Helluva typo there, JM. SAME fucking guys.
[Homer Simpson]
Mmmmmmmmm…legitimate beef
Drools
[/Homer Simpson]
It’s kinda like “legitimate rape”, only different.
“Let’s get some burgers.”
“McDonalds?”
“Nah, I want legitimate beef.”
For reference, I spent five years between 2007 and 2012 in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the majority of my time in Iraq in Baghdad, Basra and Erbil (side trips to Mosul, Kirkuk and more FOB and small cities than I can remember). I have been kicking around the middle east in general and current or former war zones since about 2000’.
Yes, this IS different. Even al-Qaeda have disowned these guys and ISIS has gone as far as attacking their fellow jihadist organizations, showing them as much mercy as they show the Shi’a or Christians. That makes it different right there. Look, I never said it was going to be easy. But it will be simpler to accomplish this now than fighting them later when we will need a much larger force for a much longer time. By comparison, you seem to think doing nothing is the solution.
It’s not. A) Because of the butchery going on. B) Because it threatens our allies in the region (Jordan, Iraqi Kurdistan and Israel among others) C) It’s likely, very likely, to lead to an invasion of Iraq by Iran if Baghdad is under threat of being captured. D) it threatens our access to oil in the region, and that is something WE. MUST. HAVE.
Irregardless of everything else, and especially the massive human misery these fucks have caused, the coldest calculations come up with the same conclusion. We’re going to have to fight ISIS either before they have a seat at the UN, or after. But it’s inevitable. It IS better to do so while ISIS is still in flux and before they have created hardened defenses and entrenched themselves in various cities.
If Saudi Arabia deals with this by themselves two things will probably happen. 1) Iran will invade from the east, and 2) there will be a civil war or significant terror strikes in the KSA. Sound like an ideal solution to you? Keeping in mind that KSA supplies 18% of our oil and Iraq supplies another 5% or so? With them out of the picture for the foreseeable future rebuilding the production and terminal facilities, that’s not quite a fourth of all our oil availability gone. Poof.
You have a plan to replace that given that it’ll be a WORLDWIDE shortage? Or are you cool paying seven bucks a a gallon for gas and the attendant rise in any consumable (like your food) that has to be trucked in because of our “just in time” economy? The way that scenario doesn’t happen is if the KSA is part of a coalition and is very limited in scope of actions and location of operations.
This shit is bigger than just “let’s not get involved”. We don’t have a fucking choice. We don’t have to like it, but we need that oil, which means we need both Saudi Arabia and Iraq to remain under current management. And oh yeah, it’d be kinda nice if we could rid the earth of these lunatics while we’re at it. Maybe save a few infants or small children from being crucified, save a few women from being raped or sold like cattle. That sort of thing.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Just want to add two things:
-
I only mentioned my experience so you understand I don’t just make this shit up. I have been there, I understand the militia/insurgency concepts very very well and I am familiar with the region, it’s players and what they want.
-
The real path to US non-involvement in any of this is energy independence. Until that happens we’re fucked sideways and stuck with all these douche bags, like it or not. That’s the cost of being an addict. /shrug
Regards,
-Bouncer-
This guy has it -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfZa1I8lxDo 
Read somewhere that by abt 2020, USA may become net exporter of fuel due to shale gas. EDIT: shale gas reserves will last for 100 yrs only though.
Regarding ISIS, I guess Iraqi army & Kurd will be sufficient for ground operations in adding to USA\NATO tackling them by air force.
Iran won’t invade ANY place, judging by past actions. Regardless of what happens, Iran is more likely to arrest and take hostages, but never invade. They are large, but pretty cowardly and indecisive.
Israel will take military action, Saudi Arabia took military action in Bahrain, heck even the United Arab Emirates took military action in Libya! Turkey shows actions, in the past in both Iraq and Syria, and sending a flotilla to Israel. But Iran is all bark.
Iran may send military advisers, but for other reasons never real military action. This may be because they don’t want to be mired in a quagmire, and because they are crappy.
Iran never defended its allies in the Palestinian territories, never stood up for Syria (which is a good thing), and never defended Hezbollah in Lebanon despite all the bravado of standing with them against “Zionists”. To rely on Iran to defend something is laughable.
Iran is not tough, they only take hostages.
I respect that.
You said “nip it in the bud so to speak with relatively little effort”. I’m not seeing a whole lot of space between that and “easy”.
If it’s something that has to be done (I’ll accept that for the sake of argument), then it needs to be an international force, with a large Arab/Muslim component. Not the US alone. And what do you propose to do about ISIL in Syria? If all you want to do is rid Iraq of them, they WILL retreat into Syria, if needed, and then come back when the coast is clear.
The problem with Iraq is political. If you don’t fix the politics, you’ll be back there doing this same shit every 3 years.
it is interesting to see this made as a statement when one thinks of how the reaction should be if it was made about jewish soldiers committing what a palestinian would see as war crimes.
Agreed. Don’t say a peep. Tick…tick…tick…
It is good the white colonial understanding can bring wisdom to the lesser peoples.
[quote=“truthSeeker2, post:80, topic:697288”]
Being secular is itself a sign of progressiveness.
In interviews, he seems more polite, more sophisticated and makes more sense than most world leaders.[/qyoite]
Yes, more progressive, like Stalin. An analysis that is in the same time deeply ignorant, and false and stupid.
It was Assad who created the civil war in attacking with arms the original peaceful demonstrations. It was the deep and great corruption of the Assad that drove the people to demonstrate in the first place behind the faux façade of “secularism” which meant only the corrupt enrichement of the Assad and their allies.
But of course as less humans they have no right to this if it can distburd the comfortable.
[quote=“Bouncer, post:105, topic:697288”]
For reference, I spent five years between 2007 and 2012 in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the majority of my time in Iraq in Baghdad, Basra and Erbil (side trips to Mosul, Kirkuk and more FOB and small cities than I can remember). I have been kicking around the middle east in general and current or former war zones since about 2000’. [/qyote]
And you think there is no salafism among the Kurd.
The typical Americans who come without knowledge of the religion or of the history or of the languages, to see their own reflections, superficially.