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.

 Frazzled wrote:


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

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

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.

 Pacific wrote:

Interesting article in the Guardian this morning about that subject

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

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?

Deploy George Clooney and Matt Damon!

 djones520 wrote:

Has anyone seen any word on if the international community needs to worry about all of the history there?

From last month:

http://www.aina.org/news/20140517025551.htm

I think you can judge on your own what will happen to the Mesopotamian archeological sites.

Disgusting...

Sounds about right for a war torn country where one element is looking to eradicate anything not in line with their philosophy.

How will current events affect the Saudis and the peninsula at large? I under stand that Saudi and their direct neighbours are Sunni majority.

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.

Saudi Arabia will literally have quite a few nations putting "boots" on ground there if ISIS and Al-Baghdadi wants to keep rolling beyond the border

So in other words, the Middle East is a giant clusterfeth of medieval ideologies and mass religious stupidity?!

Experiment 626 wrote:
So in other words, the Middle East is a giant clusterfeth of medieval ideologies and mass religious stupidity?!

And oil.

 Allod wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

Interesting article in the Guardian this morning about that subject

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/sectarian-myth-of-iraq

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).

Turkey is in NATO.

 Jihadin wrote:
Turkey is in NATO.

You guys still have nukes there, don't you.

Yes.


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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

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.

So we have at the moment.

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...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

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.

Somalia

 Jihadin wrote:
Somalia

Indeed. Case Proof one on why the US should never intervene militarily unless its in its absolute vital military interests.
Also Lebanon.

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.

Jihadin wrote:Turkey is in NATO.

Yes, regrettably so.

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.