War Against ISIL

[Derek 2.0]

So thats it? Youre just going to repeat the exact same question even though Iv answered 4 times now, and other posters have answered it as well?

You've yet to answer the very simple question posed....

And saying Saddam had a "western trained army" is mostly false anyways. The current Iraqi army is the western trained one. Hows that working out?

The upper echelons of Saddam's army and air force throughout the 80s were British trained, the remainder were trained by the Soviets in the 70s.

The current Iraqi army was gutted of Western trained Sunnis by the Iraqi Government after the Americans left......

Anyhow, Ironically enough it seems like your big answer here is for the Iraqi government to act like Saddam!

Exactly, provide internal security to Iraq with a Western trained and supported force made-up of Iraqis........the exact same method proven effective by Saddam.

[Derek 2.0]

A quick way for members of ISIS to meet the 72 virgins:

Iraqi pilots who have joined ISIL in Syria are training members of the group to fly in three captured fighter jets, a group monitoring the war said on Friday, saying it was the first time that the militant group had taken to the air.

[dre]

You've yet to answer the very simple question posed....

Exactly, provide internal security to Iraq with a Western trained and supported force made-up of Iraqis........the exact same method proven effective by Saddam.

The question you keep repeating has been answered half a dozen times already. The fact that Saddam was able to keep the place stable had little to do with his army. It had to do with improving standards of life for Iraqis through the 70's and 80's combined with an internal security force of thugs that used fear, intimidation, torture, and murder to stifle political dissent and squash all efforts at political mobilization before they got off the ground. Read about the Mukhabarat. Saddam also did not have to contend with a Syrian civil war that had created

Providing the Iraqi army with more "unit training" has nothing to do with any of these things.

Heres a good description of how Saddam acheived relative stability....

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, as vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally the al-Bakr's second-in-command, Saddam built a reputation as a progressive, effective politician.^[31] At this time, Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

After the Ba'athists took power in 1968, Saddam focused on attaining stability in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant.^[32]The desire for stable rule in a country rife with factionalism led Saddam to pursue both massive repression and the improvement of living standards.^[32]

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, dominated the country's oil sector. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).^[33][34]

With the help of increasing oil revenues, Saddam diversified the largely oil-based Iraqi economy. Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign helped Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas. Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside and roughly two-thirds were peasants. This number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as global oil prices helped revenues to rise from less than a half billion dollars to tens of billions of dollars and the country invested into industrial expansion.

The oil revenue benefitted Saddam politically.^[35] According to The Economist, "Much as Adolf Hitler won early praise for galvanising German industry, ending mass unemployment and building autobahns, Saddam earned admiration abroad for his deeds. He had a good instinct for what the "Arab street" demanded, following the decline in Egyptian leadership brought about by the trauma of Israel's six-day victory in the 1967 war, the death of the pan-Arabist hero, Gamal Abdul Nasser, in 1970, and the "traitorous" drive by his successor, Anwar Sadat, to sue for peace with the Jewish state. Saddam's self-aggrandising propaganda, with himself posing as the defender of Arabism against Jewish or Persian intruders, was heavy-handed, but consistent as a drumbeat. It helped, of course, that his mukhabarat (secret police) put dozens of Arab news editors, writers and artists on the payroll."^[35]

So if you want to use Saddam as an example of why the current government will be able to create and maintain stability... Here is what you are really talking about this government doing.

1. Nationalizing oil assets and turning over the proceeds to Iraqis in the form of social programs.

2. Building secret service styled security apparatus of torturing murdering thugs.

3. Suspending all forms of representitive government.

THAT is how Saddam achieved stability.

The current Iraqi army was gutted of Western trained Sunnis by the Iraqi Government after the Americans left

Even BEFORE the US left, when the Iraqi army had US troops fighting alongside with them, they could not defeat the insurgency. In the end they gave up, and starting writing paychecks to 80 thousand insurgents so that they would stop fighting long enough for the US to get out of dodge.

You are proposing a solution without even having a passing understanding of the problem, the players involved, or the region they live in. This is exactly why the 2003 invasion turned into such an unmitigated clusterf*&k that resulted in what we have on our hands today.

Edited October 17, 2014 by dre

[Derek 2.0]

The question you keep repeating has been answered half a dozen times already. The fact that Saddam was able to keep the place stable had little to do with his army. It had to do with improving standards of life for Iraqis through the 70's and 80's combined with an internal security force of thugs that used fear, intimidation, torture, and murder to stifle political dissent and squash all efforts at political mobilization before they got off the ground. Read about the Mukhabarat. Saddam also did not have to contend with a Syrian civil war that had created

Providing the Iraqi army with more "unit training" has nothing to do with any of these things.

Heres a good description of how Saddam acheived relative stability....

So if you want to use Saddam as an example of why the current government will be able to create and maintain stability... Here is what you are really talking about this government doing.

1. Nationalizing oil assets and turning over the proceeds to Iraqis in the form of social programs.

2. Building secret service styled security apparatus of torturing murdering thugs.

3. Suspending all forms of representitive government.

THAT is how Saddam achieved stability.

Even BEFORE the US left, when the Iraqi army had US troops fighting alongside with them, they could not defeat the insurgency. In the end they gave up, and starting writing paychecks to 80 thousand insurgents so that they would stop fighting long enough for the US to get out of dodge.

You are proposing a solution without even having a passing understanding of the problem, the players involved, or the region they live in. This is exactly why the 2003 invasion turned into such an unmitigated clusterf*&k that resulted in what we have on our hands today.

So Saddam used his Western trained military to put down those opposed to him, creating a semblance of security that allowed him to provide social programs and general improvements to most Iraqi's lives...........but the current Iraqi Government won't be able to use its Western trained military to create a secure environment, an environment in which social programs and general improvements can take place to improve most Iraqis lives......

And your reason why the current Iraqi Government will fail, is because unlike Saddam, they don't apply torture and other nasty things against the Iraqi populace..........

[Bonam]

And your reason why the current Iraqi Government will fail, is because unlike Saddam, they don't apply torture and other nasty things against the Iraqi populace..........

Seems about right.

[Signals.Cpl]

You are proposing a solution without even having a passing understanding of the problem, the players involved, or the region they live in. This is exactly why the 2003 invasion turned into such an unmitigated clusterf*&k that resulted in what we have on our hands today.

Or we let the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnies go their own way and protect their own people because it seems to me that lines on a piece of paper dont make a country. In the conflict against ISIL the Kurds seem to be the only once who fight back with any degree of success. They might be more likely to fight that much harder. Right now our options are boots on the ground, beat ISIL after a decade long war, go home rinse and repeat; leave ISIL to their own devices in Syria and Iraq or try something new and see if they are willing to fight for themselves.

[dre]

Seems about right.

Yup... military dictators have a few things in their arsenal as far as crushing political opposition and uprisings against the state that most democracies dont have. It only goes so far though... I cant help but wonder that if the Coalition of Retards hadnt blundered its way into Iraq and inadvertantly handed power to an Iranian proxy and spawned groups like ISI(s) if Iraq would have had its own "Arab Spring".

We would still probably be about where we are at now, but the west would be about 3 trillion dollars richer and 30 000 Americans would either be alive, or still have their legs, arms, or whatnot.

Edited October 18, 2014 by dre

[WestCoastRunner]

if Iraq would have had its own "Arab Spring".

We would still probably be about where we are at now, but the west would be about 3 trillion dollars richer and 30 000 Americans would either be alive, or still have their legs, arms, or whatnot.

I believe that eventually Iraq would have had it's own 'Arab Spring'. Sometimes we need to just leave things alone and let the forces of nature, the country's environment, the country's citizens, etc take their own course and build their own future (not based on the western world's principles or their oil needs).

Let's take a look at Hong Kong for example. The students are demonstrating in a peaceful environment, heck they are even studying and cleaning up their trash. Who knows what they will accomplish but at least they are doing it of their own accord. I sometimes think of Ghandi and India when I reflect on Hong Kong's protests. Hong Kong is protesting in a peaceful and loving manner. It is the police and government officials who are displaying violence.

[marcus]

The major difference between the Iraqi military, post and pre Saddam is that the Iraqi military under Saddam was experienced and brutal. Post Saddam, the Iraqi military is mostly made up of kids looking to make a bit of money, and who were trained by Western standards. They neither have the experience and training or the willingness to take on brutal international mercenaries, former Saddam soldiers and a group of Muslim kids from around the world who are wooed by finally being part of something. All riled up on Wahabist, extreme and absolute ideology.

[Big Guy]

I believe that eventually Iraq would have had it's own 'Arab Spring'. Sometimes we need to just leave things alone and let the forces of nature, the country's environment, the country's citizens, etc take their own course and build their own future (not based on the western world's principles or their oil needs).

Let's take a look at Hong Kong for example. The students are demonstrating in a peaceful environment, heck they are even studying and cleaning up their trash. Who knows what they will accomplish but at least they are doing it of their own accord. I sometimes think of Ghandi and India when I reflect on Hong Kong's protests. Hong Kong is protesting in a peaceful and loving manner. It is the police and government officials who are displaying violence.

I agree but perhaps for a different reason;

I do not believe that Iraq is ready for a democracy.

Democracy is a very sophisticated concept. The individual has to feel that he/she has a say in the decision of who will govern – but most importantly – must accept the final result. That requires trusting that the system is fair and is better in the long term than all other systems. That in turn requires an understanding and knowledge of the history of societal organization.

The vast majority of Canadians have studied the results of dictatorships with the example of Hitlers Germany as a prime example. We are also familiar with Monarchies, Republics, military coups etc. We are also familiar with our own history knowing that governments change quite often and do so without violence.

We have a situation to-day in Canada where the group making all the decisions, ramming legislation through because of a “majority”, are doing so with having received less than 40% support of the citizenship. Those 60% who did not support this group do not revolt but accept the results of our system and know that we will have another chance to vote every few years for another group to change these new laws.

The majority of people in that region of Iraq are not that well educated, are accustomed to a tribal system or at least a feudal system and change comes due to violence. I believe that if you look at the functional democracies of the world the population is well educated.

You cannot impose a democracy on a population, it has to evolve through its population.

[Big Guy]

Somebody has finally looked at the cost of this war against ISIS;

“Concerning the costs of air support, Pollack said looking at past air campaigns in Afghanistan, Libya and Kosovo, it is reasonable to assume 100 sorties a day could cost about $6.5 billion a year.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/10/17/building_a_new_syrian_army_would_cost_billions_report_says.html#

Assuming that the size of ISIS is estimated to be 30,000 then the cost per year per ISIS fighter is about $200,000.

The average annual per capita income in Iraq is $4,000.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/3598/19/More-salary,-less-work.aspx

Therefore the cost of the air war per year, per ISIS fighter is the equivalent of 50 years average income for an Iraqi. Fifty years is about the average life expectancy of adulthood in Iraq.

So the air war cost per year per ISIS fighter represents about what the average Iraqi expects to make in a lifetime.

Why don't we just cut out the middle men (those making bombs and fighter airplanes) and offer each ISIS fighter a lifetime salary of $200,000 to go home to his family and stop killing people.

After the first year we would be breaking even and every year after that we would be saving $6.5 billion.

And this is only the air war. Wait till the boots hit the ground.

[Rue]

Dre claims Iraq's standard of life improved because of using fear, intimidation. In his response he claims he gives a "good description" of how Hussein achieved stability in Iraq. His post 553 is yet another example of why I think Dre's subjective opinions are nothing but apology for terrorism, facism, extremism and why I find his comments putrid. Oh but hey he quotes UNESCO. That makes it accurat.

Stability from a progressive leader my ass.,

Say now Dre seems to have missed some details while presenting his revisionist explanation of progressive stability....go on Dre,,,explain how the following is progressive stability:

-Hussein killed at least 40 of his own family in cold blood

-he and his sons would drive around in limousines kidnapping women off the street, raping them, then disposing of them dead like trash after dumping them on the streets

-he murdered his son-in-law in a rage if incestuous jealousy

-from 1977-88 he oversaw the murder of at least 100,000 Kurds

-he stripped Jews of their citizenships, harassed and murdered Assyrian Christians, Shiites and Kurds

-in 1987-1998 alone he implemented over 40 chemical attacks on Kurd villages, killing 5,000 in Halabja in just one attack

-in 1991 alone he destroyed 3,000 Kurd villages and murdered 30-60,000 Kurds and Shiites in open slaughters

-he was responsible for the displacement of over 900,000 Iraqis from their homes left on the streets without shelter

-from 1980-1988 340,000 Iraqis and 730,000 Iranians died in his 8 year war

Anyone can read on line the policies, and regime under the Hussein years. Progressive?

How can anyone with any semblance of intelligence describe the Hussein regime as progressive let alone being stable?

It is precisely this barbaric and insane regime and many others like it in the Arab League of Nations that has led directly to the civil wars throughout these countries that pit Sunni against Shiite, corrupted brutal psychotic and sociopathic dictators against their own people using Christians, Jews, Bahaiis, women, trade unionists, political opposition and Israel or the US as excuses for their corruption and violence.

Before Dre or anyone else has more sweet words for his progressive regime, may I simply say, spare the board of your revisionist drivel.

Edited October 18, 2014 by Rue

[dre]

Dre claims Iraq's standard of life improved because of using fear, intimidation. In his response he claims he gives a "good description" of how Hussein achieved stability in Iraq. His post 553 is yet another example of why I think Dre's subjective opinions are nothing but apology for terrorism, facism, extremism and why I find his comments putrid. Oh but hey he quotes UNESCO. That makes it accurat.

Stability from a progressive leader my ass.,

Say now Dre seems to have missed some details while presenting his revisionist explanation of progressive stability....go on Dre,,,explain how the following is progressive stability:

-Hussein killed at least 40 of his own family in cold blood

-he and his sons would drive around in limousines kidnapping women off the street, raping them, then disposing of them dead like trash after dumping them on the streets

-he murdered his son-in-law in a rage if incestuous jealousy

-from 1977-88 he oversaw the murder of at least 100,000 Kurds

-he stripped Jews of their citizenships, harassed and murdered Assyrian Christians, Shiites and Kurds

-in 1987-1998 alone he implemented over 40 chemical attacks on Kurd villages, killing 5,000 in Halabja in just one attack

-in 1991 alone he destroyed 3,000 Kurd villages and murdered 30-60,000 Kurds and Shiites in open slaughters

-he was responsible for the displacement of over 900,000 Iraqis from their homes left on the streets without shelter

-from 1980-1988 340,000 Iraqis and 730,000 Iranians died in his 8 year war

Anyone can read on line the policies, and regime under the Hussein years. Progressive?

How can anyone with any semblance of intelligence describe the Hussein regime as progressive let alone being stable?

It is precisely this barbaric and insane regime and many others like it in the Arab League of Nations that has led directly to the civil wars throughout these countries that pit Sunni against Shiite, corrupted brutal psychotic and sociopathic dictators against their own people using Christians, Jews, Bahaiis, women, trade unionists, political opposition and Israel or the US as excuses for their corruption and violence.

As usual just a bunch of bleating and wretching and moaning. You obviously didnt even read my post. I didnt act as an apologist for Hussein in fact I described his regime using terms like "brutal, murder, torture, oppression, crushing dissent, etc etc".

Did he achieve a level of political stability? Of course. Only a retard would argue that.

Did he improve the standard of life for Iraqis between 1970 and 1990? Of course. Nobody with the abilitiy to read would argue that.

Before Dre or anyone else has more sweet words for his progressive regime, may I simply say, spare the board of your revisionist drivel.

ROFLMAO. Your posts are the internet equivalent to a person with turrets syndrome barking out swear words for no apparent reason. Thats why you are such a laughing stock around here, and nobody even bothers to read your mile high stacks of bleating, wretching, and moaning.

You never disputed ONE SINGLE THING I posted, because EVERY SINGLE THING I said was true. As usual.

[jbg]

Subversive groups were dealt with quickly and harshly... political movement were squashed before they even got off the ground.

And you have a problem when Western countries such as Israel do largely the same thing. I get it. Edited October 19, 2014 by jbg

[GostHacked]

And you have a problem when Western countries such as Israel do largely the same thing. I get it.

Why would we not have a problem with it? Why would we not have a problem with a country meddling in another country's affairs?

[Rue]

Dre your response attempting to insult me is typical. I directly repudiated your claim Hussein made Iraq stable as you claimed. You again repeated the same allegation that he made Iraq stable in your response to me and went off on a tangent that because you said he engaged in violence and was brutal I did not contradict you. Not only did I repudiate your illogical claim you did.

Now you are on this board and in your haste to try name call argue that a dictator who engages in genocide, brutality and terrorism against his people achieve stability and I quote, "Only a retard would argue that."

Couldn't agree more with that statement. To come on this board and try argue brutality and violence achieves stability is as you say retarded,

Ironically the very thing I disputed, your contention brutality brings with it stability, is something you not only have failed to evidence but now contend in your own words, is the argument of a retard.

Keep laughing Dre your attempt to suggest Hussein brought stability to Iraq is not only illogical but absurd.

Next you can argue that Hitler brought stability to Germany, Stalin to Russia, because they engaged in genocide, mass murders and brutalized people.

Brilliant.

[dre]

Keep laughing Dre your attempt to suggest Hussein brought stability to Iraq is not only illogical but absurd.

Its an uncontraversial historical fact that Saddams regime brought relative stability to Iraq. For about 50 years prior to Saddams reign Iraq never even had a government that lasted a few years without being toppled by various coupes. The country was in shambles and in ruin. Under Saddam the standard of life for your average person grew at an unprecidented rate and the country, its economy, and its infrastructure were modernized. These things are just facts... It doesnt matter if you dont like them.

Next you can argue that Hitler brought stability to Germany, Stalin to Russia, because they engaged in genocide, mass murders and brutalized people.

Bleat? Wretch? Moan...

[jbg]

Why would we not have a problem with it? Why would we not have a problem with a country meddling in another country's affairs?

The coverage of Israel's and the U.S.'s relatively minor transgressions so drastically swamps that given to most countries. Even putting aside the saturation coverage of Israel, the U.S.s offenses come in for disproportionately rough sledding. Mylai in 1968 of course was heavily covered. The Abu Ghraib humiliations, where no one was killed, also received intensive press coverage. Do the outrages by ISIS receive more than a day or two in coverage? Or do the outrages come so thick and fast that one day's atrocity replaces the previous day's.

The excesses of the U.S. and Israel fall into the category of "man bites dog" whereas almost all of the others, involving far higher fatalities and far higher complicity and involvement by top echelons, are more in the category of "dog bites man." Thus when Saddam "dealt with" these rebellions with extreme brutality, he now earns a free pass in the blogospher.

[Big Guy]

The coalition is trying to defeat and eradicate a movement and/or idea. I do not think the West is capable of doing that.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/13/islamic-state-proves-flexible-as-its-tactics-evolve-in-fight-against-the-west/

[Solidarity]

The coverage of Israel's and the U.S.'s relatively minor transgressions so drastically swamps that given to most countries. Even putting aside the saturation coverage of Israel, the U.S.s offenses come in for disproportionately rough sledding. Mylai in 1968 of course was heavily covered. The Abu Ghraib humiliations, where no one was killed, also received intensive press coverage. Do the outrages by ISIS receive more than a day or two in coverage? Or do the outrages come so thick and fast that one day's atrocity replaces the previous day's.

The excesses of the U.S. and Israel fall into the category of "man bites dog" whereas almost all of the others, involving far higher fatalities and far higher complicity and involvement by top echelons, are more in the category of "dog bites man." Thus when Saddam "dealt with" these rebellions with extreme brutality, he now earns a free pass in the blogospher.

Are you joking? Nobody comes close to the USA when it comes to aggressive warfare, international arms dealing (often to subversive groups, ie FSA, Mujaheddin, Contras), and uninvited meddling. The likes of Abu Ghraib and My lai aren't the main issues, they affected a few thousand at most. The real issues are the Vietnam war and Iraq war (and dozens of other bloody interventions) as a whole. The issue of who gets more bad press is irrelevant, when the bigger issue is the millions of dead men, women and children, for no good reason. Of course the people of the world will hold the USA to a higher standard than a bunch of fanatical lunatic terrorists.

[eyeball]

The coalition is trying to defeat and eradicate a movement and/or idea. I do not think the West is capable of doing that.

Not when the west's real forte is only encouraging it to grow.

[Rue]

Dre you really need to know when to move on, To come on this forum now and say its uncontraversia factl to state Iraq improved the standard of life for Iraqis under Hussein's regime is nothing more than drivel,. This posing as an Iraqi who lived under Hussein's era and did much better thanks to him, that comes from one, which fantasy of yours? What's it like coming on this board posing as an expert as to living under Iraq during Hussein's era, hmmmm?

The arrogance, the presumptive insights, they just never end.

Instead of spewing off about a subject you once again have no clue about-instead of trying to pass yourself off as someone who lived under Hussein-instead of trying o bluff your way through this forum relying on internet sites you think base your subjective opions, know when to quit and be quiet.

You have zero clue what happened under Hussein's regime. You rely on web site article you took out of context.

Your continued attempts to describe the Hussein regime as having brought stability and a better way of life for Iraqis speaks for itself. So do the attempts at baiting me.

Go give a lecture to the over 1 million Iraqis forced to flee Hussein's regime how progressive it was for them. Start in Toronto. I am sure they will appreciate your insights. Explain to them how you are a Jew and the stripping of citizenship from Jews of Iraq during his regime advanced their lives.

Bleating and wretching, No I call your comments feigning knowledge, Puffing and blowing postulations with zero basis.

[jbg]

The coalition is trying to defeat and eradicate a movement and/or idea. I do not think the West is capable of doing that.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/13/islamic-state-proves-flexible-as-its-tactics-evolve-in-fight-against-the-west/

And the "idea" is what, the desirability of beheading anyone some faux caliph says deserves beheading? Or in a massive, tragic genocide? I don't think those "ideas" are worthy of preservation.

[Big Guy]

And the "idea" is what, the desirability of beheading anyone some faux caliph says deserves beheading? Or in a massive, tragic genocide? I don't think those "ideas" are worthy of preservation.

How about self determination as an idea. All of what I have seen as examples of outrageous behaviour is the RESULT of being told what to do and how to do it by outside forces. Even Bin Laden's weird declarations included - West - go home and let us make our own decisions. But of course, we know better than they do because we are superior (and we do need that oil).

This has always been an Arab problem. The rich Arab states are smart enough to get us in there spending lots of money on armaments and spilling a lot of our blood while they maintain that stranglehold with their monarchies.

Why do you think we are sending airplanes while there is almost no serious support from the locals?

As to tactics - you fight with what you got. I am sure that ISIS would be up in the air challenging coalition air forces if they had them. This is war of survival. Last man standing is the winner. There are no rules.

As far as outrageous actions, how about a war that consists of shooting fish in a barrel. Is it "noble" to fly over dropping all kinds of bombs on people armed with machine guns with no fear of being shot down. Is it "noble" that we Canadians, through the proxy of our air planes accept the fact that these bombs will kill innocent civilians? You do know that it will be Iraqi's who will be targeting where are bombs are going.

But we continue to try to instil our wishes on these folks and will probably continue to wonder why these folks want to kill us.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Big Guy

[Big Guy]

Some interesting progress in Kobani. Americans are dropping more weapons to the Kurds on the ground on the border in Syria and Turkey has declared they will let SOME Kurds across their border to join their fellow fighters in Kobani.

Apparently the Turks have a way of identifying the good guy Kurds who are fighting ISIS and those bad guy Kurds whom have been battling Turkey from within having caused the death of about 40,000 fighters.

We are being played like a fine fiddle.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/turkey-allow-kurds-join-fight-against-isil-2014102093610603527.html