|
Cat Mattress posted:Obviously, what is needed to stabilize the region is a Mosul Stock Exchange to complement the Baghdad-based ISX. Yeah, I did a legit double take when they said "and now we have former Ambassador to Iraq Paul Bremer here to talk to us." They couldn't have gotten like...literally anyone else? I can't imagine anyone who has less credibility on Iraq than Paul Bremer.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Paul Bremer was just on Morning Joe to talk about the possibility of American military intervention. Yep, Paul Bremer is definitely the guy who I want to tell me what we should do in Iraq. I wish pretty much any other parties were in a position to intervene in Iraq. Like, the lineup of Iran, the U.S, Turkey (??) is just terrible, but if ISIS doesn't bog down soon an intervention to at least stop anyone from gaining ground would probably be far better than tipping the scale one way or the other. It's put me into doing research on what the U.N. could have done, but didn't, in situations like Rwanda where some sort of intervention may actually have been able to do some good. On the flipside, what might happen in a few months if Iranian and Iraqi army forces retake a sunni city is also worrying to contemplate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:that went better than I was expecting given your description Kurdish peshmerga. ISIS would've taken them hostage, I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Anyone got a link to that list of known ISIS twitter accounts? I went back five pages and couldn't find it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:11
|
|
|
I'm seeing a lot of m4 toting ISIS dudes in these pictures. One of them even had an aimpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:Anyone got a link to that list of known ISIS twitter accounts? I went back five pages and couldn't find it. http://justpaste.it/ISIS_wlyat Here you go. They're mostly in Arabic though, isisnews3 is the only one I can think of in English.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
So, let's say Iran and the US work together to stop ISIS. Besides the obvious (Yer workin with terrists, bama!), what could go wrong? What could go right? Could this actually wind up with rapprochement between Iran and the US?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, let's say Iran and the US work together to stop ISIS. Besides the obvious (Yer workin with terrists, bama!), what could go wrong? What could go right? Dawwww.. They're so cute when they are stupid. Who's a good widdle pipedreamer? Who's a good widdle pipedreamer.. Yes you are. Yes you are.. Here. Go fetch!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
It's more a severe dislike for the Saudis that has been growing steadily since Sept 11th.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, let's say Iran and the US work together to stop ISIS. Besides the obvious (Yer workin with terrists, bama!), what could go wrong? What could go right? US Airforce will pave way with airstrikes for Iranian basij forces on the ground?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, let's say Iran and the US work together to stop ISIS. Besides the obvious (Yer workin with terrists, bama!), what could go wrong? What could go right? NYT is leading with rumors of possible cooperation through talks (though a far cry from outright collaboration, of course) so it's not entirely possible something could happen. It's far above my level, but there's likely been some behind-the-scenes Gulf state-Iran negotiations under the table on Syria recently, as well. Iran is in a position to be a more respectable player, as it were, in the eyes of the West. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:So, let's say Iran and the US work together to stop ISIS. Besides the obvious (Yer workin with terrists, bama!), what could go wrong? What could go right? Any Iranian involvement can/will be met with stiff resistance. This sort of fighting could get very nasty very quickly, and maybe draw Iran into a protracted war vs guerrillas. Which I think would be a dream come true for some Americans or Israelis. The US risks getting drawn into something deeper if they try anything. If they launch airstrikes they are implicitly stating that the chaos in Iraq is still their problem, and when they find that airstrikes alone don't do the job, things might escalate. Or they'd get Iran to do the dirty work on the ground? It sounds utterly bizarre, but I don't think it is impossible. If that happened, I'd say nuclear negotiations would proceed rather smoothly afterwords. I feel retarded for even dreaming of this stuff, but there has been a fundamental shift in US and Iranian policy. Obama negotiated with Russia instead of bombing Syria, and both countries have been far more willing to negotiate over the nuclear issue. The Saudis have been snubbed on several occasions. The impossible is suddenly not. What a wacky world we live in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Ronald Reagan rolls in his grave:-
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:NYT is leading with rumors of possible cooperation through talks (though a far cry from outright collaboration, of course) so it's not entirely possible something could happen. It's far above my level, but there's likely been some behind-the-scenes Gulf state-Iran negotiations under the table on Syria recently, as well. Iran is in a position to be a more respectable player, as it were, in the eyes of the West. Times heard the same rumors I did, then. Weird as hell, maaaan. Edit: Al-Saqr blows my mind with some hard evidence. WTF. They say I'm a dreamer, but I guess I'm not the only one, huh? Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
That the US is considering talking to Iran is not that significant; but, it is significant that the US is publicly signaling its intent to work with Iran. I think that's an important "concession" to Iran, in the boneheaded US framework of diplomacy where talking to your rivals grants them "legitimacy" and shows "weakness." Anyway, a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
I think Joshua Landis is right here. Maliki isn't going to make any of the concessions he needs to, he's going to embrace sectarianism to combat Sunnis. The US should, at this point (since it failed to intervene in Syria), sit back and let Iran deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Why "since it failed to intervene in Syria"? Just for consistency, or for some practical reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
No I just think it's already too late. We missed the chance for military intervention on to do some good and also prevent the rise of jihadists. And as long as ISIS has sanctuary in Syria, we aren't solving the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I think Joshua Landis is right here. Maliki isn't going to make any of the concessions he needs to, he's going to embrace sectarianism to combat Sunnis. The US should, at this point (since it failed to intervene in Syria), sit back and let Iran deal with it. I'm OK with this. The whole Shia/Sunni issue is one that's been festering for generations and fundamentally it's something the Islamic world needs to sort out for itself and find a way to coexist peacefully. Western intervention seems to be largely counterproductive at this point. While I hate all the violence and death, I don't see a a pragmatic way of stopping it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Obviously when you're facing a leadership crisis revolving around the Sunni/Shia schism, the best possible thing is to bring in the Turks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:Paul Bremer was just on Morning Joe to talk about the possibility of American military intervention. Yep, Paul Bremer is definitely the guy who I want to tell me what we should do in Iraq. Desunnification
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Ronald Reagan rolls in his grave:- Since when did Reagan have a problem working with the Iranians when the opportunity was right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:Since when did Reagan have a problem working with the Iranians when the opportunity was right? Whatever just making a snarky mcsnark comment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm OK with this. The whole Shia/Sunni issue is one that's been festering for generations and fundamentally it's something the Islamic world needs to sort out for itself and find a way to coexist peacefully. Can it really be sorted out though? My understanding is that the actual Shia/Sunni theological split is largely a moot point, since the Caliph is gone is isn't coming back. The issue at this point is a millennium of built up animosity from past and ongoing oppression and sectarian conflict. I'm not convinced that letting them have a big brawl is going to do anything but exacerbate the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Can it really be sorted out though? My understanding is that the actual Shia/Sunni theological split is largely a moot point, since the Caliph is gone is isn't coming back. The issue at this point is a millennium of built up animosity from past and ongoing oppression and sectarian conflict. I'm not convinced that letting them have a big brawl is going to do anything but exacerbate the conflict. Ideally, they'll decide a big brawl isn't such a good idea once they actually start down that road. I'm not really in favor of it, I just don't see a practical alternative. Westerners don't seem likely to be able to force them to kiss and make up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Can it really be sorted out though? My understanding is that the actual Shia/Sunni theological split is largely a moot point, since the Caliph is gone is isn't coming back. The issue at this point is a millennium of built up animosity from past and ongoing oppression and sectarian conflict. I'm not convinced that letting them have a big brawl is going to do anything but exacerbate the conflict. Probably, this split is a recent phenomenon, 50 years ago nobody gave a gently caress whose sunni or who is shia, and even the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights said that sunnis can be shia without any problems. Shia's were largely seen as another muslim sect and not the current trend of IDOLATOR KAFIR SCUM. I'm not saying there wasn't conflict, there is alot of debate and scripture and evidence of that but it wasn't a big deal. This will only get bloodier before they realize its all stupid and come to some form of coexistence, maybe kind of like the balkans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
I watched that ISIS propaganda video. I gotta say when it is muted and you just watch the action scenes it looks like the kind of video a kid would make for a Call of Duty highlights reel. It is also really, really damning; we're talking like warcrimes 101 - a case study. Edit: Someone had previously asked how the Iraqi Army failed so badly and how are the Kurds the only effective military force around, this article linked by Brown Moses on his twitter seems to provide some clues: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/06/14-iraq-military-situation-pollack '' posted:American military trainers and advisors were able to marginally improve the military effectiveness of the ISF by introducing rigorous, Western-style training programs and partnering closely with Iraqi forces in ways that allowed U.S. personnel to get to know their Iraqi counterparts. As a result of this familiarity, over the course of many months, the Americans figured out who were the good Iraqi soldiers and who were the bad. Who was connected to the terrorists or militias, who was connected to organized crime, who was smart and brave, who was lazy or cowardly. And the U.S. military then went about systematically promoting the best Iraqis, and pushing out the bad ones. Can you guess what Maliki changed? Torpor fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Torpor posted:I watched that ISIS propaganda video. I gotta say when it is muted and you just watch the action scenes it looks like the kind of video a kid would make for a Call of Duty highlights reel. It is also really, really damning; we're talking like warcrimes 101 - a case study. speaking of that. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/27838978 this rear end in a top hat joined ISIS leaving his kids behind so that who could play COD IRL edtion. I honestly hope he dies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Ideally, they'll decide a big brawl isn't such a good idea once they actually start down that road. I'm not really in favor of it, I just don't see a practical alternative. Westerners don't seem likely to be able to force them to kiss and make up. I really don't think that a Thirty Years War in the era of modern warfare is the best way of resolving a politico-religious dispute that has been going on and off for longer than the existence of the Protestant–Catholic spilt. A policy of "let them burn themselves out" in the Mideast is going to set the rest of the world on fire long before they run out of the bodies and will to keep fighting. And for the record, I don't support intervention in either the case of Syria and Iraq, because the political situation is so hosed at this point that there are no forces involved that are both humane enough to righteously support while also being strong enough to stand afterwards on their own, with the exception of the Kurds. The problem there is that the Kurds are a nationalist movement which won't lead to stability in the rest of the region even if they win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
I just noticed members of the Iranian World Cup team. I though tattoos where forbidden in Iran.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
The White House has completed their hourly D20 roll to determine foreign policy and are now not interested in working with Iran militarily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
GuyinCognito posted:I just noticed members of the Iranian World Cup team. I though tattoos where forbidden in Iran. Quite a few of the Iranian players are from the diaspora.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
The Sunni-Shi'ite divide isn't really something that's been brewing for "Generations", really. The divide's been there, sure, and there've been periods of violence n the past, but you'll note that during the height of Pan-Arabism it barely got a mention and very much took a backseat to left-wing secular populism. It's only been since the IDF smashed the pan-arab Egyptians/Syrians/whatever that this sectarianism has really come into the forefront, at least in modernity, probably as a direct result of that failure. I think a lot of the time, pointing at the Sunni/Shia split was a common excuse that the Bush administration used to wave away its failings in Iraq. illrepute fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Texas is too school books nation wide as Saudi Arabia is to interpreting the Quran in a salifist wahabbi way with its paid clerics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
GuyinCognito posted:Texas is too school books nation wide as Saudi Arabia is to interpreting the Quran in a salifist wahabbi way with its paid clerics. Massively overrated?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
illrepute posted:The Sunni-Shi'ite divide isn't really something that's been brewing for "Generations", really. The divide's been there, sure, and there've been periods of violence n the past, but you'll note that during the height of Pan-Arabism it barely got a mention and very much took a backseat to left-wing secular populism. It's only been since the IDF smashed the pan-arab Egyptians/Syrians/whatever that this sectarianism has really come into the forefront, at least in modernity, probably as a direct result of that failure. Actually, while a renewed focus on Islamism was the result of the 67 defeat, the Sunni Shiite Sectarianism developed recently primarily because of the gulf royal backlash against the Iranian Revolution and as a tool of the Ayatollahs to export the revolution to other arab countries. Forty years ago if you had talked to someone about a sunni-shiite divide they'd ask what the gently caress you're talking about, but because Egypt decided to commit political suicide and enter an eternal war against its own people thanks to Anwar Sadat. the only remaining sides were the gulf Arabs and the Iranians, in the fight between the Ayatollahs and Saddam+Gulf regimes used all of their resources to spread sectarian poison into the veins of their societies in order to both project against their enemies and to maintain power over their people. In the end, it's a really wonderful service they did for Israel and other occupying powers, planting the seed of the ultimate destruction of their own societies and reaping it with glee when the time came for them to do so (see how Bashar still holds power), which is what happened in Iraq, Saddam planted the seeds of societies collapse for him to maintain power, so when the Americans and Iranians came it was a really wonderful weapon to destroy the country once and for all. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. It's weird to think about Islamism that isn't directly tied to sectarianism, but I guess that's just how things have shaken out in the years since.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
ISIS/ISIL seems to be really poorly documented. In fact everything happening in Iraq seems to lack details in terms of Western reporting. For example, there have been reports that ISIS is working out of Turkey, but why make that accusation? Does that accusation have similar roots that may point to why ISIS took Turkish hostages? It looks like a lot of ISIS financing has come from their control of Syria's oil fields. But if they have the oil fields, why work with Turkey at all? How do hostages get them leverage? As an aside, taking the oil fields was a savvy move. I had a similar thought when this conflict started off, I learned that type of thing from my years of playing Paradox titles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Thanks for the clarification. It's weird to think about Islamism that isn't directly tied to sectarianism, but I guess that's just how things have shaken out in the years since. Well it's because other styles of Islamism like the MB at one point(or any islamism that refined its style to a more civilian rule type of thing) never reached power anywhere and the only "islamist" side with any real power and unlimited money and unlimited access to media was the ONE sect of islam that is the most intolerant, the most sectarian and the least magnanimous version ever. History's sense of humor is a real bitch. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 00:01 |
|
|
Torpor posted:
Which is something I've been wondering about. Control of oil fields doesn't automatically equal money unless someone continues to buy the oil coming out of them. Who's looking at this poo poo and saying "well, yeah, they're committing atrocities and drawing the region into even more widespread civil war, but on the other hand, oil"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 20:35
|
|
