Can’t argue with this.
How many Sunnis in Mosul are allied with ISIS? Perhaps up to a third of the population of Mosul fled when ISIS came in. That is not an alliance that is fear and loathing.
If a mafia thug comes into your flower shop brandishing an AK 47 demanding a tax payment of 10% of the cash in your drawer or he will kill you and you pay him, does that make you an ally of the Mafia?
Are you telling me Kirkuk is part of a country you call Kurdistan and not part of Iraq?
The ones that matter militarily-- former supporters of SH.
But you were claiming that the Sunnis were defending their territory, just like the Kurds. Even if every Sunni in Mosul fled, how does that constitute “defending their territory”?
No, the Kurds are defending their territory against ISIS. The Sunni Arabs are not. They are defending their territory against the ISF. That’s why it’s a civil war.
That’s what the Kurds are telling you if you’d just listen.
It’s like when the Russian Speaking Separatists in Eastern Ukraine are fighting against the Government forces-- they are defending Ukraine. Makes complete sense!!
Kurds are defending Iraq. That is not in dispute. Is Kirkuk inside the territorial boundaries of Iraq? Is half of Kirkuk Sunni Arab? Have the Peshmerga defended Kirkuk?
Its being recognized more as a regional war everyday.
The take-over of Mosul by ISIS is more about a regional assault by terrorists than an civil war which is defined as within the borders of one nation. I prefer regional war between on the one hand one dictator the US opposes plus an elected leader we grudgingly support versus ISIS.
And because ISIS is extremist of a Sunni variation it does not mean we oppose all Sunnis.
The Sunni vs Shia vs Kurd Civil War II limited concept misses the crux of the real global terrorist threat to US national security our our interests in that part of the world.
And you seem to be getting a but more liberal regarding the recognition of territorial borders these days. Aren’t Crimeans still Ukrainians in your view? I don’t have a problem with an Independent Kurdish Nation-state coming from the mess that GW Bush delivered to the rest of Iraq and the world. I just don’t think they want total independence at this time. They want control over their own oil’s revenue and they want a non-ISIS stability in the rest of Iraq.
Does ISIS represent all Sunnis or just a handful of former military officers from Saddam Hussein’s regime? The half-million that fled from ISIS from Mosul do not appear interested in fighting alongside ISIS killers thrives and extortionists against ISF. And you have no clue how many of those remaining in Mosul will fight against ISF if a counter-offensive is launched to liberate the city from ISIS rule.
The ‘rebels’ as you call them did not fare well up against Peshmerga in Kirkuk nor against ISF at the refinery in Baiji. Baiji is quite some distance from Baghdad and it serves the Northern provinces for domestic consumption.
Do you have any statistics on the make-up of the military operation that defended the oil refinery from the ISIS attack?
Can you veryify that no Kurds were involved in the ISF operation?
Seems like the perfect fight for Kurdush counter terrorists special operators and Kurds surely have an interest in keeping that refinery out of the hands of terrorists.
You know it doesn’t have to be one or the other. A regional conflict doesn’t mean there isn’t also a civil war going on.
And Kirkuk is very much considered part of Kurdistan by the Kurds, often referred to as the cultural capital. Their seizure and protecting of it simply isn’t “defending Iraq” in their minds.I don’t know how to make it plainer. You are the only person describing it in those terms.
John Mace also says the Kurds/Peshmerga are not involved in the Great Iraq Civil
War II. They are not therefore fighting against the government forces. So as usual John Mace has presented another hollow argument that makes no sense at all.
Call it a civil war in Iraq all you like. There is a bigger picture than that and that is what the US government, military and intelligence I’m sure are indeed focusing on.
My view is that most Iraqis are not interested in a second round of civil war. This is an external threat that is trying to provoke a civil war. Calling it a ‘civil war’ now to me defeats the perspective that the large majority of Iraqis from all sects want peace. And in my view the perspective that Iraqis are at each others’ throats can lead to a self-fulfilling phrophecy that need not come true.
The Kurds have largely tried to stay out of the civil war. As I said earlier, that likely isn’t going to work the way it did in Civil War I-- especially since they’ve taken over Kirkuk. But when they do fight, it’s not going to be protect the integrity of Iraq. It’s going to reaffirm their hold on Kurdish territory. They won’t be sending troops to Baghdad to stop any Sunni/Shiite fighting there.
I’m no expert, but I bet the Kurds are of mixed minds about Civil War II. Generally, no one likes a civil war to be raging on one’s borders. OTOH, as long as the Arabs of the two sects are fighting each other and not the Kurds, they (the Kurds) can go about their business without interference.
Once again John Mace pastes my reply and then pays no attention to it whatsoever.
I see Mace is making arguments based upon his amazing ability to predict the future.
ISIS won’t be fighting in Baghdad so no need for Kurdush help there. ISiS was tested at the refinery in Baijii. They got defeated by ISF and maybe some Kurds.
A couple hundred US Green Berets and some good ole Kurdish special operators and some AQ hatin’ Sunni tribal leaders get together and will have a field day picking off the ISIS monkeys in Iraq over the next few months. This does not have to be quick unless the ISIS monkeys start cracking down on Mosul residents as they have done elsewhere.
You’ll have to dig it out of the news rooms because as Human Action say Americans don’t pay attention to solutions.
Sort of like what’s going on here.
M
Who is doing what now?
Mace tries to speak for all Kurds but speaks wrong:
ABC News June 18th: (The autonomous Kurdish forces are also getting involved in fighting further south, helping the Iraqi Army push back against the ISIS advance)
Kurds consider Kirkuk to be part of Kurdistan. We already explained that to you.
There’s a whole lot of disputed Kurdish territory south of Kirkuk.
I was not making an argument there as you had done. You thought you could dissmiss my point by explaining that you meant ‘in the future’ the Kurds would fight the ISF.
The situation in East Ukraine is in the present. And the Separatists are fighting the givernment forces so I would not argue there that the eastern separatists rebels are defending Ukraine. John Mace screwed up again and tried to argue that ‘in the future’ the Kurds will fight against the ISF.
Like most Russians considered Crimea to be part of Russia. To you I thought it does not matter what people think - borders do not change. Tough live with it.
Kirkuk is not part of Kurdistan and arent you supposed to tell the Kurds to do what Iraq’s constitution says to change territorial borders.
Something like half of Kirkuk is not Kurdish.
You’ve twisted your posts in this thread into such a colossal pretzel of logical fallacies that I honesty have no idea what you are even talking about anymore.
=====================================================
As for ISIL, they unfortunately not the real problem. They are more of a symptom of the problem. Get rid of ISIS, and you still have Maliki and the disaffected Sunni Arabs going at each other with the Kurds happily cutting back-room deals with other countries to sell oil independent of what Baghdad wants.
So that one vague sentence at the end of a transcript trumps what Kurdish leaders have been saying all week. Ok.