Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 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.

And now you understand.

So in fact the "plan" is to plunge the whole world into environmental and economic devastation , so as to not "break things" over here.




One suspects that, quite literally, there'll be some fallout from this line of thought.

Not seeing what you're referring to.

Before Hussein shiites and sunnis were killing each other.
After Hussein shiites and sunnies are killing each other.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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?

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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?

Low Coffee Indicator light is blaring RED

Jebus.

I took Tutsis and Hutus as
Zulu's exterminating the British

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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]

We like to kill each other over small things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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?

Low Coffee Indicator light is blaring RED

Jebus.

I took Tutsis and Hutus as
Zulu's exterminating the British

"It was a short box .45 Martini Henry miracle."
"And a bayonet, with some guts behind it, sir."

Drone strikes are not going to hold up ISIS
Iran might actually go in Iraq to deal with the problem

 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.

Wiener Party in 2014! A blanket in every kennel!

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.

Believe ISIS has the finance, capabilities, and the dedication to pull off an attack on the US.

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.

Just had to mention the border eh
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/16/flow-immigrants-into-us-shows-no-signs-slowing-down/

ISIL is one group among many that can or already have people here. Frankly its not a short list and why we need to fix that.

You put the deaths caused by MS 13 and the cartels in the US every month and thats multiple terrorist attacks here.

 Jihadin wrote:
Drone strikes are not going to hold up ISIS
Iran might actually go in Iraq to deal with the problem

Allegedly a couple Quds Force battalions are already fighting there.

Probably in sterile uniforms

What I am finding funny is how the Admin is acting suprise and shock that this is happening while us "Boots" knew this was going to happen

 Jihadin wrote:
Probably in sterile uniforms

What I am finding funny is how the Admin is acting suprise and shock that this is happening while us "Boots" knew this was going to happen

They appear to act like that a lot.

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

Any oil there ????

 AgeOfEgos wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

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.

See now you're just thinking logically. Stop it!

 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.

And Turkey would never agree to a "Kurdistan", it would cause so much strife in their country.

There is that. Though the Kurdish region apparently is already semi-autonomous anyway, owing to the weakness of the Baghdad government.

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.