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.

Task Force Smith was sent in to help South Korea. Then it snowballed into a UN effort

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Nah, we'll take a pass.

Let Obama and Putin talk it out. It might not go well for the EU but its Obama that be trying to get what's best for EU from Putin.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Exactly.

Wo...

Turkey's AKP Spokesman: Iraq's Kurds Have Right to Decide Their Future

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.

LOL Holy Heck I was right

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.

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

 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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

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:

http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2014/03/2014324115034955220.htm

 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.

 whembly wrote:
Wo...

Turkey's AKP Spokesman: Iraq's Kurds Have Right to Decide Their Future

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.

Well thats new. Hurray!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 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.

None of this happened overnight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Allod wrote:

 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.

As Turkes put it. back in the day... (haha)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXac_Z6o2E8

The Kurdish minority issue streams into that. Turkey always had poor minority rights not just with Kurds- for instance see treatment of Alevi's.

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.

Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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.

 whembly wrote:
Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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

 44Ronin wrote:


But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place

Wait a minute!

I thought there weren't any WMDs in Iraq??!?

 44Ronin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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.

44Ronin, are you a school teacher or a university student ?

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:


But please continue with the world threat narrative that led to this invasion and occupation disaster in the first place

Wait a minute!

I thought there weren't any WMDs in Iraq??!?

They aren't weapons if they don't work.

And how very kind of the coalition to leave them lying there in bunkers undealt with.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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.

 44Ronin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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

 Jihadin wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ruh oh... Iraq crisis: Isis jihadists 'seize Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons stockpile'

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.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/sunni-extremists-in-iraq-occupy-saddams-chemical-weapons-facility-1403190600

]"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?