Iraqi civil war.

[Seattleite]

Hey remember that Shia-Sunni powder keg we lit in Iraq? Well, the flame just went in the barrel and it's too late to stop it from going off now.

[Vapymid]

Yes, isn't it wonderful?

 

These ISIS people are part of the rebels fighting Assad in Syria and are probably supported by Saudis.

 

They are considered too extreme by Al Qaeda (must be quite an achievement!).

 

To counter them the Iraqi federal government will probably need support of both Syria's Assad and of Iran, which will mean that the US will likely find itself having to support both (but what will they do about the Saudis?)

 

Already Iran and Turkey (hardly allies!) are finding themselves on the same side (enemy of my enemy etc.)

 

The Shia in Iraq will now have to take arms (they will be slaughtered if they won't) and the civil war has already begun.

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

Ah, disavowed by Al Queda. For "strict" Sharia, dismemberments and public crucifictions. Aren't they a lovely bunch? Yes, but Iraq is just the powder keg. Are we forgetting about the room it's sitting in? A room filled with other powder kegs?

[Vapymid]

Oh, joy..

 

15:24:

 

Iran, which is a majority Shia Muslim country, is so alarmed by the gains of the Sunni insurgents in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington to help the Iraqi government fight back, a senior Iranian official tells Reuters.

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

That's one. Then there's the rest of the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds in the middle east who may well come back their sects up.

[ThePest179]

Hey, not to nitpick, but this was part of why I made the Iraq War thread (what an embarrassment!). If anyone wants to keep posting here though, you're free to do so.

 

Will get some news sources of my own soon.

[Tsar Alexander]

I was wrong in immediately assuming Baghdad would become the next Saigon--apparently (some of) the local Shiite population is digging in it's heels and ready for a fight against the Sunni radicals.

 

I actually consider the deployment of some Iranian special forces to Iraq a plus, I don't want Iraq turning into another Afghanistan (meaning, a base of terrorist operations).

 

That whole region is unraveling, you might see in the next decade or two redrawn borders. "Nations" like Iraq were just artificial constructs of Ottoman and British/French imperialism to begin with, and the lack of an ideological cold war leaves little reason for these "nations" to exist anymore.

 

So much for the "War on Terror" making us any safer

[ThePest179]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/iraqi-military-hellfires-battle-isis/story?id=24248493

[Seattleite]

Fucktastic. So we're going to "just train" the Iraqi army that doesn't give a FUCK about Iraq (the country's bullshit anyway and they know it). But guess who just allied with the Shiite Iraqi army. Soleimani. I'll let The Associated Press explain it.

 

"Iraqi security officials said that the U.S. government was notified in advance of the visit by Soleimani, whose forces are a secretive branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guard that in the past has organized Shiite militias to target U.S. troops in Iraq and, more recently, was involved in helping Syria's President Bashar Assad in his fight against Sunni rebels."

 

Oh goodie. Now they get to have the training and knowledge passed on to them by their Iraqi allies we're presently "just training". So we're indirectly training these guys. So they can then use it against our troops in Syria and Afghanistan. That's fantastic.

 

Don't you just love how it always turns out our middle-eastern enemy of the week got money or training or weapons or some shit from us? That their military always gets a lot of money from our military, and we add fuel to that fire by giving them bribes, or training their allies? We are, indirectly, fighting ourselves. It's a game of SOLITAIRE. And we're LOSING.

 

You know what, fuck "we". I'm not associating myself with these ratfuck meatheads any more. The US military machine. THEY are losing a game of solitaire. Not "we".

[Icebox]

Great, another Theocracy in the making.

[ThePest179]

You know what, fuck "we". I'm not associating myself with these ratfuck meatheads any more. The US military machine. THEY are losing a game of solitaire. Not "we".

 

Freeman would be proud of you.

 

http://www.whdh.com/story/25836670/iraq-syria-conflicts-merge-feed-off-each-other

 

I think one of the big problems with Sunni terror groups is that they're being funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other states of the Gulf. So to sum up the situation, we're being forced to choose between our "allies" (who have really helped terror groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS) and Iran (explicitly anti-American and anti-Israeli). Fucking wonderful, isn't it? Makes you almost wish Saddam Hussein was still alive.

[Seattleite]

"Hey, that Hussein wackjob is dangerous! He's standing on top on a powder keg!"

 

"I know! Let's burn him out!"

[Vapymid]

So they can then use it against our troops in Syria and Afghanistan. That's fantastic.

 

Well, there are no US troops in Syria and no Iranian troops either in Syria or in Afghanistan. It is unlikely that the US troops will meet Iranian troops on the battlefield in any foreseeable future, if ever.

 

Don't you just love how it always turns out our middle-eastern enemy of the week got money or training or weapons or some shit from us? That their military always gets a lot of money from our military, and we add fuel to that fire by giving them bribes, or training their allies? We are, indirectly, fighting ourselves.

....The US military machine. THEY are losing a game of solitaire. Not "we".

 

I think you are being somewhat unjust blaming it solely on the military. The military needs to fight someone, it's their way of self-preservation. As long as there are threats and wars, they get the funding. Therefore, the military will gladly go wherever and whenever the politicians would send them to.

 

But it's the politicians who are setting the military up for failure by sending them to fight unwinnable wars.

 

Regards

[Vapymid]

That whole region is unraveling, you might see in the next decade or two redrawn borders.

 

There was a slight chance of Iraq continuing as a unified country a couple of years ago when a Sunni-Shia coalition, Al Iraqia, almost won the elections. In fact they did win but then the Maliki clique fixed the election results and reinstalled themselves as the ruling party (with the US, unfortunately, closing their eyes on these shenanigans). When that happened, it became clear that the country is not going to stay intact.

 

Regards

[Seattleite]

The problem isn't just what wars. It's how they handle themselves. Some of their choices are just STUPID. Like in Afghanistan, bribing the Taliban to let them through peaceably so they can go fight... The Taliban. And what, exactly, do you think they're spending the bribes on? Food, clothes, medicine? No, it's weapons. To fight US troops with.

 

And if the military-industrial complex wasn't so ungodly powerful in this country, we wouldn't have so many wars. The politicians sold out to them, not the other way around. The companies that supply the military are flying high on all the contracts they're getting, and giving the politicians "campaign donations" to make sure they get more war and thus more money for themselves. Which is pretty daft, even for short-term greed, a parasite won't live long if it kills its host.

[ThePest179]

It is unlikely that the US troops will meet Iranian troops on the battlefield in any foreseeable future, if ever.

 

Regards

 

You underestimate the racism and paranoia of more than a few on the right wing.

 

In any case though, similar to Syria, the problem here isn't ISIS (or to be more specific, the one where the problem came from), it's Maliki and Assad who are at fault. ISIS simply took advantage of an already chaotic situation.

[Vapymid]

it's Maliki and Assad who are at fault. ISIS simply took advantage of an already chaotic situation.

 

Agree, generally. However, ISIS are not leaders - for now they are the tools. There are people with local power who became frustrated with the central regime and decided to unleash "the dogs", perhaps, to force the issue of the country's break up and to carve out their piece of it.

 

The main problem though is that in such situations, the tools have a habit of getting out of control and turning against their "masters". We'll have to wait an see.

 

@Seattleite - if you meant "military-industrial" under "military" in you previous post then I agree.

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

Concern is necessary:http://www.vocativ.com/world/iraq-world/saudi-arabia-next-isis-conquest/

[Tsar Alexander]

That whole region is unraveling, you might see in the next decade or two redrawn borders.

 

There was a slight chance of Iraq continuing as a unified country a couple of years ago when a Sunni-Shia coalition, Al Iraqia, almost won the elections. In fact they did win but then the Maliki clique fixed the election results and reinstalled themselves as the ruling party (with the US, unfortunately, closing their eyes on these shenanigans). When that happened, it became clear that the country is not going to stay intact.

 

Regards

 

You also see Syria locked in a brutal civil war though. Libya has it's own crisis right now, and other conflicts in and around the region have the potential to ignite in the future, though not quite yet.

 

Most of those "nations" we know today in the mid-east, are byproducts of either Ottoman or European imperialism.

 

I would argue that for many places in the middle east and Africa, the "nation-state" model is not even the best approach. Where do you draw the lines? Keep in mind that pockets of populations exist everywhere in many country's. It might be that some sort of confederation of tribes/city states might be a better option.

[ThePest179]

Well, fuck:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Jihadists-fighting-in-Syria-Iraq-declare-caliphate/articleshow/37478707.cms