now are those that you trained and funded in the first place just to betray or abandon afterwards!
Stop invading them, stop bombing them, stop actively arming and supporting those that they consider to be their enemies. Stop trying to subvert their culture and trying replace it with your own.
I would guess that you would have a whole less people thinking that you're "the devil" if you did those things.
Point me to the nearest time machine and I'd be more than happy to have them not do that (and for good measure, I'd go back and prevent them from doing it to my own people as well). But this is the reality. They wanted to now how to 'win' this, and that is the only way, at this point.
Don't get me wrong, historically, genocide does actually work (if there is no one left alive, they can't make war, can they?)
Historically it worked? Where?
Ghengis Khan is a pretty good example.... The Punic Wars (once the Romans finally decided to destroy Carthage and "salt the earth" where it once stood) are another.
I wouldn't classify it necessarily as genocide, but pre-unification Japan was pretty genocidal, though that could be more described as total war as well, since there are still Japanese people around.
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.*
*I'm not advocating that we'd nuke everytime we get in conflict, just that if we ever need to engage our military might, don't pussy-foot it. Go all out to incur not only the immediate result in your objective, but to telegraph the whole world that in the future, we mean business.
When, as a nation, you adopt the 'Powell Doctrine' of if you break it you have to stay and fix it, going all out ends up being a HUGE resource (time, dollars, lives) commitment in the Phase IV ops. So limited strikes/targeting enabled by tech that allows it become the default.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.*
*I'm not advocating that we'd nuke everytime we get in conflict, just that if we ever need to engage our military might, don't pussy-foot it. Go all out to incur not only the immediate result in your objective, but to telegraph the whole world that in the future, we mean business.
Political impact it will have on the Nation though in this time frame. Conducting this type of warfare against ISIS will not work and will generate more fighters against the Nation that would conduct this type of warfare
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.*
*I'm not advocating that we'd nuke everytime we get in conflict, just that if we ever need to engage our military might, don't pussy-foot it. Go all out to incur not only the immediate result in your objective, but to telegraph the whole world that in the future, we mean business.
Political impact it will have on the Nation though in this time frame. Conducting this type of warfare against ISIS will not work and will generate more fighters against the Nation that would conduct this type of warfare
Yeah... it won't work with ISIS because they're still just a none-state group. But, once they've built their Caliphate state.... bets are off.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
Their military capabilities were severely crippled before the nukes. In addition both targets (and the alternatives) were not significant in terms of military and industry. They were largely unscathed and suitable study objects for the effects of nuclear weapons though. The DoE has some interesting publications on that.
A surrender would have happened with or without the nukes; negotiations were either planned or already under way.
Edit: I agree with your edited line about the additional (main) motivation.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
Their military capabilities were severely crippled before the nukes. In addition both targets (and the alternatives) were not significant in terms of military and industry. They were largely unscathed and suitable study objects for the effects of nuclear weapons though. The DoE has some interesting publications on that.
A surrender would have happened with or without the nukes; negotiations were either planned or already under way.
Edit: I agree with your edited line about the additional (main) motivation.
How indoctrinated were the Imperial Japanese military? Especially the Japanese People. What length did they go to combat the US Military? What was the mentality of the Imperial military while conducting war?
What was the estimate of US casualties on invading Home Land Japan?
What did Japanese civilians do on Okinawa?
How was the Japanese Emperor viewed?
What would happen if the Emperor was a target of a Nuke or killed by US bombing operation. I beleive they were to avoid bombing his palace being it was non strategic and detrimental against the US forces
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
If the whole point of the nuclear bombings were to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering it's not exactly "bias" describing them as such. Even if it was arguably the least bloody option, it's still an atrocious one. Might want to take a look at yourself before yelling bias.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
If the whole point of the nuclear bombings were to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering it's not exactly "bias" describing them as such. Even if it was arguably the least bloody option, it's still an atrocious one. Might want to take a look at yourself before yelling bias.
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
and now
What are you talking about? I mentioned I spoke to a former inmate by means of informal interview at Sydney APEC 2007 rally @ hyde park sydney
Yes, thanks for selectively quoting half of the information.
There was a second post as well, if you bothered to follow my posts....where I gave some contextual details when questioned (eg. nature of interview, specific date and location ..).
Then again I really can't expect any serious comprehension from a person with such a charming signature which sets the tone for their already subpar demeanour. .
If you don't like my opinions you can try to counter them, in a serious debate. There is really no need for your failed attempts to quote me making contradictory statements, as I never contradicted myself.
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Okinawans are not Mainlanders. The mainland was not set up in the same defensive manner as Okinawa
Conjecture is not a valid argument. All of that is irrelevant to the fact that dropping the bombs was an act of terrorism (by definition)
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Okinawans are not Mainlanders. The mainland was not set up in the same defensive manner as Okinawa
Conjecture is not a valid argument. All of that is irrelevant to the fact that dropping the bombs was an act of terrorism (by definition)
Dammit 44Ronin now this is what I am talking about.
What did the Okinawans did though towards the end of the invasion of the island?
Edit
Operation Downfall
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[52]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[53]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[54] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[55] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[56]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[57] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[58] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[58] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[59] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[60]
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[61] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[61]
Edit II
Back to Okinawa
With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up.[45] Thousands of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians committing horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the southern cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides.[46] However, having been told by the Japanese military that they would suffer terribly at the hands of the arriving Americans if they allowed themselves to be taken alive, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[47][48] Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, notes that the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[49] U.S. Military Intelligence Corps[50] combat translators such as Teruto Tsubota managed to convince many civilians not to kill themselves.[51] Survivors of the mass suicides blamed also the indoctrination of their education system of the time, when the Okinawans were taught to become "more Japanese than the Japanese," and expected to prove it.[52]
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Okinawans are not Mainlanders. The mainland was not set up in the same defensive manner as Okinawa
Conjecture is not a valid argument. All of that is irrelevant to the fact that dropping the bombs was an act of terrorism (by definition)
Dammit 44Ronin now this is what I am talking about.
What did the Okinawans did though towards the end of the invasion of the island?
Edit
Operation Downfall
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:
In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[52]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[53]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[54] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[55] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[56]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[57] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[58] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[58] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[59] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]
Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[60]
The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[61] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[61]
Edit II
Back to Okinawa
With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up.[45] Thousands of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians committing horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the southern cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides.[46] However, having been told by the Japanese military that they would suffer terribly at the hands of the arriving Americans if they allowed themselves to be taken alive, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[47][48] Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, notes that the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[49] U.S. Military Intelligence Corps[50] combat translators such as Teruto Tsubota managed to convince many civilians not to kill themselves.[51] Survivors of the mass suicides blamed also the indoctrination of their education system of the time, when the Okinawans were taught to become "more Japanese than the Japanese," and expected to prove it.[52]
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
Well if you want to be like that...Perry shelled Japan, unprovoked. Does that give Japan justification to do what it wants?
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.
The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.
The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.
Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?
Well since 44Ronin cannot really debate and none of us were in the decision process to drop Little Boy and Fat Boy. We can go only with what we know on a possible "why"
Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.
As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.
When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.
So basically we forced them to the table to surrender. We only had two bombs. If Imperial Japan knew that would they still have surrender? We do not know. So two nukes drop and Japan surrender avoiding high casualties on the US side and something borderline to genocide on the Japanese people if we had invaded.
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.
The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.
Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?
Well since 44Ronin cannot really debate and none of us were in the decision process to drop Little Boy and Fat Boy. We can go only with what we know on a possible "why"
Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.
As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.
When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.
So basically we forced them to the table to surrender. We only had two bombs. If Imperial Japan knew that would they still have surrender? We do not know. So two nukes drop and Japan surrender avoiding high casualties on the US side and something borderline to genocide on the Japanese people if we had invaded.
Yes, the hard choice but, in the end, the right one. If Japan wasn't run by a leader with no qualifications and a corrupt and xenophobic military leadership we would not have had to make the decision at all.
But, alas, we can not change the past, only use it's lessons to guide our future. And that is our burden, to learn from our mistakes, and to leave a better world for future generation.
And on that note, time to design an army list for a war game .
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Dude... Japan attacked us first.
I'd nuke'em too.
Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...
The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.
The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.
Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?
Well since 44Ronin cannot really debate and none of us were in the decision process to drop Little Boy and Fat Boy. We can go only with what we know on a possible "why"
Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."
With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.
As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.
When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."
On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.
So basically we forced them to the table to surrender. We only had two bombs. If Imperial Japan knew that would they still have surrender? We do not know. So two nukes drop and Japan surrender avoiding high casualties on the US side and something borderline to genocide on the Japanese people if we had invaded.
Yes, the hard choice but, in the end, the right one. If Japan wasn't run by a leader with no qualifications and a corrupt and xenophobic military leadership we would not have had to make the decision at all.
But, alas, we can not change the past, only use it's lessons to guide our future.
And that is our burden, to learn from our mistakes, and to leave a better world for future generation.
And on that note, time to design an army list for a war game .
Thinking Imperial Japanese Marines set up. Being I recieved some old and I mean old 1991 SM figures
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Well, to start with, the incineration of 16^2 km of Tokyo in a single B29 raid was far more intimidating to the Japanese than the nukes were.
Let me also remind you a little fact: They were slitting each others throats in the streets of Tokyo over if there would be any surrender at all. You seem to forget that little civil war between the IJA and IJN over that, or the fact that a few hardliners had to be stopped from launching a suicide attack against the surrender signing.
Let me tell you my justification:
It worked.
I'll also add that coming from a people that fought a very, very long and highly successful asymmetrical campaign against the United States, they gave up fighting our armies and instead made war on our women and children.
and it worked.
Phantom Viper brought up 'cultural imperialism' earlier, and how the US tries to supplant other cultures with their own. I spent a bit of today considering the idea and I think that it's a misconception (at least in the case of the Middle East). Cultural cross pollination happens all the time. The issue is that 'American' examples tend to be big and obvious, whereas others are not always so plain, or are confused with 'American' things. Pokemon seems to spring to mind. Several people I know online who (supposedly) live in the middle east thought that was an American thing. It also runs both ways. Recently a shisha den opened a few blocks from where I live. Perhaps my reaction was unusual, but rather than respond with 'DAMN ARABS!' I pondered if it was a good thing or a bad thing for the community.
You haven't seen what America actually does when they actually want to replace your culture with their own. First they bankrupt you, then sell you cheap drugs, and kidnap your children to either brainwash or murder them. Anything less is just a side effect of them being there. Sort of like how south pacific culture went wild in the US for a while after WW2, and to this day people have tiki crap. It wasn't a premeditated act on the part of Samoa, it just sort of happened.
Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.
Well, to start with, the incineration of 16^2 km of Tokyo in a single B29 raid was far more intimidating to the Japanese than the nukes were.
Garbage construction of an American guilt avoidance narrative.
Let me also remind you a little fact: They were slitting each others throats in the streets of Tokyo over if there would be any surrender at all.
You confuse victims with others. Get your story straight. You imply the victims deserved it.
Goebbels would love this justification story.
Anyone who attempts to justify what happened is a mentally sick human being. End of.
BaronIveagh wrote: You told me my prediction that the war in Syria would spread to surrounding countries into a larger regional conflict was pretty fanciful too. But we'll see.
You sure that was me?
But,no, not quite the same (though they did that a few times, and it was much more effective than you seem to be giving them credit) no,
It was a counter-productive screw up, turning neutral and friendly parties against the Nazis.
I'm talking more about things like the (near) annihilation of entire cities by the allies. Load up with willie pete and and napalm and just incinerate them. They want to ride to heaven in a pillar of fire we can arrange that.
Yeah, 'them'. Incinerate the great hive mind.
Anyhow, we have debated this before, and I just don't really give a gak. You want to be ridiculous, you go on doing that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Actually, the Emperor was politically irrelevant as the country was effectively ruled by the military at that point. But that military committee's power could fall away very quickly in the wake of civilian or military revolt, both of which were quite likely in the event of American invasion, because despite the stereotyping Japan was not actually a hivemind of utterly fanatical lunatics.
But of course, the Americans didn't necessarily know that. We don't even know today what would have happened. But Truman and Joint Chiefs certainly believed the invasion of Japan would be a bloodbath, and ultimately decisions can only be made based on what you know at the time.
It might have been horrific, and it might not. We'll never know. We do know that every month saved in the war probably saved a hundred thousand lives in China, and that's probably enough to justify the a-bomb right there.
whembly wrote: That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.
Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.
Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?
Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.
As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.
If the whole point of the nuclear bombings were to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering it's not exactly "bias" describing them as such. Even if it was arguably the least bloody option, it's still an atrocious one. Might want to take a look at yourself before yelling bias.
If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?
Absolutely not, hence the part in my post pointing out that it might well have been the least bloody option. Killing 200,000+ civilians is still an act of terror, regardless of whether it's the lesser evil or not.
If a guy punches you, you don't get to shoot him, then set fire to his house and slaughter whoever comes fleeing out of it.
War, like all things, requires a sense of proportionality - you do what is necessary to get the job done, no more and no less.
Bull.
fething.
gak.
I first came aware of this concept back in the '90s during the Bosian War where the Clinton administration was roundly criticized for using disportionate responses. It's an asinine concept...and still is.
In war, if you have the tools... use it, ruthlessly. Because at the end of the day, the victors makes the rules.
djones520 wrote: Except in our current military doctrine, proportionality IS law.
Whether or not it is right (in the sense of victory, not morality) doesn't really matter.
How so?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?
I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).
PrintEmailShare
By Horst Fischer
The principle of proportionality is embedded in almost every national legal system and underlies the international legal order. Its function in domestic law is to relate means to ends. In armed conflict, the principle is used to judge first, the lawfulness in jus ad bellum of the strategic goals in the use of force for self-defense, and second, the lawfulness in jus in bello of any armed attack that causes civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, allied forces acted in individual and collective self-defense against Iraq under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but they disagreed whether the principle of proportionality permitted them to occupy Iraqi territory or oust Saddam Hussein. Many States felt that only the liberation of Kuwait was a permitted goal.
In the conduct of war, when a party commits a lawful attack against a military objective, the principle of proportionality also comes into play whenever there is collateral damage, that is, civilian casualties or damage to a nonmilitary objective. The U.S. attack on the Amiriyah bunker in Baghdad in 1991, which was aimed to destroy a military target but cost many civilian lives, is a case in point. If it was a military objective in which civilians were sheltering, an attack on the bunker would be lawful, subject to the principle of proportionality.
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. The target list has to be continuously updated as the conflict develops with special attention given to the safe movement of civilians. The attack on the Amiriyah bunker might have been illegal, if—which has never been proved—the United States did not follow carefully enough the movement of the civilians seeking shelter in Baghdad.
Some states ratifying Protocol I have stated that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack can only be considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack. Article 85 defines an indiscriminate attack undertaken in the knowledge that it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population is a grave breach and therefore a war crime. The principle is hard to apply in war, still harder after an attack has occurred. But grossly disproportionate results will be seen as criminal by all belligerent parties and the world community.
“Terror attacks” on the civilian population, or area bombardments that by their nature do not distinguish between military objectives and civilian targets, are prohibited, and the principle does not come into play. If deliberate, the bombing of the Sarajevo market square during shopping hours in 1994, which killed thirty-four civilians, would have been a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reaffirms this by qualifying in Article 8 as a war crime intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. The use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster bombs in populated areas is a war crime as well.
djones520 wrote: Except in our current military doctrine, proportionality IS law.
Whether or not it is right (in the sense of victory, not morality) doesn't really matter.
How so?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?
I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).
PrintEmailShare
By Horst Fischer
The principle of proportionality is embedded in almost every national legal system and underlies the international legal order. Its function in domestic law is to relate means to ends. In armed conflict, the principle is used to judge first, the lawfulness in jus ad bellum of the strategic goals in the use of force for self-defense, and second, the lawfulness in jus in bello of any armed attack that causes civilian casualties. In the Gulf War, allied forces acted in individual and collective self-defense against Iraq under Article 51 of the UN Charter, but they disagreed whether the principle of proportionality permitted them to occupy Iraqi territory or oust Saddam Hussein. Many States felt that only the liberation of Kuwait was a permitted goal.
In the conduct of war, when a party commits a lawful attack against a military objective, the principle of proportionality also comes into play whenever there is collateral damage, that is, civilian casualties or damage to a nonmilitary objective. The U.S. attack on the Amiriyah bunker in Baghdad in 1991, which was aimed to destroy a military target but cost many civilian lives, is a case in point. If it was a military objective in which civilians were sheltering, an attack on the bunker would be lawful, subject to the principle of proportionality.
As formulated in Additional Protocol I of 1977, attacks are prohibited if they cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of the attack. This creates a permanent obligation for military commanders to consider the results of the attack compared to the advantage anticipated. The target list has to be continuously updated as the conflict develops with special attention given to the safe movement of civilians. The attack on the Amiriyah bunker might have been illegal, if—which has never been proved—the United States did not follow carefully enough the movement of the civilians seeking shelter in Baghdad.
Some states ratifying Protocol I have stated that the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack can only be considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack. Article 85 defines an indiscriminate attack undertaken in the knowledge that it will cause excessive damage to the civilian population is a grave breach and therefore a war crime. The principle is hard to apply in war, still harder after an attack has occurred. But grossly disproportionate results will be seen as criminal by all belligerent parties and the world community.
“Terror attacks” on the civilian population, or area bombardments that by their nature do not distinguish between military objectives and civilian targets, are prohibited, and the principle does not come into play. If deliberate, the bombing of the Sarajevo market square during shopping hours in 1994, which killed thirty-four civilians, would have been a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reaffirms this by qualifying in Article 8 as a war crime intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities. The use of indiscriminate weapons such as cluster bombs in populated areas is a war crime as well.
US Law of Armed Conflict.
Proportionality. Proportionality prohibits the use of any kind or degree of force that exceeds that needed to accomplish the military objective. Proportionality compares the military advantage gained to the harm inflicted while gaining this advantage. Proportionality requires a balancing test between the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by attacking a legitimate military target and the expected incidental civilian injury or damage. Under this balancing test, excessive incidental losses are prohibited. Proportionality seeks to prevent an attack in situations where civilian casualties would clearly outweigh military gains. This principle encourages combat forces to minimize collateral damage—the incidental, unintended destruction that occurs as a result of a lawful attack against a legitimate military target.
That is our doctrine. We do not use a MOAB to take out what a Hellfire could.
Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
CptJake wrote: Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
We didn't have MOAB's early Afghan. They've never been used operationally. You're thinking of Daisy Cutters (BLU-82). And we used them to destroy mountains, basically. We didn't just drop it on some Taliban guard shack.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
Until the MOAB it was the largest conventional bomb we used. The only test of the MOAB that I'm aware of seemed to be a bit of a bust though. We no longer have BLU-82's in our inventory anymore though anyways.
CptJake wrote:Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote: Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
We didn't have MOAB's early Afghan. They've never been used operationally. You're thinking of Daisy Cutters (BLU-82). And we used them to destroy mountains, basically. We didn't just drop it on some Taliban guard shack.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
CptJake wrote:Actually, we did use MOABs for targets smaller ordinance could have handled. They were dropped as a "We are the hand of God and will smite the feth out of you" show early in Afghanistan.
So we tried to destroy mountains in Afganistan? O.o
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda used extensive mountain tunnels that were difficult to penetrate. So we dropped Daisy Cutters on some of them. Details are sparse, so I'm not sure how effective they were over all.
Ah.. makes sense.
I've been looking at videos of the Daisy Cutters... man that's a big fire cracker! o.O
Until the MOAB it was the largest conventional bomb we used. The only test of the MOAB that I'm aware of seemed to be a bit of a bust though. We no longer have BLU-82's in our inventory anymore though anyways.
Laser guided bombs at some entrance. Some are C4'ed. Most time a FAE is used.
Nope. ISIS going to run rampant in Iraq. Kurds gets a country out the deal. Feth Iraq. They can keep my blood and sweat I dropped there
Edit
Starting to expand now
Syrian warplane airstrikes on targets inside Western Iraq have left at least 50 people dead and 132 injured, an official and doctor in the region say.
An official in Iraq’s Anbar province and Mohammed Al Qubaisi, a doctor in the area’s main hospital, told The Wall Street Journal that missiles fired from what appeared to be Syrian warplanes hit a market, a bank and a municipal building on Tuesday.
They added that it was the second consecutive day of airstrikes. Syria has joined Iran in helping Iraq’s government fight the Al Qaeda breakaway group known as the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria/Levant, or ISIS, the newspaper reported.
A senior Iraqi military official told The Associated Press that Syrian warplanes bombed militants' positions Tuesday in and near the border crossing in the town of Qaim. He said Iraq's other neighbors — Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — were all bolstering flights just inside their airspace to monitor the situation. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media.
However, Syrian authorities have not yet confirmed that Syrian warplanes have been traveling through Iraqi airspace.
Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said Tuesday that the U.S. was not able to confirm reports of the airstrikes, but added that it “wouldn’t be surprising.”
“The Syrian regime has bombed marketplaces and civilians many, many times," Harf said, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Meanwhile, Syrian government warplanes on Wednesday struck an eastern Syrian city that is the headquarters of ISIS, killing at least 12 people, opposition activists said.
The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the jets struck targets around the city, including a market, in the provincial capital of Raqqa.
Another activist group, the Syria-based Local Coordination Committees, also reported the strikes, saying that five people were killed in a single strike that targeted the Islamic State building.
An opposition activist in Raqqa reported seven airstrikes on Raqqa Wednesday. The activist, who goes by the name of Abu Noor, said in an interview over Skype that 13 bodies of civilians have been identified. He said the death toll will likely rise due to a large number of wounded in various attacks around the city.
The activists said only one of the airstrikes struck the Islamic State headquarters in the city, while others targeted other areas, including a market.
The Islamic State, along with other rebel groups fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad, captured Raqqa in March 2013. Recently, the group has become a major fighting force in Iraq, capturing in recent days major cities and towns in northern Iraq from the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Also Wednesday, Syrian aircraft also carried out a series of airstrikes in the eastern Deir el-Zour province near the border with Iraq, the Observatory said. Islamic state fighters have been battling rival jihadi rebel groups for months in the oil-rich province. There were no immediate reports of casualties.
Garbage construction of an American guilt avoidance narrative.
Operation Meetinghouse killed more people than any other bombing raid in history. It almost killed more people than both nukes combined and created a firestorm that would have been visible from space. And unlike like Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was right on the Japanese government's doorstep.
And you're claiming my assertion that it wasn't more intimidating that the nukes is 'guilt avoidance'?
You confuse victims with others. Get your story straight. You imply the victims deserved it.
From the War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters:
"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."
Which, broadly speaking, is a pretty good description of Operation Ketsugo, the planned defense of Japan from allied invasion. Their only remaining plan was to expend their civilian populace in suicide attacks to try and drive the cost of an invasion too high. Meetinghouse and the Nuclear bombings proved that strategy would simply not work.
The Kurdish President made a lot of comments about seizing the moment, and having the Kurdish people decide their future.
Spoiler:
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – The president of Iraq’s autonomous Kurdistan Region signaled Monday that the country’s Kurds are ready to seek independence, as Sunni insurgents gained greater ground and Iraq slid toward civil war.
“It is the time now for the Kurdistan people to determine their future, and the decision of the people is what we are going to uphold,” Massoud Barzani said in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, the strongest statements he has made regarding independence.
“During the last 10 years we did everything in our ability, we made every effort and we showed political stability in order to build a new democratic Iraq, but unfortunately the experience has not been successful they way that it should have,” he said.
“That’s why I believe that after the recent events in Iraq it has been proven that the Kurdish people should seize the opportunity now,” he pointed out.
Iraq’s northern Kurdistan Region, comprising the three Kurdish provinces of Erbil, Sulaimani and Duhok, has been autonomous for more than 20 years. It has an estimated population of five million, and its own government, parliament, constitution and army.
Independence has been a perennial Kurdish aspiration.
In less than a fortnight when they began their blitz, insurgents that include the radical Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have captured several key cities and are closing in on Baghdad, where they want to topple the Shiite-led government.
The rebel blitzkrieg began with the capture of Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, by the rebels. Its collapse started a dominoes-fall of cities and territory that has the rebels in control of Iraq’s vast central Sunni territories, from the Syrian border to Jordan.
Iraq’s army largely collapsed when the rebels began their onslaught on Mosul.
The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which has had serious issues with the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, moved in its Peshmerga forces into Kurdish territories outside its official borders that were abandoned by Iraqi forces.
The Peshmerga have been in control of just about all of the Kurdish territories that they claim, including Kirkuk, the prize oil city that the Kurds see as the capital of their future state.
The Kurds are seriously ramping up oil production now they hold Kirkut, and Israel has started buying it. Israel likes the thought of a friendly Kurdistan in the region.
Spoiler:
Iraq's Kurds Sell Oil To Israel, Move Closer To Independence
Comment Now Follow Comments
Kurdish forces warned Baghdad about the impending assault on Mosul. Since ISIS swept into Iraq, the Kurds’ peshmerga forces havce been serving as a bulwark against them, even exchanging artillery fire in recent days.
Over the weekend, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani called for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to step down. While Kurd President Massoud Barzani separately declared that “the time is here for the Kurdistan people to determine their future.”
So it appears that soon, out of the disintegration of Iraq, will appear a new independent Kurdish state.
Furthermore, with their initial sale last week of a tanker full of oil, to Israel no less, the Kurds have shown that they are willing not just to cleave themselves from Baghdad but to stand as a magnanimous force for stability in the region.
According to numerous reports by Reuters, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal, the tanker SCF Altai transferred a cargo of Kurdish oil from another tanker United Emblem, which had been plying the Mediterranean for two weeks after loading at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The SCF Altai then docked at the Israeli city of Ashkelon and off-loaded its crude.
The trade naturally triggered outrage from Baghdad, which considers illegal any export of Kurdish oil not made under the auspices of the federal oil ministry. A U.S. State Department official told the Wall Street Journal that the deal opens up the buyer to “potentially serious legal risks.”
But there’s also potentially serious upside in such a transaction. Though the Kurds have for years been selling tanker trucks full of oil into Turkey, the ability to market large volumes on a regular basis should enable them to dramatically ramp up the cash flow needed to equip their peshmerga forces. Today, Turkey’s state-run Halk Bank, reportedly confirmed that $93 million in oil revenues had been depositied in Kurdish Regional Government accounts.
The political significance is enormous. The Kurds have in recent years made peace with Turkey, a reversal of decades of mistrust. As detailed in a New York Times op-ed today (“Turkey’s Best Ally: The Kurds”), Turkey now has a 50-year deal to send Kurdish oil by pipeline to Ceyhan, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has voiced support for the Kurds’ right to self determination. Simply put, Ankara doesn’t much care whether Iraq holds together or falls apart (as long as a future independent Kurdish state doesn’t attempt to annex Kurdish regions within Turkey).
Now add Israel to the mix. After having their oil floating around the Med for a couple weeks, the Kurds were getting desperate to find a buyer. They have previously sold smaller amounts of oil to Austria’s OMV as well as to a refinery co-owned by BP and Russia’s Rosneft . But the fact that the Kurds were willing to deal with Israel implies that they intend to pursue a more magnanimous foreign policy than their Arab neighbors, which maintain a boycott of crude sales to Israel.
Baghdad resents any unilateral exports by the Kurds. Islamic fundamentalists may abhor any sale of oil to archenemy Israel. But as history has shown, the oil trade makes odd bedfellows. It was legendary trader Marc Rich who shepherded deals in the late 1970s to sell Iranian oil to Israel via secret pipeline. The trade continued unabated despite the Iranian revolution of 1979 and the American hostage crisis.
Iraq will be buying armaments from Russia from now on.
Spoiler:
Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC that he hopes jets from Russia and Belarus will turn the tide against rebels in the coming days.
"God willing within one week this force will be effective and will destroy the terrorists' dens," he said.
He said that the process of buying US jets had been "long-winded" and that the militants' advance could have been avoided if air cover had been in place.
Isis and its Sunni Muslim allies seized large parts of Iraq this month.
Mr Maliki was speaking to the BBC's Arabic service in his first interview for an international broadcaster since Isis - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - began its major offensive.
"I'll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract [with the US]," Mr Maliki said.
"We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened," he went on.
He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus "that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days".
The government has struggled to hold back the militants' advance from the north and west.
The US, which backs the Iraqi government, has stressed that the militants can only be defeated by Iraq's own forces.
Iraq has also been receiving support from Iran, with whom its Shia Muslim leaders have close links.
Mr Maliki also confirmed that Syrian forces had carried out air strikes against Islamist militants at a border crossing between Iraq and Syria.
He said Iraq had not requested the strikes but that it "welcomed" them.
"They carry out their strikes and we carry out ours and the final winners are our two countries," he said.
Military and rebel sources say the strike took place inside Iraq, at the Qaim crossing, although Mr Maliki said it was carried out on the Syrian side.
Militant sources have been reporting for two days that Syrian jets hit the Iraqi side of Qaim, and also Rutba which is further inside Iraq.
The militants say 70 people were killed in the first attack and 20 in the second.
Fighting has been reported on Thursday, with Iraqi special forces flying into the university in the city of Tikrit and clashes ensuing.
This is all very interesting. I think we can begin to predict how this will develop now. To re-iterate the facts of the conflict thus far:-
America and Europe are no longer disputing Russian armaments shipments to Syria. Assad of Syria has started launching air strikes on the Iraqi side of the border. Iran and Iraq, both being Shia powers are drawing closer together. Maliki of Iraq has indicated in no uncertain terms that he is not interested in playing nice with the US anymore, and will not step down as the US are currently pressuring him to do.
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
The Sunni militias seem to have re-mobilised in Iraq, and whilst not yet allied to ISIL, are more than happy to sit back and watch ISIL fight it out with Iraq for control of key refineries/strategic locations. The Saudi Arabians seem to be starting to pump funding into those Sunni militias (and a small amount through to ISIL) whilst the Jordanians have locked down their border.
The conclusion?
America is pulling out of Iraq. Kerry flew over there in a last ditch attempt to push Maliki into line with American policy, and Maliki refused. That gives America the ability to wash their hands of the affair. Kurdistan will most likely be born, and the Americans will doubtless start pushing funding in that direction. Iraq will lose control of the Sunni/Kurdish sides of their country (about half to two thirds of the country), but what's left will be a Shia dominated area. It will be supplied by the Russians, and along with Syria/Iran, will fall be subject to Russian influence rather than American.
The future?
It depends. If Maliki and Assad come to an accord, and get enough equipment from the Russians, we may see them push in over the next two years, and completely squash ISIL from both sides. Alternatively, an independent Sunni regime could kick out ISIL and establish its own borders once the militia get bored of ISIS and its outlived its usefulness. Or, a third option would be that the Saudis pile on pressure from one side and the Iranians from another, and the whole area will be bandit country for the next decade. Hard to say which way it'll go at this stage.
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
I am actually looking forward to seeing this happen
Iraq ran out of Hellfire missiles four days ago and the US seem to be using resupply as a bargaining chip to try and pressure Maliki into stepping down. Maliki has instead announced that he's not interested in those arms contracts with America that he signed since he has no weapons when he needs them, and will be buying elsewhere (specifically, Russia as of right now). The Kurdish President has indicated an independent Kurdistan is about to be born, and the Turks and the Israelis are totally on board with that.
I am actually looking forward to seeing this happen
I'm surprised that the Turks are OK with an independant Kurdish country on their border, but I think it's past time something like that happened. The Kurds have been getting it right since the First Gulf War; they deserve their independence.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Iran, Iraq, and Israel all on the same side, now there's a first.
I cannot for the life of me think of a coalition of nations to top that
It's the real-world equivalent of Chaos, the IoM, both flavors of Eldar and the Orks all agreeding that that Hive Fleet over there really needs to be kicked in the teeth.
I'm surprised that the Turks are OK with an independant Kurdish country on their border, but I think it's past time something like that happened. The Kurds have been getting it right since the First Gulf War; they deserve their independence.
I think that the Turkish calculation is that they can charge the Kurds a premium rate on any oil shipped through the country, and if there's a Kurdish homeland, their own Kurdish problem will go away, as all the Kurdish 'patriots' will move abroad.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Desperate to stem the tide of ISIS militants overrunning the country, an Iraqi general has put forth a radical proposal of telling his soldiers and fellow officers they should try to defend themselves, and — most shockingly — in some instances, actually counterattack, Questionable Media has learned.
“We have a quarter of a million troops, while ISIS only has 7,000,” Brig. Gen. Haddad said, trying to plead his case. “We also have tanks, artillery, and air power while they do not. We can put 35 soldiers up to every one of theirs. We would win a crushing victory even with just a half-assed plan of attack.”
While making an interesting case, Brig. Gen. Gabar Haddad has come up against stiff resistance from his fellow generals, who prefer to keep surrendering until American troops come in and fight for them. His suggestion flies in the face of the Iraqi Army’s established doctrine of Flee, Surrender, or Do Both.
“Fight back?” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked amidst shock and laughter. “That’s a good one! We haven’t done that since 1988!”
The numerically-superior Iraqi Army was defeated in Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, in what one general said would be remembered as “a glorious moment for Iraq.”
For now, the strategy of the Iraqi Army is to follow established doctrine of stripping off their uniforms and fleeing in terror, then once the Americans return to implement counterinsurgency doctrine, Iraqi soldiers are to implement insurgency doctrine and bomb them.
“Once they defeat ISIS we will bomb them again,” Gen. Qanbar said of his “friends” the Americans. “It’ll just be like old times. So for now, any Iraqi soldier holding a weapon and wearing a uniform is in violation of a direct order. Our men will give every inch of ground until they reach the sea, and then they will swim.”
In a related story, the Kurdish Peshmerga has vowed to fight ISIS to the death, has taken ground from them, and still cannot be recognized as an actual country.
whembly wrote: I first came aware of this concept back in the '90s during the Bosian War where the Clinton administration was roundly criticized for using disportionate responses. It's an asinine concept...and still is.
In war, if you have the tools... use it, ruthlessly. Because at the end of the day, the victors makes the rules.
Which is great if the only concern is winning and telling everyone how awesome you are. In the real world there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands dead bodies on the ground. Functional human beings, and I'm sure you are one, recognise that's a really bad thing. And so we take it as completely fething obvious that you should avoid giant piles of corpses wherever possible.
This means that if you can win a war without creating giant piles of bodies then you should do so. And if the only way to win is by creating giant piles of corpses, you should first ask if this is a war that is really worth fighting. That's proportionality, and I simply don't believe that you don't agree with that basic set of concepts.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept... do you have any resources on that?
I'm not advocating that we'd use an entire armored division, fighter wing, nukes on small scale wars like the War on Terror™. I'm talking about in the case of WW2, we had just cause to drop those bombs on Japan (and I do realize that's another debate in itself).
Proportionate means the methods you use are proportionate to the threat faced and the capability of the enemy. So when you're talking about Japan, then the bomb is justified if you believe there is no means other than mass bombing or an incredibly costly invasion to force the war to an end. Whereas if we're talking about a few thousand soldiers who are fairly lightly armed, then the suggestions of mass bombing campaigns just aren't proportionate.
There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Meanwhile, ISIL are declaring themselves an independent Caliphate already. I really don't see them lasting beyond however long it takes to get Maliki to concede he's lost that end of the country though. They only have 5,000 fighters. The Sunni militias will have them for breakfast the second the fighting lets up.
I also like that Israel have become the first country now to officially call for an independent Kurdistan to be established. Meanwhile, William Hague is still prattling on about Iraqi unity.
Do the Israelis actually have any support from the Kurds or are they just looking for an opportunity to make a new friend (as they sure as hell have enough enemies in the region)?
You'd think the guys chucking grenades out of helicopters would spend the time making some barrel bombs. That just seems like a waste of resources, but I suppose they have their reasons (either it be a lack of training or just laziness).
Ketara wrote: There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.
And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.
Ketara wrote: There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.
And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.
Jake
When I use to crew Hawks. We had a smoke grenade go off on us in the rear packs. One of the grunts smoke grenade pin was pulled. Dang thing ended up under the seat sprouting out green smoke.
i to would like a link to them (ISIS/ISIL) chucking grenades out
Ketara wrote: There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.
And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.
Jake
It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.
Ketara wrote: There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.
And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.
Jake
It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.
Means they had pilots that flipped allegiance more likely.
Ketara wrote: There's something mildly entertaining about the fact that as the fighting in Tikrit continues, the ISIL fighters have taken to flying helicopters over the city and lobbing hand grenades out of it. It's that sort of low tech/high tech innovation that you only get in the Middle-East/Africa.
Do you have a source (not originating with ISIS/ISIL) of them flying helicopters over Iraq? I've looked and can't find anything looking credible at all.
And, I've read accounts of OH6 and OH58 pilots (cav guys) chucking grenades out of their birds in Vietnam.
Jake
It was on Reuters/BBC a day or two back, sent in from some civilians sheltering at the University. ISIL captured two helicopters from the retreating Iraqi army, along with about 50 T-55's, & 1,500 motor vehicles, so there's no reason to disbelieve its veracity as of yet.
Means they had pilots that flipped allegiance more likely.
The Sunni militias are working with ISIL, and a good chunk of them were in the military under good old Saddam. There's plenty of technical expertise floating around out there without needing turncoats.
ISIS has formally declared the establishment of a caliphate, or Islamic state, in the vast stretches of the Middle East that have fallen under its control, and has outlined a vision to expand into Europe.
The announcement was described as the 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.
Upon declaring a caliphate, the Sunni militants - whose brutality in attempting to establish control in Iraq and Syria has been branded too extreme even by Al Qaeda - demanded allegiance from Muslims around the world.
With brutal efficiency, ISIS has carved out a large chunk of territory that has effectively erased the border between Iraq and Syria and laid the foundations of its proto-state.
The announcement, made on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, could trigger a wave of infighting among Sunni extremist factions that have until now formed a loose rebel alliance.
A spokesman for ISIS declared the group's chief, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as the leader of the new caliphate, or Islamic state, and called on Muslims everywhere, not just those in areas under the organization's control, to swear loyalty to him.
'The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organizations becomes null by the expansion of the caliph's authority and the arrival of its troops to their areas,' said Abu Mohammed al-Adnani.
'Listen to your caliph and obey him. Support your state, which grows every day,' he added in an audio statement posted online.
Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, said the announcement was likely the 'most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11'.
Al-Adnani loosely defined the state territory as running from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala - a vast stretch of land straddling the border that is already largely under ISIS control.
He also said that with the establishment of the caliphate, the group was changing its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant.
However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries.
As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe.
Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020.
Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
ISIS regularly makes statements and releases propaganda calling for the return of the geographical boundaries in place before the Great War .
The group insist the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied forces after the conflict - commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement - was a deliberate attempt to divide Muslims and restrict the likelihood of another caliphate being established.
Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East, North Africa and beyond in various forms over the course of Islam's 1,400-year history.
It was unclear what immediate impact the declaration would have on the ground in Syria and Iraq, though experts predicted it could herald infighting among Sunni militants who have joined forces with the Islamic State in its fight against Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite-led government.
'Now the insurgents in Iraq have no excuse for working with ISIS if they were hoping to share power with ISIS,' said Aymenn al-Tamimi, an analyst who specializes in Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria. 'The prospect of infighting in Iraq is increased for sure,' he added.
The greatest impact, however, could be on the broader international jihadist movement, in particular on the future of Al Qaeda.
Founded by Osama Bin Laden, the group that carried out the September 11 attacks on the U.S. has long carried the mantle of the international jihadi cause.
But the Islamic State has managed to do in Syria and Iraq what Al Qaeda never has - carve out a large swath of territory in the heart of the Arab world and control it.
'This announcement poses a huge threat to al-Qaida and its long-time position of leadership of the international jihadist cause,' said Charles Lister, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Doha Center.
'Taken globally, the younger generation of the jihadist community is becoming more and more supportive of [ISIS] largely out of fealty to its slick and proven capacity for attaining rapid results through brutality,' he added.
Al-Baghdadi, an ambitious Iraqi militant who has a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head, took the reins of ISIS in 2010 when it was still an Al Qaeda affiliate based in Iraq.
Since then, he has transformed what had been an umbrella organization focused mainly on Iraq into a transnational military force.
Al-Baghdadi has long been at odds with Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, and the two had a very public falling out after al-Baghdadi ignored al-Zawahiri's demands that the Islamic State leave Syria.
Fed up with al-Baghdadi and unable to control him, al-Zawahiri formally disavowed ISIS in February.
But al-Baghdadi's stature has only grown since then, as his fighters strengthened their grip on much of Syria, and have now overrun large swathes of Iraq.
Following his appointment as head of the caliphate, ISIS demanded al-Baghdadi be referred to as Caliph Ibrahim - using the name given to the son of the Prophet Muhammad in order to strengthen the claim that he is now the leader of the Muslims and a direct successor to the prophet himself.
The Islamic State's declaration comes as the Iraqi government tries to wrest back some of the territory it has lost to the jihadi group and its Sunni militant allies in recent weeks.
On Sunday, Iraqi helicopter gunships struck suspected insurgent positions for a second consecutive day in Tikrit - the predominantly Sunni hometown of former dictator Saddam Hussein.
The Iraqi military launched its push to wrest back Tikrit - a hotbed of antipathy toward Iraq's Shiite-led government - on Saturday with a multi-pronged assault spearheaded by ground troops backed by tanks and helicopters.
I'd say its unrealistic... but the truth is we have a jihadist group that is effectively in control of a significant chunk of Iraqi and Syrian territory, which is growing in size and strength almost daily, has significant wealth and resources available to it, etc. and they basically just called for the various smaller less threatening groups across a huge region to fall in line behind them. Some, no doubt, will, further fueling their strength and rise unless someone steps in to block them. Even if this never becomes 'a thing' this action could have a huge impact on destabilizing an already unstable region, and if (somehow) they do succeed in uniting even half that territory, lord help us all.
Not without one hell of a fight at least, but if we're assuming they have somehow taken the rest of the territory indicated, they would most certainly have the resources available to put up one hell of a good fight for said territories.
Realize at that point we're talking about a partial chokehold on naval movements (effectively cutting the Mediterranean off from the Indian Ocean and the potential to do the same to the Atlantic), as well as an effective monopoly on a significant chunk of global oil production, access to a not insignificant nuclear arsenal and associated technology, space launch access, and I have no doubt that along the way to getting that point they would be able to lay claim to a rather substantial amount of western military hardware, like all the F-15s, F-16s, Abrams tanks, etc. that are in use by the various gulf states, etc. Even if they opt out of challenging NATO/the west for Spain and Eastern Europe, we're still dealing with a nuclear armed jihadist state encompassing about 1/3rd of the worlds population and perhaps the most significant resource wealth on the planet....
Frazzled wrote: Well lets play devil's advocate. They won't retake Central Europe. Lets assume no for Spain as well.
So what?
Hei! We kicked them out of our part of the peninsula well before the Spaniards ever did! How come Spain gets to remain independent but Portugal doesn't?
*I'm sorry, who in that region has nukes?
*They have 30 year old tanks. And? Tanks can't swim.
F15s/16s need parts.
*There is no significant navy in the region outside of Europe.
Frazzled wrote: Well lets play devil's advocate. They won't retake Central Europe. Lets assume no for Spain as well.
So what?
Hei! We kicked them out of our part of the peninsula well before the Spaniards ever did! How come Spain gets to remain independent but Portugal doesn't?
Sorry I overlooked Portugal there. Lets assume they remain un caliphated as well.
Not seeing how these guys survive a war with Iran or Turkey, or Syria, or Egypt, or Israel, or well, almost anyone with two guns and a walky talkie.
I'm too old a bunny not to have seen this scarey movie before.
Frazzled wrote: *I'm sorry, who in that region has nukes?
*They have 30 year old tanks. And? Tanks can't swim.
F15s/16s need parts.
*There is no significant navy in the region outside of Europe.
*Pakistan and India? Lets not forget that Syria, Iraq, and Iran all have access to some level of nuclear know-how as well.*
*A lot of the M1s in the region are old, a lot of them aren't. The Saudis and Iraqis have some pretty new ones, and Egypt is in the process of acquiring new ones. Besides that, Tanks don't need to swim, when you're covering that large an area, with that much coastline, you're at some point going to begin shipbuilding... besides that, the existing Navy's in the region all have some capacity for sealift, even if its only minor. Crossing into Eastern Europe wouldn't be terribly difficult, while crossing into Spain would probably be relatively impossible barring a major naval expansion. Besides that, considering the sheer quantity of armor they may end up having access to between Soviet and NATO-Israeli equipment, quantity would take on a whole new level of quality*
*We're not talking about Iran here, the F15 and F16 operators in the region all have considerable parts stockpiles already, the Israelis (also covered by that territory) have the capacity to produce their own (and I believe some of the Gulf states might have limited capacity for this as well). While I doubt they would capture that capacity intact, I dont doubt their ability to eventually reverse engineer a solution to the parts issues. Lets also not forget that both Iran and Turkey (and again, Israel/India) have their own domestic arms industriess. While they might not be on-par with the US or even Russia, they are certainly capable of producing *something* and at the point where you're proposing a united Caliphate, I would think that they would see a significant upswing in capability and quality with the influx of new resources available to them as well as the increased cooperation that would result from it.*
*You don't really need a significant Navy in this case, but besides that, the potential materiel and technological gains to be had from conquering Iraq, Israel, the Black/Caspian Seas, and an effective monopolization of the Mediterranean could result in a new regional naval power that while it isn't necessarily able to challenge American naval supremacy, could become a 'big fish in a small pond' relative to most European and Asian/African nations.*
Not seeing how these guys survive a war with Iran or Turkey, or Syria, or Egypt, or Israel, or well, almost anyone with two guns and a walky talkie.
If they're smart, they won't challenge most of those nations until they've consolidated their gains, but here's the scary thing: there are already people high up within the governments and the militaries of many of the nations within this supposed Caliphate that would very much go along with this, and for the most part, even in those territories where they might not have 'inside men' there are most certainly Islamist extremists that will gladly fall into line behind ISIS and destabilize those areas from within.
So now they pick a fight with China and Mother Russia and get obliterated.
Any fool can draw a map. So what? So far its 500 guys with AKs taking over areas that didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place. So far all they've done is actually had Iran, the US, and Russia be on the same side.
The argument is just stupid. Frankly people suddenly hyperventilating about this need to step back and consider a longer term view of the situation. Maybe the view, that if we didn't constantly stick our noses into these brush wars it wouldn't be an issue for us in the first place.
We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.
Easy E wrote: We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.
Sounds like a job for Solid Snake these sorts of proxy wars are his specialty (well, that and destroying bipedal nuclear armed machines)
Frazzled wrote: Sorry didn't see Pakistan and India as well.
So now they pick a fight with China and Mother Russia and get obliterated.
Any fool can draw a map. So what? So far its 500 guys with AKs taking over areas that didn't want to be in Iraq in the first place. So far all they've done is actually had Iran, the US, and Russia be on the same side.
Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resources. I suggest you do your homework on ISIS because they actually do present a serious potential threat to us and the rest of the world, Caliphate or no Caliphate. And despite getting the three of us on the same side, we're still no closer to actually doing anything about the situation.
Maybe the view, that if we didn't constantly stick our noses into these brush wars it wouldn't be an issue for us in the first place.
This part I agree with.
The argument is just stupid. Frankly people suddenly hyperventilating about this need to step back and consider a longer term view of the situation.
This part I do not. The longer term view, to me, implies that in the long term there will be an increasingly strong international jihadist movement unless ISIS is entirely dismantled.
We might see a Jihadist "civil" war as Al-Qaeda has to battle ISIS politically, militarily, and financially for control of the Jihadist movement. A full-fledged middle-eastern shadow war.
This seems likely, however my understanding of present circumstances is such that Al Qaeda at this point is an entity in name only. ISIS has already battled several other militant jihadist organizations for control and succeeded in destroying the elements that wouldn't fall into line, and absorbing those who would. While they and Al Qaeda are enemies, it seems that Al Qaeda doesn't really have the means to challenge them at this point. I think the fact that the intelligence community, the DOD, and the state department increasingly regard ISIS as a military organization rather than a terrorist or paramilitary one should be telling.
If they are a threat nuke them, if not leave us out of it.
We have an open border here. We need to deal with that first then the rest of the world's problems. The people in those countries wil settle it themselves. The thought that we can influence that is clearly in error. How have we psoitively influenced anything in the ME?
Given Barry O's desire to go nuclear free, we aren't nuking anyone for a few years at least... and again, while I agree with you that we should worry about our problems at home, the reality is that what happens over there could easily lead to a whole new host of problems over here.
-Oil? Dictators and jihadis all need those petrodollars. Here's the dirty little secret...the oil is going to run out over there... -Terrorism? Close the border. We already are at extreme risk until that occurs.
I have a feeling that these guys are just a flash in the pan. They will last about as long as the OWS movement. Too flashy and they are making too many enemies too fast.
I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!
Frazzled wrote: I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!
Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest
Frazzled wrote: I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!
Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest
Frazzled wrote: I hope they bath more than the OWS guys did here in Texas. Pew! Just because you're a homicidal maniac in a thuggish cult bent on world domination, is no reason not to look good!
Only if they are planning to meet Allah. Last time I saw a well groomed, freshly washed and oiled, clean clothes, and sweet fragrant he was wearing a bomb vest
but it was a clean bomb vest!
We never know being he tripped coming at us at the ECP at Ghazni
Edit
OT though. Have they finally captured Anaconda or is both side still screwing around?
Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource
Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?
ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.
Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource
Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?
ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.
If the West agree to their time table to taking over a fifth of the world by 2020
Goliath wrote: Sources on Reddit are saying that ISIS have promised to strike Mecca and destroy the Ka'aba, due to it being worshipped by idolaters.
That won't go well... What they dont realize is that Mohamed was a time traveler, which explains why the religion forbids any images of him (thus allowing him to travel time in anonymity)... he went into the future, and got a massive, Gatling laser defense turret, and a whole mess of other high tech weapons, and stashed htem in there... any attack on Mecca will result in countless masses being slain due to the defenses firing up
Ketara wrote: Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?
ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.
Yep, and the thing everyone seems to be missing is that the ease of their conquests in Iraq actually says a lot more about the state of Iraqi armed forces than it does about the militias.
Its a lot more than 500 guys (tack another zero on there and it'd be more accurate, but the fact that so few can effectively control such a large area as they do already should give you cause for pause), and they're steadily gaining in size and resource
Chaos, are you seriously even considering the sorts of things you're saying?
ISIL does not control half the territory the media claims they do. The Sunni militias are just letting them hog the headlines, as it's convenient for them. ISIL will be lucky to survive the next two years, let alone succeed in taking a fifth of the world by 2020.
There have been numerous reports of ISIS being extremely well funded (into the $billions) and well organised. I suppose the most important thing is whether those observations are correct or not. If they are, then they are not going to be a flash in the pan.
Sebster wrote:Yep, and the thing everyone seems to be missing is that the ease of their conquests in Iraq actually says a lot more about the state of Iraqi armed forces than it does about the militias.
The whole thing has been a recipe for disaster from the outset - destroy the strong, centralised, secular state and civil infrastructure. Stoke up sectarian tensions and create a government that epitomises and furthers those differences, remove that government's teeth, and pour a load of extra military equipment into a country that already had a lot floating about, and lots of grizzled military veterans and psychologically scarred victims of previous wars ready to use them! Shake well, and *KABOOM*
Those poor, poor fething people, because you have to remember the real victims of this are the millions who had quite normal lives before and just wanted to go on living them in peace. We've lit the match under a powder keg and the result is going to be generations of misery and shortening life expectancies. The issue is not putting the genie back in the bottle (you can't), but whether you can do anything at all without making the entire cluster-feth even worse than it already is.
The whole thing has been a recipe for disaster from the outset - destroy the strong, centralised, secular state and civil infrastructure. Stoke up sectarian tensions and create a government that epitomises and furthers those differences, remove that government's teeth, and pour a load of extra military equipment into a country that already had a lot floating about, and lots of grizzled military veterans and psychologically scarred victims of previous wars ready to use them! Shake well, and *KABOOM*
Those poor, poor fething people, because you have to remember the real victims of this are the millions who had quite normal lives before and just wanted to go on living them in peace. We've lit the match under a powder keg and the result is going to be generations of misery and shortening life expectancies. The issue is not putting the genie back in the bottle (you can't), but whether you can do anything at all without making the entire cluster-feth even worse than it already is.
Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway. Iraq was only held together by raw power. It was only lines on a map made up by British politicians a century ago. Take away that power and they had the option of forming a modern heterogeneous state, or going tribal. They picked tribal.
It will be interesting to see if Syria breaks up as well, or not.
Fail to see at what point I climbed on to the moral high horse there? I live in a country whose democratically elected government was one of the main instigators of the current situation.
And, I think there are ways of accomplishing something, and than manner in which it can happen. If you think that Hussein dying or being back-stabbed by an opponent would have resulted in the complete and utter destruction of the state, civil infrastructure, hundreds of thousands dead and probably the next 20 years of civil war, I think you need to take a closer examination of the forces involved and why exactly there is so much violence in the country right now.
To perhaps use a more apt metaphor, Hussein dying as a result of insurrection (originated from within Iraq) would have been throwing a match under the fire. But, in essence removing him from power in the way that the West did, and the apparent complete lack of planning for Iraq's future, has been the equivalent of rolling a stick of dynamite under a petrol-soaked building. Not so much caught fire, as blown to pieces.
I agree though it will be interesting what happens in Syria - I think the current situation in Iraq has the potential to destabilise the entire region, more so than it has already.
I agree though it will be interesting what happens in Syria - I think the current situation in Iraq has the potential to destabilise the entire region, more so than it has already.
Perhaps, things are happenign exactly the way the APAC and Neo-cons wanted it. A destabilized Middle East.
Frazzled wrote: Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.
People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.
People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: Perhaps, things are happenign exactly the way the APAC and Neo-cons wanted it. A destabilized Middle East.
Nah, because they wanted the transformation of Iraq to serve as a powerful statement on the power and reach of the US, as a platform for the US to continue to dominate world affairs for the next century. Didn't really work out like that at all.
Frazzled wrote: Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.
People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.
People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.
Key difference there being that Iraq was/is a heavily tribal society, as opposed to Stalin's Russia, and Kim's Korea, where they are a "homogenous society" built up for a singular purpose.
Certainly, with Saddam out of the way, one of the flying rodent gak crazy sons would have come to power, but because they are such a tribal society, much of what Daddy did is not respected in the kid, so there will be power challenges by others, until he either fails, or they get tired of trying to knock him down.
It seems that ISIS is worried about my predicted outcome right now as well. They're demanding that all other Sunni factions disarm or swear allegiance to their glorious Caliph. Not entirely sure how well that'll work out for them, but apparently there was a firefight between some ISIS members and some of the Baathists (Saddam's old lot) the other day near Kirkuk. The reports have varied over what it was (the ISIS lot trying to disarm the Baathists, or a fight over some fuel spoils), but it left seventeen dead, so clearly the Baathists aren't exactly okay with that.
Considering Mosul is currently under the governance of a Baathist general as well while the ISIS fighters push the front, they're going to need to be careful that they don't end up alienating their support network on the ground by pushing this too hard.
Frazzled wrote: Don't get on your high horse. All of this would have happened the moment Hussein died anyway.
People said that about Stalin's death. They were wrong. They said that about Kim Il-sung's death, and they were wrong. They said that again Kim Jong-il, and they were wrong all over again.
People talk with a great deal of certainty about what will happen, and what would have happened, but we don't and can't actually know. All we do know is what did happen, and that was one big fething disaster.
Key difference there being that Iraq was/is a heavily tribal society, as opposed to Stalin's Russia, and Kim's Korea, where they are a "homogenous society" built up for a singular purpose.
Certainly, with Saddam out of the way, one of the flying rodent gak crazy sons would have come to power, but because they are such a tribal society, much of what Daddy did is not respected in the kid, so there will be power challenges by others, until he either fails, or they get tired of trying to knock him down.
Stalins (and in fact Soviet) Russia was very much a 'tribal' society. All the various ethnic groups were kept in check and forced to cooperate by fear, once the Soviet Union fell apart, they all went back to squabbling and fighting amongst themselves.
It seems that ISIS is worried about my predicted outcome right now as well. They're demanding that all other Sunni factions disarm or swear allegiance to their glorious Caliph. Not entirely sure how well that'll work out for them, but apparently there was a firefight between some ISIS members and some of the Baathists (Saddam's old lot) the other day near Kirkuk. The reports have varied over what it was (the ISIS lot trying to disarm the Baathists, or a fight over some fuel spoils), but it left seventeen dead, so clearly the Baathists aren't exactly okay with that.
Considering Mosul is currently under the governance of a Baathist general as well while the ISIS fighters push the front, they're going to need to be careful that they don't end up alienating their support network on the ground by pushing this too hard.
So its become Sunni insurgents vs. Sunni insurgents vs. Shiite Insurgents vs. Kurdish separatists vs. Iraqi Government?
LONDON – Some 100 imams are urging British Muslims to refrain from traveling to Syria amid concerns that fighters will become radicalized.
The open letter issued Friday offered a unified voice by various religious factions, appealing to British Muslims to support those affected by the war in Syria and recent fighting in Iraq, but to do so "from the U.K. in a safe and responsible way."
The letter comes as concerns grow about home-grown terrorism. Fears about returning radicals have been heightened by a video released online that showed three men identified as British exhorting compatriots to come join the militants in Iraq.
U.K. authorities estimate as many as 500 Britons have traveled to Syria to fight, and that some may have crossed into Iraq.
This time they defeated Kurdish Pesh-Merga (sp) and took a large Damn near Mosul. I had always heard that the Kurdish paa-militaries were pretty hardcore, so I'm a bit surprised that the realtively small ISIS beat them back.
Does nayone have more/better analysis of the region and its para-military forces?
It was rumored in the guardian that the Mosul army was ~30k strong [guardian now says its was 60k+ strong..] when the 800 strong force of ISIS took mosul without any significant conflict. Looting of the cities resources that Muirka left behind gave them significant amounts of heavy weapons and armored vehicles that were to be used by the military.
I recall there being speculation that the roughly $480million they looted from bases/banks/etc was possibly given to certain members of the Iraqi military to order their troops to stand down and back out. Since mosul their numbers have grown significantly.
There are reports that the Kurds still hold the dam but don't control the towns around it anymore.
There were also reports that the Kurdish pesh-merga were trying to help the Yazidi-Kurds that are stuck in the mountains but ISIS was able to hold them off.
Kurdish Peshmurga troops, long regarded as a more formidable fighting force, had been defending Sinjar, but they too were forced to withdraw as Isis advanced. Kurdish officials say their forces were seriously outgunned by the jihadists, who were using heavy weapons looted from Iraqi bases.
60,000? evidently that whole "its just a few crazies" thing is way off.
Apparently they have thousands of innocents trapped on a mountain. What kind of sick nutjob wants to kill men, women, and children? How are there 60,000 of them?
Easy E wrote: So, wha tis the operational forces available to the ISIS? It seems to be changing all the time. Do we have any reliable ballpark numbers?
Enough to do the job and since they took Anaconda enough tactical equipment and vehicles to move quite effectively
Edit
Air strikes are not going to stop them and if we do we be in the same boat as Israel
Frazzled wrote: 60,000? evidently that whole "its just a few crazies" thing is way off.
Apparently they have thousands of innocents trapped on a mountain. What kind of sick nutjob wants to kill men, women, and children? How are there 60,000 of them?
Uncap the atomics.
I apologize if my first statement wasnt clear, guardian updated the number of the iraqi mosul army that retreated from 30k to 60k. The ISIS forces that routed the Iraqi army in mosul were reported to be 800-1300 depending on source at the time of the intial "invasion"
Frazzled wrote: 60,000? evidently that whole "its just a few crazies" thing is way off.
Apparently they have thousands of innocents trapped on a mountain. What kind of sick nutjob wants to kill men, women, and children? How are there 60,000 of them?
Uncap the atomics.
I apologize if my first statement wasnt clear, guardian updated the number of the iraqi mosul army that retreated from 30k to 60k. The ISIS forces that routed the Iraqi army in mosul were reported to be 800-1300 depending on source at the time of the intial "invasion"
Frazzled wrote: 60,000? evidently that whole "its just a few crazies" thing is way off.
Apparently they have thousands of innocents trapped on a mountain. What kind of sick nutjob wants to kill men, women, and children? How are there 60,000 of them?
Uncap the atomics.
I apologize if my first statement wasnt clear, guardian updated the number of the iraqi mosul army that retreated from 30k to 60k. The ISIS forces that routed the Iraqi army in mosul were reported to be 800-1300 depending on source at the time of the intial "invasion"
ABC News ✔ @ABC
Follow
BREAKING: US official: US military begins humanitarian air drops for 1000s trapped in Iraqi mountains by ISIS - @MarthaRaddatz
Good.
Also... this:
PzFeed Top News @PzFeed
Follow
Turkish F16’s are reportedly also flying above ISIS-occupied territory, supposedly to monitor what’s going on. - Bloomberg
Precursor to bomb the feth out of ISIS' positions? It's probably in Turkey's best interest to ensure that the Kurds are still relevant in northern Iraq.
MAZAR-I-SHARIF, AFGHANISTAN - In a tragic accident earlier today, aircraft belonging to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) inadvertently killed 51 Afghans near the city of Mazar-i-Sharif while attempting to drop candy to a group of children.
According to accounts from both Afghans and international observers, two NATO aircraft, later identified as American C-130s, made a low pass over a village of several hundred Afghans outside the city.
Approximately 1.4 million M&Ms were to be delivered via Container Delivery System in a single package with a weight of 1500 lbs. Due to a malfunction in the static line, the parachute failed to deploy and the container crashed through the roof of a local school at nearly 100 miles per hour.
Upon impact, the force of the rapidly settling candies caused the sides to explode outward, causing what physics professor Dr. Rosella Schwartz described as “essentially a 360 degree anti-personnel mine full of chocolate flechettes.”
By “flechettes,” Schwartz is referring to the M&Ms’ candy shells, which shattered and spalled upon entering the bodies of the victims and also caused more numerous and severe secondary injuries.
Dr. Manuel Velez of the Red Cross, one of the first medical personnel at the site of the impact, had a similar assessment of the candy shells’ damage.
“I’ve seen a lot of injuries inflicted on civilians by military ordnance, but this was much worse,” Velez said, stooping to change the bandages on one of the victims while pointing out the many blue, green, and yellow splotches.
“The worst were the peanut M&Ms. The soft chocolate acted as a sabot around the peanuts, so basically these things were candy-coated penetrator rounds.”
ISAF spokesperson Col. Mark Marshall, who spoke to reporters today at a press conference in Kabul, said the candy drop was only the latest phase of a new operation called “Reese’s for Peaces.” He added that while ISAF regrets the accidental loss of civilian life, it would not deter them working to relieve the suffering of the Afghan people.
Sources at ISAF headquarters in Kabul said the operation was first proposed by Deputy Commander Gen. Bill Whitehead as a way to help boost the morale of Afghans as western forces began their long-anticipated drawdown.
Whitehead said he first got the idea after reading a book about the 1948 Berlin Airlift. After finishing their cargo deliveries, American pilots would drop pieces of candy to impoverished children, which earned the United States a lot of good publicity.
“Counterinsurgency is all about winning the hearts and minds of the people,” said Whitehead, “and as we transition to a much smaller footprint, the Air Force is going to have to take on some of the roles traditionally filled by soldiers, such as handing out candy.”
In early March, Whitehead gave ISAF the authority to begin planning a series of humanitarian airdrops over population centers in Afghanistan. Operation “Reese’s for Peaces”, referred to informally as “Dessert Storm”, was launched two weeks later with MQ-9 Reapers dropping several tons of licorice on Kandahar.
Over the next few weeks, ISAF warplanes dropped tons of assorted chocolates, sweets, and even ice cream over the war-torn country. Other NATO countries also took part, with French planes dropping bon bons and German planes dropping Bavarian chocolate. The United States, however, is contributing the bulk of the candy being used in the operation.
The incident in Mazar-i-Sharif is unfortunately not the first setback for “Reese’s for Peaces.” Other blunders included a crate-load of Baby Ruth bars being dropped short of its target on March 19 and plowing into a bus full of madrassa students, killing 22. On April 27, several Snickers bars hit a wedding party near Kunduz, killing 35. And on May 8, several packs of Starbursts inadvertently hit an orphanage and killed 8 children and an adorable kitten named Mittens.
Following the press conference, Col. Marshall tried to exit the podium, but tripped and crashed into a group of civilians, killing 9.
MAZAR-I-SHARIF, AFGHANISTAN - In a tragic accident earlier today, aircraft belonging to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) inadvertently killed 51 Afghans near the city of Mazar-i-Sharif while attempting to drop candy to a group of children.
According to accounts from both Afghans and international observers, two NATO aircraft, later identified as American C-130s, made a low pass over a village of several hundred Afghans outside the city.
Approximately 1.4 million M&Ms were to be delivered via Container Delivery System in a single package with a weight of 1500 lbs. Due to a malfunction in the static line, the parachute failed to deploy and the container crashed through the roof of a local school at nearly 100 miles per hour.
Upon impact, the force of the rapidly settling candies caused the sides to explode outward, causing what physics professor Dr. Rosella Schwartz described as “essentially a 360 degree anti-personnel mine full of chocolate flechettes.”
By “flechettes,” Schwartz is referring to the M&Ms’ candy shells, which shattered and spalled upon entering the bodies of the victims and also caused more numerous and severe secondary injuries.
Dr. Manuel Velez of the Red Cross, one of the first medical personnel at the site of the impact, had a similar assessment of the candy shells’ damage.
“I’ve seen a lot of injuries inflicted on civilians by military ordnance, but this was much worse,” Velez said, stooping to change the bandages on one of the victims while pointing out the many blue, green, and yellow splotches.
“The worst were the peanut M&Ms. The soft chocolate acted as a sabot around the peanuts, so basically these things were candy-coated penetrator rounds.”
ISAF spokesperson Col. Mark Marshall, who spoke to reporters today at a press conference in Kabul, said the candy drop was only the latest phase of a new operation called “Reese’s for Peaces.” He added that while ISAF regrets the accidental loss of civilian life, it would not deter them working to relieve the suffering of the Afghan people.
Sources at ISAF headquarters in Kabul said the operation was first proposed by Deputy Commander Gen. Bill Whitehead as a way to help boost the morale of Afghans as western forces began their long-anticipated drawdown.
Whitehead said he first got the idea after reading a book about the 1948 Berlin Airlift. After finishing their cargo deliveries, American pilots would drop pieces of candy to impoverished children, which earned the United States a lot of good publicity.
“Counterinsurgency is all about winning the hearts and minds of the people,” said Whitehead, “and as we transition to a much smaller footprint, the Air Force is going to have to take on some of the roles traditionally filled by soldiers, such as handing out candy.”
In early March, Whitehead gave ISAF the authority to begin planning a series of humanitarian airdrops over population centers in Afghanistan. Operation “Reese’s for Peaces”, referred to informally as “Dessert Storm”, was launched two weeks later with MQ-9 Reapers dropping several tons of licorice on Kandahar.
Over the next few weeks, ISAF warplanes dropped tons of assorted chocolates, sweets, and even ice cream over the war-torn country. Other NATO countries also took part, with French planes dropping bon bons and German planes dropping Bavarian chocolate. The United States, however, is contributing the bulk of the candy being used in the operation.
The incident in Mazar-i-Sharif is unfortunately not the first setback for “Reese’s for Peaces.” Other blunders included a crate-load of Baby Ruth bars being dropped short of its target on March 19 and plowing into a bus full of madrassa students, killing 22. On April 27, several Snickers bars hit a wedding party near Kunduz, killing 35. And on May 8, several packs of Starbursts inadvertently hit an orphanage and killed 8 children and an adorable kitten named Mittens.
Following the press conference, Col. Marshall tried to exit the podium, but tripped and crashed into a group of civilians, killing 9.
Thats funny but I could actually see it happening. Wierder has happened.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reports now that US forces have bombed ISIS artillery positions in Irbil
"U.S. military aircraft have conducted a strike on ISIS artillery that had been used near Irbil, Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said today on Twitter. The artillery had been used against Kurdish forces defending Irbil, near U.S. personnel, the tweet said. (CNN) "
Except he is still backe by a large Shia Majority int he region, and our stated policy is NOT the three state solution but a single state one. That's why it kind of matters.
Plus, Kurds and Turkey are both are friends? Is such a thing "unpossible"?
Plus, Kurds and Turkey are both are friends? Is such a thing "unpossible"?
They are now, as Turkey views the Kurds as a "strategic ally" at this point, with the Islamic State (formerly ISIS) running roughshod over everyone else in the region.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Hundreds of women from the Yazidi religious minority have been taken captive by Sunni militants with "vicious plans," an Iraqi official said Friday, further underscoring the dire plight of Iraq's minorities at the hands of the Islamic State group.
Kamil Amin, the spokesman for Iraq's Human Rights Ministry, said hundreds of Yazidi women below the age of 35 are being held in schools in Iraq's second largest city, Mosul. He said the ministry learned of the captives from their families.
"We think that the terrorists by now consider them slaves and they have vicious plans for them," Amin told The Associated Press. "We think that these women are going to be used in demeaning ways by those terrorists to satisfy their animalistic urges in a way that contradicts all the human and Islamic values."
The U.S. has confirmed that the Islamic State group has kidnapped and imprisoned Yazidi women so that they can be sold or married off to extremist fighters, said a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information came from classified intelligence reports. There was no solid estimate of the number of women victimized, the official said.
BAGHDAD (AP) — Hundreds of women from the Yazidi religious minority have been taken captive by Sunni militants with "vicious plans," an Iraqi official said Friday, further underscoring the dire plight of Iraq's minorities at the hands of the Islamic State group.
Kamil Amin, the spokesman for Iraq's Human Rights Ministry, said hundreds of Yazidi women below the age of 35 are being held in schools in Iraq's second largest city, Mosul. He said the ministry learned of the captives from their families.
"We think that the terrorists by now consider them slaves and they have vicious plans for them," Amin told The Associated Press. "We think that these women are going to be used in demeaning ways by those terrorists to satisfy their animalistic urges in a way that contradicts all the human and Islamic values."
The U.S. has confirmed that the Islamic State group has kidnapped and imprisoned Yazidi women so that they can be sold or married off to extremist fighters, said a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information came from classified intelligence reports. There was no solid estimate of the number of women victimized, the official said.
I try to abstain from outright hating groups of people but ISIS are different. I would not have a problem if someone were to kill every last one of them in unique and novel ways. Hell, I'd probably volunteer to shove I couple into chummed waters full of tiger sharks. (The chum being pork-related...haha, no martyrdom for you!!!)
I won't say it often, but this is a time I agree with the Presidents actions. This has come to a point we can no longer stand by, and I'm glad we're devoting some of our capability. Maybe just the limited strikes that we conduct will be enough to make ISIS back it down a notch, not wanting to reawaken the sleeping bear, so to speak.
djones520 wrote: I won't say it often, but this is a time I agree with the Presidents actions. This has come to a point we can no longer stand by, and I'm glad we're devoting some of our capability. Maybe just the limited strikes that we conduct will be enough to make ISIS back it down a notch, not wanting to reawaken the sleeping bear, so to speak.
at the same time, I think there's far too many guys who were actually there, in Mosul and Tall Afar, and other place in Iraq who are severely disgruntled at this whole situation... with some others getting pissed about the draw downs, and are itching for that call to go in and lay the smack down on these turds.
I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Neither do I, however I was merely suggesting that there are soldiers and former soldiers who would, at least vocally, have no problems going back in.
Can definitely see a sort of "Berlin Airlift" where we get as many Yazidi off of Sinjar mountain, or other isolated Christians that are around that area.
Jihadin wrote: I do not see a justification on putting "Boots on Grounds" in Iraq. Though I can see relocating the Christians being moved to Kuwait and processed to the US as refugee's
Neither do I, however I was merely suggesting that there are soldiers and former soldiers who would, at least vocally, have no problems going back in.
Can definitely see a sort of "Berlin Airlift" where we get as many Yazidi off of Sinjar mountain, or other isolated Christians that are around that area.
Depends on ISIS's AA capabilities. That would require a heavy helicopter foot print, and if they've got SA-7's every fifth man out there, we won't be sending gak in.
I'm pretty anti-intervention - I think we've had enough foreign adventures for a while... but on the other hand, feth these guys. Unlike Syria, where there are no clear good guys, it's pretty clear here that ISIS are pretty unambiguously bad guys, almost cartoonishly so.
I suspect Frazzled will probably disagree with me - I think he's probably the most isolationist person on the forum - but I'm OK with playing Reaper tag with these guys.
djones520 wrote: I won't say it often, but this is a time I agree with the Presidents actions. This has come to a point we can no longer stand by, and I'm glad we're devoting some of our capability. Maybe just the limited strikes that we conduct will be enough to make ISIS back it down a notch, not wanting to reawaken the sleeping bear, so to speak.
I doubt it will be so simple to stop them at this point. But hey, something's better than nothing.
Ouze wrote: I'm pretty anti-intervention - I think we've had enough foreign adventures for a while... but on the other hand, feth these guys. Unlike Syria, where there are no clear good guys, it's pretty clear here that ISIS are pretty unambiguously bad guys, almost cartoonishly so.
I suspect Frazzled will probably disagree with me - I think he's probably the most isolationist person on the forum - but I'm OK with playing Reaper tag with these guys.
While I don't think of myself as a warmonger or agree with the ideas that the US/UK/Canada have to be the world's police force, in this case, I firmly believe that it's in our best interest to intervene...
Right now the greatest threat to global peace & western security is the Islamist. There is no reasoning or negotiating with these melonfethers. If you are "kaafir" (unbeliever), then you must convert or be 'justly killed as an apostate' (murtad)
The Islamists don't and never will recognise other religions like Christianity. They believe that all Jews are their sworn mortal enemy and must die. Women are purely objects and in cases are treated as less than cattle. Even other Muslims are targeted by these gakheads where their belief system opposes the Islamists very narrow views.
Hell, most of their so-called religious values aren't even that, instead being built upon the barbaric practices of medieval tribal traditions.
We've pandered long enough and buried our heads in the sand & ignored just how horrific a "society" the Islamists will build. ISIS's own stated goal is to build a new world-wide Caliphate over the ashes of every non-Muslim empire.
The only real reason they haven't become any kind of real threat yet is that they can't organise and spend the bulk of their time infighting and killing each other.
I say bomb the fethers off the face of the planet and good riddance!
Hell, I want them all dead even if only to protect the relics & treasures of the ancient Middle Eastern civilisations! Think of all the ancient artifacts and histories that have already been lost. Imagine if say Egypt were to ever fall into Islamist hands - they'd burn the museums to the ground and smash every last icon & artifact they could find.
Frazz is not the only anti-interventionist on dakka. The hypocrisy of my country (the UK) and the USA is breath taking. They turned a blind eye to Saddam doing similar activities in the 1980s, but all of a sudden, they take the moral high ground.
It was foreign intervention in Iraq and Syria that caused this mess in the first place. To interfere further is pouring petrol on the flames.
Da Boss wrote: Following this, makes it seem like all the interventions in Iraq were just pissing into the wind.
They were actually counter productive. IF a meaningful and well thought out plan for what to do AFTER victory had been in place and carried out, sure. But without that the world would have been a better place WITH Saddam.
It was foreign intervention in Iraq and Syria that caused this mess in the first place. To interfere further is pouring petrol on the flames.
It was actually poorly planned intervention and war profiteering htat did this. In and of itself the interventions that were carried out might have succeeded if they had planned past 'We Win!'. Look at how a successful post war occupation of a fanatical xenocidal society that believed in suicide attacks such as Japan was carried out, and then look at what was done in Iraq.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Frazz is not the only anti-interventionist on dakka. The hypocrisy of my country (the UK) and the USA is breath taking. They turned a blind eye to Saddam doing similar activities in the 1980s, but all of a sudden, they take the moral high ground.
That's playing a little bit of revisionist history here...
When lives are at stake... so fething what?!?!
Spoiler:
Yeah, he was a bastard... but, for a time, he was our bastard.
Then, when he wasn't, he met the "business end".
Point being, our past actions/dalliances shouldn't really impact our actions today.
In other news... if you have twitter, ISIS started a propaganda "war" with the US with this hashtag:
#AmessagefromISIStoUS
US twitter user hijacked that hashtag in awesome ways:
#AmessagefromUStoISIS
Meh. I don't find the twitter stuff awesome at all.
It's pretty depressing watching this play out. I wonder what the spin will be if ISIS end up in control of Iraq? Be pretty destabilsing for an already unstable reason, and it's hard to believe they'd stop there.
Right now the greatest threat to global peace & western security is the Islamist. There is no reasoning or negotiating with these melonfethers. If you are "kaafir" (unbeliever), then you must convert or be 'justly killed as an apostate' (murtad)
Not exactly true. Non-believers can pay a tax (jizya) which ISIS has implemented in some areas they control.
Right now the greatest threat to global peace & western security is the Islamist. There is no reasoning or negotiating with these melonfethers. If you are "kaafir" (unbeliever), then you must convert or be 'justly killed as an apostate' (murtad)
Not exactly true. Non-believers can pay a tax (jizya) which ISIS has implemented in some areas they control.
Yeah, that is the moderate belief. They are going with that for now, because they need the money. Take a look at Afghanistan in the 90's to find out what happens once they get total power.
Even the strict Sharia law proclamations they are making are revenue sources right now. "No Smoking" translates to "No Smoking unless you are paying off the local ISIS head guy" for example.
The amounts they collect in jizya are nothing compared to the banks (and other sources) they knock off and the revenue they are getting from kidnapping for ransom.
Jizya is really not a moderate concept at this point either. It has rarely been implemented in modern times, and when it has it tends to be the nut jobs doing so.
We need to beat their forces, and then we need to address the causes of the wretched ideology that could lead people to take those sorts of actions.
Man. I'm not normally the type to be all "rah rah vengeance" on the internet, but some things need to be stopped.
Edit: I say we, but unfortunately there probably won't be any Irish troops there. Neutrality is a nice idea, except in situations like this. We already let US planes land in Shannon, we're not neutral, but we won't do anything about this anyhow, and we'll claim the moral high ground for our neutrality. Blech.
Surely the security council wouldn't veto action against them now?
djones520 wrote: Hearing news reporting today, their beheading children over the conversion to Islam issue now.
Children.
Is there any doubt we should be delivering every means of death we have to these people now?
Plenty of children CHILDREN killed in Rwanda and other places too. Didn't mean we jumped in and started raining death and destruction. Hell, how many strikes have we executed against Boku Haram or Assad's forces in Syria?
Just for gits and shiggles, what do you guys think are the objectives (from a national/strategic level, what is the US trying to accomplish) of these strikes? What should they be? How do you think 'success' should be measured? What other elements of power can/should we be using to achieve our strategic objectives/goals?
Should the President (or Sec State or Sec Def) be on TV letting us know what these objectives are, tell us what mechanisms they are using to achieve them, why they think those mechanisms will work, and how they intend to measure if they have worked?
I'm just saying, I see a lot of folks* who claim the US interferes all over, and now we are being called on to interfere without our leadership explaining why THIS is the time to do so. I see lots of folks* who think we should cut foreign aid and focus on 'home' who are now calling for strikes, when in many cases a well planned and executed aid and mil-to-mil program can preclude groups like this from coming into power.
Now, I'm not an isolationist. And I am a firm believer that some people should be made room temp, and a believer that there are things worth killing for (and even dying for though frankly I prefer the killing to the dying).
But I'm not convinced we are doing more than Something for the sake of Doing Something!
* Folks not necessarily on Dakka or in this topic, but on other forums I frequent
djones520 wrote: Hearing news reporting today, their beheading children over the conversion to Islam issue now.
Children.
Is there any doubt we should be delivering every means of death we have to these people now?
Well, gee, I suppose that depends on if we're all still saying 'WTF does the Baron know? He just wants to get us involved in another war, F him'.
As I said before, it's easy to say not to get involved when it's not your kids they're slaughtering. So they went from Muslim kids to Christian kids, and now we're offended? Really?
Wait until they draw and quarter an American kid on live TV. Because they will if they get the chance, just for the lolz.
These are the guys that (according to rumor) Hamas field commanders in Syria were even willing to temporarily ally with Israel AGAINST. The ones too savage for AQ and the Taliban? These are the guys, and they've got quite a bit of momentum going.
Maybe you all are slowly beginning to comprehend just how bad this is currently, and might even have an inking now of how bad it could still get. And make no mistake, it has a the potential to get very, very bad indeed.
A lot of you are comparing this to the Taliban. These guys will make them look positively chivalrous.
The world is going to get very dark in the near future. Not all of us will make it through the night.
"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." - Gen Dwight Eisenhower.
I do not disagree with CaptJake that a solid plan needs ot be devised, but it needs to be one that does not just end with victory.
I'll set out an easy first objective that needs to be achieved immediately, though,
This is the first time I am posting in the off-topic forum so please bear with me.
I want to know how many of you have watched the isis propaganda/recruitment video in its full length. And by that I mean the 1 hour one.
I am going to post a link to it but am already warning those about to follow it in advance, that it contains many extremely graphic scenes and will leave you sick to your stomach, though of course the gore you will see here is the sort common in "real wars" and not the explicit type you may find on certain *cough* imageboards.
If any admin has a problem with me posting the link, please let me know and I will remove it.
The reason I want to share this is because I want more people to wake up to what is really happening in Iraq now.
Everyone keeps crying about Gaza and the international media is full of it (and ebola) when in reality the actual horror is happening at a scale a thousand times larger in Iraq and most people do not have a clear picture of what is actually going on. So I just want more people to watch this video and realize why we must wipe ISIS from the face of this planet as soon as possible.
a bunch of unarmed kids are probably not on their way to join military units, and are just randomly being gunned down on the freeway.
They honestly seem to think its okay to kill people who are not them, and they are doing allahs work and will be rewarded. They honestly should be feared.
The content of the music going with the video is even creepier.
its also a modern rosetta stone so if our world gets wiped out people or aliens, or whatever can use it to figure out of some of the worlds major languages.
It also has instructions for rebuilding society from an apocalypse.
and not letting humanity go past 500,000,000 in population.
I often wonder if there were less people in the world would we value each others existence and possible individuality more than we value our need to belong to something to feel special and then force our ideals on each other.
I often wonder if there were less people in the world would we value each others existence and possible individuality more than we value our need to belong to something to feel special and then force our ideals one each other.
I think, honestly if there were less people, things would be worse, rather than better... Because there'd be more reason to defend "us" against "them". I mean, look at all of the wars prior to say... 1200, and see how many of them were about that "us vs. them" mentality as opposed to where we're at now, where there are so many people, and depending on where one lives, there's some modicum of respect for the individual.
