War Against ISIL

[dre]

What wars between nations in the region did we cause? The vacuum of US influence is what allowed ISIS to expand to the point that the Iraqi government was overwhelmed.........

No... the US decision to overthrow the baathists DIRECTLY lead to this situation.

This is blowback from the 2003 invasion. Its what happens when you allow people that are too stupid to hunt ducks without shooting their friends in the fact to plan invasions. You cant even really call it an "unforseen consequence" because everyone with more than 5 braincells tried to warn the idiotic supporters of the 2003 invasion of this EXACT circumstance.

And our efforts to put a lid on this will not only fail... but they will cause yet MORE unforseen consequences.

Anyways Im not going to be able to talk you out of your support for any of this crap. You will blindly support this epic blunder, just like I imagine you supported OPERATION: OH SHIT... DID WE JUST DO THAT? In 2003.

Just remember this conversation when everything Iv predicted happens exactly as I said it would... just like last time.

Edited October 14, 2014 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

No... the US decision to overthrow the baathists DIRECTLY lead to this situation.

There were no tensions between Shia and Sunnis before 2003?

[bush_cheney2004]

If you never fail, then you're setting goals that are too easy for yourself.

Either that or... my God you're just a perfect human being...

Everybody fails at goals sometimes...even me....but then I just blame Canada the way some blame the U.S.

Sure, but we were talking about my goals.

So you can either ridicule it and not take part in that practice, or jump right in. As it is, you're both ridiculing it and doing it.

It's much more fun to join in and crank it up a notch. I'm sure you know the drill by now. I can play this game and get paid for it !

...back to ISIL (helps keep my mind off of Ebola).

Edited October 14, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

There were no tensions between Shia and Sunnis before 2003?

If there were , it was not one of the issues stated when the US took out Hussein.

[Michael Hardner]

Everybody fails at goals sometimes...even me....

Gasp.

but then I just blame Canada the way some blame the U.S.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

It's much more fun to join in and crank it up a notch.

Not for those of us reading the threads.

[GostHacked]

Not for those of us reading the threads.

And yet he is allowed to continue to post. Getting tired of it yet? Let's crank it up indeed.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet he is allowed to continue to post.

That question was answered elsewhere. Let's move on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Gasp.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

Not for those of us reading the threads.

Then don't read the posts / threads....maybe you think your contributions are 100% beef...they're not.

This is a thread about ISIL...very trendy...and I will engage it with my usual flair. The U.S. literally has more skin in the game than Canada, which is what I expect you would prefer anyway. It is always entertaining to read about grand solutions for world affairs from nations with the least invested.

[dre]

There were no tensions between Shia and Sunnis before 2003?

There always were tensions, I never said different. But there was no ISI taking over large swaths of Iraq in order free Sunnis from Shia rule because the baath party ran the country. Like I said... this is blowback from that failed policy, and there will be blowback from this one as well.

[Derek 2.0]

There always were tensions, I never said different. But there was no ISI taking over large swaths of Iraq in order free Sunnis from Shia rule because the baath party ran the country. Like I said... this is blowback from that failed policy, and there will be blowback from this one as well.

So an Iraqi Government that once received support from the British, Russians, the French and the United States was able to keep a lid on Sunni/Shia/Kurdish tensions, but this Iraqi Government, receiving support from the United States, French, British etc won't be able to keep a lid on said tensions.......

What do you feel the economic "blowback" would be from a regional Shia/Sunni/Kurdish/Turkish etc war, a war that would impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil, and in turn, the global economy?

[dre]

So an Iraqi Government that once received support from the British, Russians, the French and the United States was able to keep a lid on Sunni/Shia/Kurdish tensions,

A dictator that ruled with an Iron fist was able to keep sectarian tensions mostly in check. He crushed any attempts by the Shia at political organization, exiled shia political leaders to Iran or killed them, etc.

Is that what you want to see?

but this Iraqi Government, receiving support from the United States, French, British etc won't be able to keep a lid on said tensions.......

Pay attention much? This government (which is an Iranian proxy) tried for ten years with the support of trillions of western dollars and hundreds of thousands of western troops, and eventually you know what they did? They said "Naaaaaaaaa phuck it. We'll just pay them not to fight!".

What do you feel the economic "blowback" would be from a regional Shia/Sunni/Kurdish/Turkish etc war, a war that would impede the flow of Persian Gulf oil, and in turn, the global economy?

I dont forsee any regional war. I see the turks being able to hold their border without much trouble... Iraqi Shia will be able to hold their cities as well... Same goes for the kurds... Same goes for the Allawites.

I see whats happening over there as a natural partitioning of those two countries along sectarian lines... its actually probably the best outcome possible, and whats more... its inevitable. 4 Canadian planes wont change that.

In any case, you are not offering an alternative. You are unable to even articulate what winning IS... never mind a plan on how we could do that.

Edited October 14, 2014 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

A dictator that ruled with an Iron fist was able to keep sectarian tensions mostly in check. He crushed any attempts by the Shia at political organization, exiled shia political leaders to Iran or killed them, etc.

Is that what you want to see?

A dictator ruled with a military and police service that received aide from the West........So, Saddam could keep tensions in check with Western aid, but the current Iraqi Government with Western aid can not.

Pay attention much? This government (which is an Iranian proxy) tried for ten years with the support of trillions of western dollars and hundreds of thousands of western troops, and eventually you know what they did? They said "Naaaaaaaaa phuck it. We'll just pay them not to fight!".

Saddam + Western aid = "stable Iraq"

Present Iraq + Western aid = Chaos forever and a day..........

Got it

I dont forsee any regional war. I see the turks being able to hold their border without much trouble... Iraqi Shia will be able to hold their cities as well... Same goes for the kurds... Same goes for the Allawites.

What fueled the Iraq-Iran war? Already we have a war fought by proxy, a regional war is the next logical step if left unchecked.

4 Canadian planes wont change that.

It's actually 8 combat planes.........none the less, there are far more than 8 Western combat aircraft in the region. Of course, the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces will be aided by Western air power, not hurt by it. As to ISIS, just with the start of allied air strikes, ISIS has already been forced to change tactics.

In any case, you are not offering an alternative. You are unable to even articulate what winning IS... never mind a plan on how we could do that.

I have in this and the several other related threads......Once ISIS is diminished as a conventional force, coupled with more unit level training and support for the Iraq and Kurdish forces, the elected Government will be able to contend with ISIS, with the background support(intell, air support, logistics etc) provided by the West.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Saddam + Western aid = "stable Iraq"

Present Iraq + Western aid = Chaos forever and a day..........

Got it

Gotta love that kind of pretzel logic.

[Hudson Jones]

If the U.S. and the coalition are able to slow down the advancement of ISIS (which they have not been able to so far), then ISIS will just go back to their previous tactic of bombing of civilian areas.

ISIS has been around since after the U.S. invasion in 2003. They are the same Al Qaeda affiliated Sunni group who was bombing markets, police headquarters and Shia pilgrims. After the U.S. military left, they knew it was time to come out. And with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and the thousands of disenfranchised and poor young Muslims, connected through the internet, located all around the world, ISIS came out in full force.

You either leave them be and let them figure things for themselves, while pressuring Saudi and Qatar to stop supporting ISIS, or you go in with boots on the ground. Air attacks are useless and only serve as porn material for Dick Cheney.

[Big Guy]

That question was answered elsewhere. Let's move on.

I have followed the interaction that is allowed and not allowed. I am now sure that bush_cheney2004 is a proxy of one of the moderators whose role is to create some controversy and "action". The use of an irritating catalyst on opinion boards is not uncommon and does serve to increase the traffic on the site. The administration has used that anonymous persona well and has managed to increase traffic and probably readership.

It is their board and they are free to use it as they feel.

We are free to respond, or not, depending on how we choose to interact on this board.

I prefer to not respond.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have followed the interaction that is allowed and not allowed. I am now sure that bush_cheney2004 is a proxy of one of the moderators....

And I have followed yet another personal attack in violation of forum rules...and it is allowed to continue.

[On Guard for Thee]

I have followed the interaction that is allowed and not allowed. I am now sure that bush_cheney2004 is a proxy of one of the moderators whose role is to create some controversy and "action". The use of an irritating catalyst on opinion boards is not uncommon and does serve to increase the traffic on the site. The administration has used that anonymous persona well and has managed to increase traffic and probably readership.

It is their board and they are free to use it as they feel.

We are free to respond, or not, depending on how we choose to interact on this board.

I prefer to not respond.

Interesting concept and you could be right. The "head troll" distinction didn't come out of thin air for sure.

[Bonam]

I dont buy that argument... that we should do something incredibly stupid just for the sake of doing something. Sometimes it IS better to let people fight their own civil wars.

Agreed.

[Derek 2.0]

Gotta love that kind of pretzel logic.

Indeed, there is political theory and political reality.......One is constitutive of how actual events unfold, the other looks good on paper.

[Big Guy]

OK folks, you ready for this;

When the USA and others used the excuse that Iraq had WMD's and were preparing to use them on whatever, it got the ok and took out Saddam. They could not find any weapons and it was too late to back up so they did what they did. They were roundly criticized because there were no WMD's to be found. OOPS!

So now the USA creates a coalition to go after ISIS for a number of humanitarian reasons. The support for this latest Crusade starts to fade But, But – SURPRISE!

It is now revealed that there were WMD's in Iraq, that the USA and others kept it a SECRET and now ISIS has them and is prepared to use them to take over the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10913275/Isis-storms-Saddam-era-chemical-weapons-complex-in-Iraq.html

So now it is really important that we go after ISIS.

If this was not so pathetic it would be funny!

Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

[Derek 2.0]

So now the USA creates a coalition to go after ISIS for a number of humanitarian reasons. The support for this latest Crusade starts to fade But, But – SURPRISE!

Has any country joined the United States after the declaration of chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS several months ago? Also, how do you define support "fading"? Have countries since left any US effort?

It is now revealed that there were WMD's in Iraq, that the USA and others kept it a SECRET and now ISIS has them and is prepared to use them to take over the world.

Who kept it secret? Your link is months old and at then end states:

One US official told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that Isis fighters could be contaminated by the chemicals at the site.

“The only people who would likely be harmed by these chemical materials would be the people who tried to use or move them,” the military officer said.

I think you're peeing on your own leg...........

[GostHacked]

Has any country joined the United States after the declaration of chemical weapons in the hands of ISIS several months ago? Also, how do you define support "fading"? Have countries since left any US effort?

Great, so ISIS is not only running around in Humvees, MPCs, MRAPS, A1 Abrams that the USA said was too expensive to bring home. Now ISIS is also using the so called WMDs buried in the sand in to the North, South, East, West of Baghdad. But the USA gives a crap if ISIS fighters are contaminated with this stuff? Would that not benefit the US if the ISIS dudes manage to kill themselves simply by handling the materials?

[Big Guy]

Derek 2.0, I am not trying to convince you or anybody else of anything. You believe what you believe and if you comfortable with this NEW revelation that WMD's have been found that the USA and other forces did not find for 8 years then that is your choice. As to timing;

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/15/isis-capable-of-making-dirty-bombs-with-abandoned-chemical-weapons-cache-in-northern-iraq-former-british-colonel-warns/

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793731/will-rusting-chemical-weapons-cache-ignored-americans-fall-isis-hands-iraq-claims-2-500-rockets-containing-deadly-sarin-hands-terrorists.html

and

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/iraqs-hidden-chemical-weapons-us-covered-up-discovery-of-chemical-weapons-after-2003-invasion--and-many-are-now-in-isiss-hands-9795485.html

and

http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/us-found-chemical-weapons-in-iraq/799005/

If the above cited references are not sufficient, then please key in "ISIS, WMD, IRAQ" into Google and you may find a "few" more.

Derek 2.0, I have no intention of convincing you of anything but if your umbrella is up and your leg is still getting wet then perhaps you should look at other sources for the piddle.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, there is political theory and political reality.......One is constitutive of how actual events unfold, the other looks good on paper.

Suddenly these guys are all concerned about Iraq and Syria after not giving a damn for so long. Must be an election coming up, eh ?

[Big Guy]

Great, so ISIS is not only running around in Humvees, MPCs, MRAPS, A1 Abrams that the USA said was too expensive to bring home. Now ISIS is also using the so called WMDs buried in the sand in to the North, South, East, West of Baghdad. But the USA gives a crap if ISIS fighters are contaminated with this stuff? Would that not benefit the US if the ISIS dudes manage to kill themselves simply by handling the materials?

From to-days New York Times;

"Others pointed to another embarrassment. In five of six incidents in which troops were wounded by chemical agents, the munitions appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies."