|
Torpor posted:They should never sever ties with the Iraqi government. They should hang on to that diplomatic cover story from heaven until the end of times. If the Iraqi government somehow vaporizes into nothingness, they should claim they are the true Iraqi government and they are hosting an iraqi government-in-exile conference every day until the real Iraqi government is restored. And if it is restored, claim it isn't the real Iraqi government, or if it is the real Iraqi government, they aren't loving getting Kirkuk back, or the oil. This is rocking the boat. Taking over one of the most economically important cities in the entire country in a blatant power grab when they already reap many of Kirkuk's benefits is rocking the boat. It's not a cover story, and geopolitics isn't a game where governments try to get the most gold and points. They're not trying to put a target on their backs for anyone. If the Iraqi government did dissolve, saying "Hey ISIS, you know those guys you just tried to stamp out? We're protecting them in Kurdistan now" isn't going to do much for the Kurds long term peace prospects. All they've done in Syria and Iraq is ride the fine line of getting themselves the best situation they can without stepping too noticeably on any toes. I don't expect that to change.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
So when you said Kurds don't rock the boat earlier, but they are looking for control in Kirkuk, they're definitely acting more emboldened than they had been for the last many years. They've already got a target on their backs by simply existing in the form they are now, they don't need much incentive for ISIS to come try rolling into their own territory.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Has ISIS made any move toward them or are they content with letting them be (for now at least)? There's been some minor skirmishing between Sunni militants and the Kurds, but nothing major. I don't think they're going to press the Kurds for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
They were looking for control diplomatically prior to all this, but the peshmerga moving into Kirkuk was completely separate, and happened immediately after the Mosul invasion. ISIS was heading east minutes after Mosul was taken, and the Iraqi army abandoned Kirkuk similarly. If the Kurds didn't move in, ISIS would have taken the city just as easily. They probed peshmerga defenses, and lost 10 guys, but aside from that I think ISIS is now focusing on moving south now as opposed to taking Kirkuk, so it worked. Iran and Iraq are both involved with the Kurd forces on this. It was a necessary step for all of Iraq to stop ISIS there, and even with Kirkuk not technically being part of Kurdistan, there was no way they were going to stand by and watch it fall, because it's still a crucial city for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Oh, so FAUXTON was full of poo poo? Thank god. For a moment I seriously believed him. FAUXTON either attends KKK rallies, or as a person on the Left has fever-dreams about what he thinks conservatives in the US must be secretly thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:They were looking for control diplomatically prior to all this, but the peshmerga moving into Kirkuk was completely separate, and happened immediately after the Mosul invasion. ISIS was heading east minutes after Mosul was taken, and the Iraqi army abandoned Kirkuk similarly. If the Kurds didn't move in, ISIS would have taken the city just as easily. They probed peshmerga defenses, and lost 10 guys, but aside from that I think ISIS is now focusing on moving south now as opposed to taking Kirkuk, so it worked. Iran and Iraq are both involved with the Kurd forces on this. It was a necessary step for all of Iraq to stop ISIS there, and even with Kirkuk not technically being part of Kurdistan, there was no way they were going to stand by and watch it fall, because it's still a crucial city for them. Makes sense, but the Kurds have been wanting that city for a while. How do the Kurds and Iranians get along?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:This is rocking the boat. Taking over one of the most economically important cities in the entire country in a blatant power grab when they already reap many of Kirkuk's benefits is rocking the boat. It's not a cover story, and geopolitics isn't a game where governments try to get the most gold and points. They're not trying to put a target on their backs for anyone. If the Iraqi government did dissolve, saying "Hey ISIS, you know those guys you just tried to stamp out? We're protecting them in Kurdistan now" isn't going to do much for the Kurds long term peace prospects. All they've done in Syria and Iraq is ride the fine line of getting themselves the best situation they can without stepping too noticeably on any toes. I don't expect that to change. They have some arguable basis in law to take and hold Kirkuk, though. I was shocked about Kirkuk and though I think it probably made sense, the murmuring out of the Kurdish press is "we ain't giving it back". They can probably get away with that. If the Kurds are going to get easy to hold concessions from Iraq it is going to be during this time and they should have a pretty easy time of it unless the situation is already unsalvagable. This whole crisis situation started off and it seemed like Maliki may have been making a power play for a dictatorship, but then that failed spectacularly. I hear the Iraqi army near Fallujah ran off and left all of their heavy weapons behind for ISIS to make use of.  Edit: making sense helps. Torpor fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Makes sense, but the Kurds have been wanting that city for a while. How do the Kurds and Iranians get along? I don't know much about their relationship in general, but Iran was allowing/encouraging Iranian Kurds to go and help defend Iraqi Kurdistan, which was unprecedented according to the article I read. Considering Iran's relationship with the Maliki government, that says something to me about how that alliance views the Kurds aims in Kirkuk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Libluini posted:What the gently caress? There are Americans thinking like that? Or is that just hyperbole? Because if that is true, then our own conservatives must look like communists from American viewpoints. I'm in Texas and the idea that people want unironically to invade Mexico is total bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Torpor posted:
Gonna laugh my rear end off when ISIS is using commandered Abrams tanks to do thunder runs through Baghdad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Makes sense, but the Kurds have been wanting that city for a while. How do the Kurds and Iranians get along? I think comparatively well. Iran supported Kurdish rebels in the 80s; I guess Saddam gassed em partially for that reason. Iran has its own Kurdish separatist movement, but they're small and pretty dormant I think. Whelp, wiki has resources, as usual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Kurdistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93PJAK_conflict
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
so the ISIS forces have expanded about as much as it is possible for them to do without facing serious or overwhelming resistance from the Kurds, or Shia militias right? You have to figure that the time they stop gaining ground is the time that their hold over the regions they are in falls apart.. you know when the people living there figure out how lovely life is going to be for them under ISIS control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Starsfan posted:so the ISIS forces have expanded about as much as it is possible for them to do without facing serious or overwhelming resistance from the Kurds, or Shia militias right? You have to figure that the time they stop gaining ground is the time that their hold over the regions they are in falls apart.. you know when the people living there figure out how lovely life is going to be for them under ISIS control. If they keep expanding I wouldn't be surprised to see Assad throw everything he's got at any ISIS controlled areas in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:If they keep expanding I wouldn't be surprised to see Assad throw everything he's got at any ISIS controlled areas in Syria. I doubt it. While I don't believe that Assad and ISIS are in cahoots, I do believe he's more than happy to let them rampage around, especially if it is mostly happening in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
New Division posted:I doubt it. While I don't believe that Assad and ISIS are in cahoots, I do believe he's more than happy to let them rampage around, especially if it is mostly happening in Iraq. I think he means that Assad will try to take back areas in Syria that are currently controlled by the ISIS because they're busy in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
It does seem that ISIS may have overextended themselves, especially since it's not like they were actually finished fighting in Syria. What's the thinking behind starting an N-front war and getting everyone else in the region mad at them? They may have shocked the Iraqi army, but from the sounds of it every other faction in the region is hostile to them and considering action. Even the U.S. seems to be slowly stirring, and might even consider some air strikes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Ragingsheep posted:I think he means that Assad will try to take back areas in Syria that are currently controlled by the ISIS because they're busy in Iraq. This. Besides, I don't know how much ISIS wants Syria. I'd rather swoop into a country where 30,000 troops desert while defending than fight block by block with Assad's veteran troops. Dolash posted:It does seem that ISIS may have overextended themselves, especially since it's not like they were actually finished fighting in Syria. What's the thinking behind starting an N-front war and getting everyone else in the region mad at them? They may have shocked the Iraqi army, but from the sounds of it every other faction in the region is hostile to them and considering action. Even the U.S. seems to be slowly stirring, and might even consider some air strikes. What are the odds they boost their ranks while roaming Iraq? Edit- well CNN saying some people are going into Mosul right now because they feel Isis is more stable 
pro starcraft loser fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Can anyone remember the last time Raqqa was shelled or bombed? That's ISIS' capital, but I read something the other day from someone inside the city that it hadn't been attacked by pro-Assad forces in some time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Torpor posted:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/kurdish-peshmerga-kirkuk-iraq-maliki Holy poo poo, I was wrong, Kurdistan is back on the loving table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Edit- well CNN saying some people are going into Mosul right now because they feel Isis is more stable Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura. They uphold sharia law like the mukhabarat upholds democracy. They're not the only group involved in Mosul though, so it remains to be seen if they're able to rule it Raqqa style while still maintaining control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:The only people I've ever heard of proposing something like that were Mexicans, but that's less "invasion" and more "send in SEAL Team Six to assassinate some mafiosos" and this was only when the violence was Syria bad a few years ago. The people prattling about "secure our borders" and Texan border towns "being invaded" are the ones who think it'd be prudent to 'pacify the lawless border states if they can't/won't do it themselves.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
You know, people often given Tom Friedman a hard time, and while most of it's deserved, he does sometimes have interesting ideas. But today, I think he is mentally losing it.quote:It is not the elected Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki versus the Sunni extremists. Maliki is a tyrant who’s governed Iraq as a Shiite chauvinist, just as much as Sunni militants promote Sunni chauvinism. Both are losers. No — the real of war of ideas, the only one worth taking sides in, is the one between the religious extremists (Sunni and Shiite) and the committed environmentalists. Both are actually trying to erase the borders of the Middle East, but for very different reasons. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/11/opinion/friedman-the-real-war-of-ideas.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 edit: Didn't realize this was a few days old, but man, what the hell?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Xandu posted:You know, people often given Tom Friedman a hard time, and while most of it's deserved, he does sometimes have interesting ideas. But today, I think he is mentally losing it. That is one hell of a read.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Xandu posted:You know, people often given Tom Friedman a hard time, and while most of it's deserved, he does sometimes have interesting ideas. But today, I think he is mentally losing it. I think Friedman crossed the line into knowing self-parody a few years back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Xandu posted:You know, people often given Tom Friedman a hard time, and while most of it's deserved, he does sometimes have interesting ideas. But today, I think he is mentally losing it. I saw this yesterday and I still have no idea what to think of it. I largely deleted it from my brain.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:40
|
|
New Division posted:I think Friedman crossed the line into knowing self-parody a few years back. correct
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura. Also Mussolini was an awesome guy because he made the trains run on time. Like what the hell dude, you're talking up an AQ offshoot that was so crazy AQ cut them off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura. - The Brown Menace
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Like I thought the lowest this thread could go was people defending Assad and Gaddafi. Nope let's talk up the loving ISIS because STABILITY AND ORDER, STABILITY AND ORDER... I mean at least Gaddafi did some token poo poo for Libya jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
If people are curious about American conservative opinion of this whole debacle, I picked up a bit off the radio tonight. It is definitely going down the "wash your hands" route, with people lamenting the Iraqis incapability of accepting the gift of democracy. Was a fair amount of talk about how the Germans and Japanese, despite being evil, managed to become freedom loving, while the Iraqis clearly just have their evil freedom hating nature ingrained in their culture. This was followed by predicting that one day one of those "evil cultured middle eastern states" would get their hands on a nuke and blow up New York City and America would have to make hard choices on what to do with these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:02
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:The people prattling about "secure our borders" and Texan border towns "being invaded" are the ones who think it'd be prudent to 'pacify the lawless border states if they can't/won't do it themselves.' Got any more bullshit about what you think the Right secretly believes? Because I've heard more than my fair share of the insane prattling of the far-right, and that's a new one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
The Brown Menace posted:Not incorrect. I mean sure we'd all love to pretend that ISIS is the worst poo poo ever, and they actually are a strong contender, but ISIS is also very good at keeping up (sharia) law and order. They don't just randomly gently caress with people, and many of the freedoms they restrict are ones which the people they govern never used or intended to use anyway. For some, the crazy roaming sharia wannabe-caliphate is a better option than constantly being hounded by thieves and rapists, who effectively get scared away by ISIS' "scary motherfucker" aura. Yes, this is how the Taliban came to enjoy a certain level of support when they were running Afghanistan: they were austere, uncompromising and ruthless but when the alternative was violent anarchy, for many people, the Taliban looked like the better bet. I have no difficulty believing that, if ISIS is capable of setting up non-corrupt administrations that are adept at keeping the peace in the areas that they control, the majority of people living in those areas will be content enough to make their accommodations with ISIS and get on with their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Also Mussolini was an awesome guy because he made the trains run on time. JT Jag posted:The Taliban: Also not that bad. Gen. Ripper posted:Like I thought the lowest this thread could go was people defending Assad and Gaddafi. "On no account must we think about why ISIS is facing so little resistance in Sunni areas, or why ordinary Sunnis might welcome their takeovers! The only acceptable response to ISIS is to bravely defy them on the internet!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:"On no account must we think about why ISIS is facing so little resistance in Sunni areas, or why ordinary Sunnis might welcome their takeovers! The only acceptable response to ISIS is to bravely defy them on the internet!"   Nearly half the city of 2 million fled in 1 day as opposed to CNN's "some people are entering Mosul" report. Keep in mind refugees are primarily heading into Iraqi Kurdistan, and arabs will be wearing out their welcome very quickly there. A lot of people probably don't have places to go, as the middle east is in no position to take on an influx of refugees anywhere. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Got any more bullshit about what you think the Right secretly believes? Because I've heard more than my fair share of the insane prattling of the far-right, and that's a new one. It isn't secret. But then again I live in a deep red state with a long history of Mexican immigration so there may be a certain level of ideological inbreeding going on inside the Plains conservative hivemind locus which may not exist in other places. It isn't reaching RAHOWA levels but it sure as hell has passed "we sure love seeing those illegals (read: neighbors for 3 generations) faces when we talk about them like they are animals" levels. The goddamn AG of the state basically recruited landlords to be his own little immigration gestapo, reporting tenants for harassment visits by LEOs if they dare to look the slightest bit Hispanic or go work at the migrant-friendly meatpacking plants with their friends like their parents and grandparents did before them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:Yes, this is how the Taliban came to enjoy a certain level of support when they were running Afghanistan: they were austere, uncompromising and ruthless but when the alternative was violent anarchy, for many people, the Taliban looked like the better bet. I have no difficulty believing that, if ISIS is capable of setting up non-corrupt administrations that are adept at keeping the peace in the areas that they control, the majority of people living in those areas will be content enough to make their accommodations with ISIS and get on with their lives. If US forces had used such methods in Iraq, public executions, mutilations and torture I can just imagine the praise they would have gotten for bringing ruthless, uncompromising law and order.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:
Civilians fleeing violent conflict, you say? Well this is a new and unheard-of development!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
redscare posted:Civilians fleeing violent conflict, you say? Well this is a new and unheard-of development! A million people in one day though?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2014 07:23
|
|