Canada should be giving aid to the Yazidi who are starving to death be

[dre]

Good on you!

To be honest I think its more garden variety stupidity than racism... The idea that someone would make up their mind about 4 million people based on a few stories on the news that center on various flash-points. I watch you-tube a lot and If I was stupid I would think that every single Russian gets drunk, and involved in violent road rage incidents every day .

Real racism at LEAST requires coherent thought. When someone says something like "I saw some _____ on tv".... "Man I dont like ____s", a good assumption is that person is too stupid to even BE a racist.

[WestCoastRunner]

To be honest I think its more garden variety stupidity than racism...

Maybe so.....

[Hal 9000]

To be honest I think its more garden variety stupidity than racism... The idea that someone would make up their mind about 4 million people based on a few stories on the news that center on various flash-points. I watch you-tube a lot and If I was stupid I would think that every single Russian gets drunk, and involved in violent road rage incidents every day .

Real racism at LEAST requires coherent thought. When someone says something like "I saw some _____ on tv".... "Man I dont like ____s", a good assumption is that person is too stupid to even BE a racist.

It's not racism because they are not a "race".

And...I'm not making up my mind about 4 million people based on TV interviews, however, when you see Palestinian representatives, Politicians, regular people of Gaza, and palestinian people and supporters from other countries all saying the same things - it actually broadens the picture quite a bit. I don't dislike them, i'm just not gonna pity them the way you people do.

[Derek 2.0]

To prevent a genocide.

I think American forces should have left both places. NATO should protect them with air cover and with supplies. Its the least they should do considering ISIS is using captured NATO supplies to attack them.

NATO didn't fight in Iraq...................But the Americans did, and if the Iraqi Government had of agreed to a SOFA with the Obama administration (allowing US forces to remain), Iraq wouldn't be in this mess.............Do you feel NATO should remain in Afghanistan, when the time comes, to prevent a similar outcome?

As to providing "air cover" and "supplies", that alone will not defeat ISIS.........Kurdish forces equipped with small arms will not defeat ISIS armed with modern tanks, armoured personal carriers, rockets, mortars etc........Nor will the Iraqi army.........Already ISIS has control of the Mosul dam, which controls a large portion of Iraqi fresh water and electrical power (to say nothing of the threat of breaching it to cause widespread destruction downstream) and is circling the Iraqi army around Baghdad..........it's very probable that in a mater of days, ISIS will be able to lay siege to the capital.......once Baghdad falls, that's it.

At this point, to prevent a further disaster, I don't see how the Obama administration can keep "boots on the ground" out of the equation.......the Americans have ~10k personal in Kuwait and ~2000 Marines in the Gulf........Of course said forces could be used to pull Americans and other Nationals out of the country before total collapse:

Of course, the entire game changes if Iran enters the equation........but of course, that could start a regional war with the other Arab Gulf States....

Edited August 10, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Bonam]

What is the difference between thousands of innocent civilians stranded and surrounded on a mountain in Iraq and thousands of innocent civilians stranded and surrounded on a piece of land in Gaza?

What about civilians "stranded" in Canada?

The difference in conditions and dangers faced by Yazidi in Iraq and Arabs in Gaza is like night and day. Members of one group face an approximately 1/2000 chance of accidentally being killed in air strikes against militants that are among them. Meanwhile the other group stands on the brink of extermination. That is the difference, duh.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Bonam

[G Huxley]

Derek ok yeah technically NATO didn't invade Iraq, just most of the most powerful members did. The US, UK, I think Germany provided some troops, Italy, Spain, Poland etc. etc.

No I repeat the US should pull its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't need troops to provide air cover for the Kurds.

"As to providing "air cover" and "supplies", that alone will not defeat ISIS........."

Defeating ISIS is not the objective. The objective is containment, as the US did to Saddam in the 90s.

Edited August 10, 2014 by G Huxley

[Derek 2.0]

Defeating ISIS is not the objective. The objective is containment, as the US did to Saddam in the 90s.

I am glad defeating ISIS is not the objective, since the operation at present certainly will not do that.

As to containment, that too will not work. The containment of Saddam and the containment of ISIS are very dissimilar; the containment of Saddam was intent on preventing him from posing a threat to his neighbours, coupled with removing his ability to use air power against the insurgencies in his North and South.

ISIS is not containable, fore it is not a despotic regime, but an ideology supported directly and indirectly by a growing segment of Sunnis within the region……airstrikes alone can’t contain a dogma that is intent on creating a Caliphate over most of the Middle East………..Airstrikes might slow it’s armies in a conventional sense, but then ISIS reverts back to its infantile roots and continues..

Once Iraq (or the majority of it) falls, the next target will be Jordan….Then Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Emirates….Then of course Israel and/or Iran……but somewhere along the line we will see a regional war ignite in the region between Sunnis and Shia Muslims….

The only possible way to dissuade this currently successful and growing ideology is to demonstrate through the use of force to the majority of the population that it’s leaders and the belief itself is an apostasy to Sunni Islam by defeating it in the areas from where it gains it's strength…..well also offering safety and security to foster an alternative among the populace….That of course would require a commitment that I don’t feel any Western Democracy is prepared to make…..

Edited August 10, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[G Huxley]

I agree with you on the problem of airstrikes attacking irregular forces like ISIS. However containing ISIS from invading Kurdistan is realistic, and really simply requires a well supplied Peshmerga with air power to cover against any armour ISIS throws at them.

Re-invading Iraq isn't going to accomplish anything, it will just create the same problem when the west inevitably has to pull out because it literally can't afford to permanently garrison the country.

As for the rest of Iraq, it might actually be good for the Saudis and Iranians to go at it. I sound pretty cynical at this point, but the root of this problem is religious sectarianism coupled with oil money. The root of the problem needs to be addressed and that is addiction to Middle East oil. Until that is addressed everything is simply dressing the symptoms while ignoring the deep underlying root cause of the problem.

[Derek 2.0]

I agree with you on the problem of airstrikes attacking irregular forces like ISIS. However containing ISIS from invading Kurdistan is realistic, and really simply requires a well supplied Peshmerga with air power to cover against any armour ISIS throws at them.

Air strikes alone won't help the Kurds.......the Kurds can't hope to defeat ISIS with small arms.......They would need modern and more powerful weapons, but more importantly Western Forces to train them how to both use them and employ them correctly.

Re-invading Iraq isn't going to accomplish anything, it will just create the same problem when the west inevitably has to pull out because it literally can't afford to permanently garrison the country.

I agree that it would likely accomplish little, not for lack of money, but lack of will.

As for the rest of Iraq, it might actually be good for the Saudis and Iranians to go at it. I sound pretty cynical at this point, but the root of this problem is religious sectarianism coupled with oil money. The root of the problem needs to be addressed and that is addiction to Middle East oil. Until that is addressed everything is simply dressing the symptoms while ignoring the deep underlying root cause of the problem.

I agree on letting them sort out their own differences, but geopolitical realities won't allow it..........simply put, a regional war could start long before the World has found a new source of fuel for it's economic engine......such a sudden and drastic change will be the start of the Third World War.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[G Huxley]

"Air strikes alone won't help the Kurds.......the Kurds can't hope to defeat ISIS with small arms.......They would need modern and more powerful weapons, but more importantly Western Forces to train them how to both use them and employ them correctly."

Yes that is what I am suggesting.

"I agree that it would likely accomplish little, not for lack of money, but lack of will."

Nietzsche what you're talking about is the usual stab in the back theory. Permanently garrisoning everywhere where a garrison isn't wanted. And the lack of money is a major factor. The US debt has utterly skyrocketed after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"I agree on letting them sort out their own differences, but geopolitical realities won't allow it..........simply put, a regional war could start long before the World has found a new source of fuel for it's economic engine......such a sudden and drastic change will be the start of the Third World War."

Doubt it. Third World War is if the Russians are in conflict with the States. Right now Iran and the Saudis are already fighting a proxy war covering much of the Middle East. It might be reasonable just to have them fight it out with each other directly. Wow that's pretty harsh, but seriously the West has to stop babying Saudi Arabia. Its the Saudi oil money behind these ISIS assholes.

[Rue]

I love it when the same people who lecture about stereotyping about Palestinians are the very same people who make stereotypes on this forum about Jews, Zionists and Israelis.

Dre you are in zero position to lecture anyone on stereotyping or racism or any of the other pro Hamas supporters on this board.

In a poll taken by the Washington Institute for New East Policy in the second week of June this year, less than 30% of Palestinians polled supported a two state solution with the majority favouring wiping out Israel as a Jewish state.

Ironically the same group want a ceasefire and want to non violently negotiate an end to Israel where possible according to the same survey.

Other polls taken by the Palestinian Authority consistently show the majority of West Bankers believe in terrorism being necessary and not recognizing a Jewish state.

The collective psyche in the Arab world is such that it never moves from the concept of denying a Jewish state but it will every time violence does not work cause them to become unhappy about using violence but they never give up the concept of doing away with Israel. Its just not a reality the Arab world can embrace.

Will it ever? I would argue to break that psychological impasse we need a drastic change in how the majority of Muslims interpret the Koran. What is also interesting is the polls show whether a Muslim is educated or not, that psychic barrier of denying a Jewish state continues.

The so called progressive Muslim movement that denounces extremism and does recognize a Jewish right to a state is present but usually its spokespersons are a minority and certainly you will not see a Muslim come on this forum and say they are Muslim, criticize extreme Islam and support an Israeli stat's right to exist.

It won't happen.

I would also argue, that I believe Muslims will use Anglo names on this forum to hide their Muslim identities when supporting Hamas.

You will see we Jews openly identify ourselves and our beliefs but you don't see it from Muslims on this forum when discussing the Middle East conflict.

Once we are at it, the majority of Israelis over and over again when polled favour a two state solution, the majority of Palestinians do not. Go look it up yourself.

In regards to the Kurds, the reason Turkey turned on Israel was because Israel supported the Kurds and still do.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Rue

[Derek 2.0]

Yes that is what I am suggesting.

So you agree that American/Western forces are required on the ground to help the Kurds counter ISIS in Northern Iraq……..Now what of the Iraqi army?

Nietzsche what you're talking about is the usual stab in the back theory. Permanently garrisoning everywhere where a garrison isn't wanted. And the lack of money is a major factor. The US debt has utterly skyrocketed after the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

At this point, I doubt both the Kurds or the Iraqi Government would reject an American offer to deploy ground troops.

Doubt it. Third World War is if the Russians are in conflict with the States.

...and Europe, China, India, Pakistan etc............If a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran were to take place, restricting or stopping the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the World, rest assured, after the Global economy tanks, the varying factions will go to war over the remaining energy resources on the planet.

"When the oil stops, everything stops"

[Bonam]

...and Europe, China, India, Pakistan etc............If a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran were to take place, restricting or stopping the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the World, rest assured, after the Global economy tanks, the varying factions will go to war over the remaining energy resources on the planet.

Hardly. There's enough oil and gas elsewhere in the world. Price of oil would probably double. We'd be paying $3 or $4/L at the pump. Consumer goods would cost more. Russia would jack up the cost of oil and gas exports to Europe, and Europe would pay more. Alternative energy technologies would emerge to fill any gap more quickly. That's about it.

[Big Guy]

...

I would also argue, that I believe Muslims will use Anglo names on this forum to hide their Muslim identities when supporting Hamas.

You will see we Jews openly identify ourselves and our beliefs but you don't see it from Muslims on this forum when discussing the Middle East conflict.

...

That is a very interesting view. I would like to hear (see) that argument.

[Derek 2.0]

Hardly. There's enough oil and gas elsewhere in the world. Price of oil would probably double. We'd be paying $3 or $4/L at the pump. Consumer goods would cost more. Russia would jack up the cost of oil and gas exports to Europe, and Europe would pay more. Alternative energy technologies would emerge to fill any gap more quickly. That's about it.

The World’s energy infrastructure would take generations to change to alternative fuels……as to the importance of Middle Eastern oil on the World’s economy, if doing without was a plausible option, the World would have long since divorced itself from the region……

[Bonam]

The World’s energy infrastructure would take generations to change to alternative fuels……as to the importance of Middle Eastern oil on the World’s economy, if doing without was a plausible option, the World would have long since divorced itself from the region……

Not really. In many political circles in the US, Canadian oil sands seem an unacceptable alternative because of the perceived environmental damage. The Western world loves buying middle eastern oil so it can pretend it is saving the environment by not exploiting energy sources at home. The reality is there is more than enough oil and gas in North America (along with Russia, Australia, Africa, South America, etc) to supply not only domestic needs but those of the world.

[Derek 2.0]

Not really. In many political circles in the US, Canadian oil sands seem an unacceptable alternative because of the perceived environmental damage. The Western world loves buying middle eastern oil so it can pretend it is saving the environment by not exploiting energy sources at home. The reality is there is more than enough oil and gas in North America (along with Russia, Australia, Africa, South America, etc) to supply not only domestic needs but those of the world.

I do not disagree that there are alternative sources of energy, but increased exploration, production and creating the infrastructure to deliver these alternative sources, even with a concerted effort to a degree sufficient to replace Middle Eastern oil, are decades away...If a regional war within the Gulf were to take place, large enough to interrupt both the production and delivery of oil, within ~6 months (based on the sizes of most countries National Reserves) the World economy would take a drastic hit.

You speak of Europe; there is no doubt that Russia would raise the prices of petroleum and natural gas, and those European nations that could, would pay it. Those countries that could not would freeze and starve in the dark. Not to be forgotten though, an emboldened Russia, by an influx of capital, both financial and political, would most certainly implement its designs on reuniting ethnic Russians in other Eastern European nations…….outside of War, there is nothing Europe could do to stop them….

Then there is China, which relies heavily upon Middle Eastern oil…..there is no doubt that it would have to secure a safe alternative, a finite alternative that other Asian powers would also be vying for..........you couple this with nuclear India and Pakistan, countries that like China, are also in drastic need of securing fresh water and food......and you have the likely focal point of the next World War...........

[G Huxley]

"So you agree that American/Western forces are required on the ground to help the Kurds counter ISIS in Northern Iraq……..Now what of the Iraqi army?"

What I am suggesting is that the US di exactly what it did for Kurdistan during the 1990s. I'm not talking about a boots on the ground invasion of Iraq.

Even easier if Kurdistan declares independence and it will soon it will no longer be in Iraq, although it effectively hasn't been for more than the last 2 decades.

"At this point, I doubt both the Kurds or the Iraqi Government would reject an American offer to deploy ground troops."

The Kurds wouldn't. The Iraqi government might.

"...and Europe, China, India, Pakistan etc............If a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran were to take place, restricting or stopping the flow of Middle Eastern oil to the rest of the World, rest assured, after the Global economy tanks, the varying factions will go to war over the remaining energy resources on the planet."

I doubt it anymore than the oil crisis of the 70s caused world war.

Really the root of the problem is addiction to Middle Eastern oil. Any solution that doesn't take into at its core a solution to do so is simply treating the symptoms of the disease, while ignoring its root.

[Bonam]

I agree that there would be considerable economic strain as oil prices would probably about double. But the world's major powers (those that would have to be involved in direct conflict to make a world war) know that the very last thing they want to do is go to war with other major powers. Russia and the US are not gonna be fighting each other directly in an "all out" military fashion. Neither is China and the US. Nor Russia and China. Nor Europe and Russia, or Europe and China. Or, for completeness, Europe and the US. That pretty much rules out any world war.

[Derek 2.0]

I agree that there would be considerable economic strain as oil prices would probably about double. But the world's major powers (those that would have to be involved in direct conflict to make a world war) know that the very last thing they want to do is go to war with other major powers. Russia and the US are not gonna be fighting each other directly in an "all out" military fashion. Neither is China and the US. Nor Russia and China. Nor Europe and Russia, or Europe and China. Or, for completeness, Europe and the US. That pretty much rules out any world war.

The world powers, when faced with certain economic collapse of their own nations, with all the ensuing civil “discomfort”, will most certainly choose the default gamble that is instilled in man’s natural psyche….survival of the fittest.

As to the United States (and the Western Hemisphere in general), I’ve little doubt that they are the best insulated from such a global calamity, as I doubt that they would instigate such a conflict, but it is a certainty that at some point, the United States, like in previous conflicts, would be dragged in.

You discount this possibility, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would have you both ponder and answer this:

In your view, why is China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea etc. not only replacing and modernizing their militaries, but also increasing their nation’s ability to conduct expeditionary warfare on a global scale? China alone has been orienteering their military, by both new equipment and basing agreements with other nations, a direct path to both the Middle East and East Africa…….A clear measure to both influence and protect what they see as a vital national interest.

[Derek 2.0]

What I am suggesting is that the US di exactly what it did for Kurdistan during the 1990s. I'm not talking about a boots on the ground invasion of Iraq.

Even easier if Kurdistan declares independence and it will soon it will no longer be in Iraq, although it effectively hasn't been for more than the last 2 decades.

That's all well and good, but the Kurds alone are not capable of defeating ISIS.

The Kurds wouldn't. The Iraqi government might.

Both are already asking for such help.......as I said a few days ago, I wouldn't be surprised if US special forces weren't already on the ground in a limited, covert capacity.

I doubt it anymore than the oil crisis of the 70s caused world war.

The length of the embargo was measured in months until a resumption to normalcy, and in such a short period of time, the impact was felt in both the West and East……..of course the level of consumption then, was drastically less than it is today………A regional war, devoid of intervention by outside actors, would last generations.

[G Huxley]

"That's all well and good, but the Kurds alone are not capable of defeating ISIS."

Again defeating ISIS is not the objective. Keeping ISIS out of Kurdistan is, and I think the Kurds are capable with air cover and proper supplies.

"The length of the embargo was measured in months until a resumption to normalcy, and in such a short period of time, the impact was felt in both the West and East……..of course the level of consumption then, was drastically less than it is today………A regional war, devoid of intervention by outside actors, would last generations."

Well something has to wake people up on the seriousness of getting off oil and that would do it as hard as it would be, just as the CAFE standards were introduced in the 70s. Either way Iran and Saudi Arabia are already fighting a war, a proxy war covering much of the Middle East, and it literally has no end in sight. In fact its really been ongoing since 1980.

[G Huxley]

Update: Air support, supplies and the Kurds are succeeding now in driving back ISIS:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/us-strikes-help-kurds-force-militants-to-retreat-from-towns-near-irbil/story-e6frg6so-1227019999509

Barzani is requesting the same thing:

"

But despite the successes, the region’s president, Massoud Barzani, warned on Sunday that the militants’ firepower and determination should not be underestimated. He called on his allies to send weapons to help sustain the offensive.

“We are not only fighting a terrorist group, we are fighting a terrorist state,” he said. “We would never ask our friends to send their sons to fight on our behalf, this is our war. What we are asking our friends to do is to provide support and to cooperate with us in providing the necessary weapons.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-air-support-helps-kurdish-forces-expel-islamic-state-fighters-from-two-iraqi-towns/2014/08/10/6c737b50-2094-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

Edited August 11, 2014 by G Huxley

[Rue]

Huxley wih due respect you need to read up on the issue. Turkey is at war with the Kurds. It supports ISIS. Its leader is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood that supports ISIS in its war in Syria and Iraq. Erdogan considers Yazidi no differently then he does Jews-he considers them kaafir.Go find out what that word means. While you are at it could you even make an effort to find out who ISIS is, why they are fighting in the Kurd area of Iraq and why Yazidi and Kurds are detested by ISIS, Turkey and for that matter Iran and Hezbollah as well.

Why do so many people come on this board and make no effort to read up on the issues they claim to discuss?

You do realize NATO does not want anything to do with Turkey and the only reason Turkey is still in NATO is because the US current leader, Obama is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood? You have any idea the animosity between Germany and Turkey or Turkey and Greece?

You do realize at the moment Obama is flipping and flopping between his alliance with Erdogan in urkey and his trying to make an alliance with Iran against ISIS and not piss off Erdogan? You have any idea the hole Obama dug himself in siding with Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood and how he has alienated Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the UAE,Kuwait, Cyprus, Greece, Germany, China, India and Pakistan all involved indirectly?

Maybe you should read up.

Bottom line is the US is bogged down in an insane and impossible foreign policy initiative no one understands not even Obama. It might be he needs to speak to someone other than Zbigniew Brezinski his Middle East advisor who live sin the cold war era and thinks the best alliance is one with Iran not Israel or Egypt or Saudi Arabia.

As well Obama considers Erdogan a good friend of the U.S. How long does the US fly against ISIS In Iraq before Turkey's Erdogan turns on him?

Time will tell. Should be fun.

Then again Hamas broke 4 truces Kerry engineered and laughed in his face, and Kerry still walks around teling Israel they should enter another truce with Hamas and recognize them-this is the same Kerry who when asked about the IRA in his younger days said it would be ridiculous to recognize the IRA until they disarmed.

Yes sir, its a wonderful world. All you have to do is read.

[G Huxley]

Rue your insulting condescension that I have no idea of what's going on is an example your assuming. Don't assume it makes an ass out of u and me.

I've been all through Turkey and Kurdistan including in Iraq and visited the Yazidi at their most sacred sites actually living with them for some time. I also spent a number of days staying at the house of one of the top authors and experts on the Yazidi and Kurdistan picking their brain on the subject, and have read all their books on the subject and many by others.

In fact you have many things backwards and its obvious that you are getting a lot your spurious information from propaganda sources. i.e. I've heard the spurious claim that Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which has been espoused on FOXNEWs. The Obama admin is backing the Egyptian military dictatorship with arms and hundreds of millions of dollars in funding as they murder these guys. So this claim is ludicrous.

Please source that Erdogan is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood as per your claim.

Edited August 13, 2014 by G Huxley