Jihadists Seize Iraq's Nineveh Province!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner;
Ths main U.S. sources of oil are not the Middle East. But other parts of the world rely on it. So, just let them do without?
They wouldn’t do without, for oil is the only resource the Arab nations of the Middle East have. They have to sell their oil in order to survive.
“Letting the Muslims fight it out” is the foreign policy of the U.S. at present.
I hope so.
Only trouble is, that it’s dangerous to allies, murderous to the civilian populations and potentially puts the world’s worst people in control of one of the world’s most valuable resources.
How is this dangerous to our allies ? If it’s dangerous to them, why are we the only one’s called to intervene ?
Well, then too, it’s hard on the Christian populations. Also hard on the Sunni populations in Iranian-controlled places, on the Shia in the Sunni/jihadi controlled places, very hard on women and others who are on the low end of the ideological totem poles in those places.
Yeah and Ironically, the Christian populations in Iraq were better off under Saddam, and the one’s in Syria support Assad’s regime.

Inform yourself about the realities in that part of the world over the political ideologies of the GOP and Democrats, who’ll distort information for their own political agendas.

Jim
 
Sistani also supported Americans remaining to keep the peace, and opposed Iranian influence in Iraq. It’s different now, of course.
Opposed Iranian influence ?

Sistani traveled to Iran and me with Iranian leaders for their support.

It’s why he was opposed by Maliki’s administration and told to have his militant’s stand down after attacks by Sunni’s during the Iraq invasion by the US.

Jim
 
I think it would be totally justifiable if Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Russia got togather and secretly began funding an insurgency among the Shia of Eastern Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the number one sponsor of Salafist terrorism in the world today, and it’s time they were shown that actions have consequences. Now would be the perfect time since I believe a couple of Shia have been sentenced to death for anti-government activities.
 
Ridgerunner;

They wouldn’t do without, for oil is the only resource the Arab nations of the Middle East have. They have to sell their oil in order to survive.

I hope so.

How is this dangerous to our allies ? If it’s dangerous to them, why are we the only one’s called to intervene ?

Yeah and Ironically, the Christian populations in Iraq were better off under Saddam, and the one’s in Syria support Assad’s regime.

Inform yourself about the realities in that part of the world over the political ideologies of the GOP and Democrats, who’ll distort information for their own political agendas.

Jim
I think I’m fairly well informed about the realities. Most of what I know comes from people from the region, including Iraqi Christians. One of them is a cousin to Tariq Aziz.

The position of Christians in older times has been insecure off and on, murderous at times. At different points in time, some of the Arab regimes protected Christians, also Jews, and for a utilitarian reason. Since Arab society is tribal, the rulers always had to balance one group against another, never being able to quite trust any. Since Christians and Jews had no significant “constituencies”, they were trusted to serve whatever regime was in power without having any loyalties to any of the Muslim tribal groups that really did have power. They were useful because they were few and helpless. It came at considerable cost, one being that they had to put up with, even approve and participate in, the atrocities of terrible rulers like Saddam.

Tariq Azziz, a Christian, was one of those, though he feared for his life and that of his family every day, without exception. Some accuse him of crimes against humanity, and they’re probably right, at least at the margins. The slightest failure to carry out even the worst acts, would have meant torture and/or death for him and his family. The Muslim/Christian relationship was a tenuous relationship, always, and because, again, the ruler had no reason to fear Christians or Jews, they could be tossed away, tortured or killed without any fear of retribution.

But not all rulers were that way, and some Muslim lands were long ago rendered free of Christians.

Better than being killed out of hand, though. However, it may be noted that, since WWII, and actually for a time before that, the Muslims have killed, thrown out, or otherwise rendered their lands almost entirely free of Jews. The Christians were, and are, living it out on borrowed time in the absence of anything approaching a state that respects human rights.

Now, there are historic exceptions, but not many, and usually they were during periods when western power was so overwhelming that the rulers dared not persecute Christians (of Jews, oftentimes) within their realms. Those days are in the past because the west no longer has the desire to protect Christians anywhere.
 
I think it would be totally justifiable if Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, and Russia got togather and secretly began funding an insurgency among the Shia of Eastern Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are the number one sponsor of Salafist terrorism in the world today, and it’s time they were shown that actions have consequences. Now would be the perfect time since I believe a couple of Shia have been sentenced to death for anti-government activities.
Encouraging war among terrorist states and sponsors isn’t exactly the ideal solution to anything. The mess Obama left could end up going nuclear in time. It could very well.
 
I wonder how much Sistani’s announcement will add to the developing dimension of Sunni vs Shiite?
I don’t think he is adding to it. The Sunni vs Shiite divide is well established in Iraq and the Shiites have no intention of returning to Sunni rule any time soon.

I do think it will help to rally the Shiite forces though.
 
Encouraging war among terrorist states and sponsors isn’t exactly the ideal solution to anything. The mess Obama left could end up going nuclear in time. It could very well.
Sooner rather than later. I can see Saudi Arabia and Iran using this as a reason to obtain nukes.
 
President Obama just made a public comment on the situation in Iraq.

Essentially, he said it’s up to the Iraqi government to work out their problems and the US will help where it can. He said they can’t look to the US for military solutions.

He’s right. There is really nothing we can do to solve their conflicts.

Who ever is helping ISIL with support is to blame most of all and should be identified by the UN and condemned.

Jim
 
President Obama just made a public comment on the situation in Iraq.

Essentially, he said it’s up to the Iraqi government to work out their problems and the US will help where it can. He said they can’t look to the US for military solutions.

He’s right. There is really nothing we can do to solve their conflicts.

Who ever is helping ISIL with support is to blame most of all and should be identified by the UN and condemned.

Jim
And we should have left the Brits and the Germans to “work out their problems” in 1939 as well, right?

Condemnation by the UN has as much effect as sending them a dunce cap in the mail.
 
Who ever is helping ISIL with support is to blame most of all and should be identified by the UN and condemned.

Jim
No one helped them anywhere near as much as Barack Obama did. Is he included in this? Does the UN send him a dunce cap too?
 
Sooner rather than later. I can see Saudi Arabia and Iran using this as a reason to obtain nukes.
I would say it’s a given, particularly since the “Caliphatist/Persian War” is probably going to go on for a long time and get scarier as it does.

Historians nowadays must be very, very busy looking at historical parallels. They are just endless. (Who is going to play the role of Timur, though? )
 
And we should have left the Brits and the Germans to “work out their problems” in 1939 as well, right?

Condemnation by the UN has as much effect as sending them a dunce cap in the mail.
Different situation.

Hitler was out to take over Europe and invade nations to do so. He also declared war on the US.

Iraq is divided by sectarian differences. The Shiite controlled government gave no concessions to the Sunni’s in the north and are now paying the price.

Jim
 
Different situation.

Hitler was out to take over Europe and invade nations to do so. He also declared war on the US.

Jim
And the differences between that (regionally speaking of course) and the stated ambitions of ISIS and Iran are what?
 
No one helped them anywhere near as much as Barack Obama did. Is he included in this? Does the UN send him a dunce cap too?
Obama has been providing weapons and supploes to ISIL ?

Please provide the source for this. :rolleyes:

Jim
 
And the differences between that (regionally speaking of course) and the stated ambitions of ISIS and Iran are what?
They are religious differences between ISIS and Iran, which go back centuries and of which we’ll never help solve.

Jim
 
Iraq is divided by sectarian differences. The Shiite controlled government gave no concessions to the Sunni’s in the north and are now paying the price.

Jim
Oversimplification. Given that Maliki is a Shiite and prefers his constituents, Al Sadr returned from Iran when we left and has a significant constituency, particularly in Baghdad. Maliki really did change after that. Had we remained in force, the likelihood of ever-increasing Iranian influence would have been minimal indeed.
 
They are religious differences between ISIS and Iran, which go back centuries and of which we’ll never help solve.

Jim
Ethnic as well. There is no love lost between Arabs and Persians. Never was. If you ask a M.E. Arab (and I have) what power he fears more than any other, it’s not Israel. It’s Iran.
 
Isis released a social order -amputation, crucifixion, and no women allowed outdoors.
 
Oversimplification. Given that Maliki is a Shiite and prefers his constituents, Al Sadr returned from Iran when we left and has a significant constituency, particularly in Baghdad. Maliki really did change after that. Had we remained in force, the likelihood of ever-increasing Iranian influence would have been minimal indeed.
Maliki has not provided security or other services to the Sunni areas, which has been the problem from the beginning.

It’s why ISIS forces were virtually unopposed taking those areas. The Iraqi troops who took off their uniforms and deserted, were Sunni’s who most likely, joined the ISIS side.

But, the bottom line on what Obama should do is what ?

Should our troops have stayed there under Iraqi control ?

We can not solve their problems with military force. That has been proven to be a failure and was predicted to be a failure, before we invaded.

Also, this isn’t the first surge of violence by the Sunni militias in Iraq. It took place while our troops were there. The only difference now is, our troops are no longer the targets.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top