I wouldn't be hostile to an enemy tank if it was parked on the end of my street either.
So, that whole Iraq invasion thing was a good idea then...
- Thread starter Mr Badger
- Start date
I wouldn't be hostile to an enemy tank if it was parked on the end of my street either.
Should they join forces and attack the UK and USA ?
No but if I disagreed with it's presence I wouldn't run out and hug it either.
nah... just perhaps try to embrace progress, democracy, basic human rights etc... try to shake off the tribal nonsense
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
Perhaps, did they want the US/UK to go in? It's a 60/40 split or there abouts, why is it our concern what a not too great majority wants half way around the world? The "they were begging for our help" is simply not true, just used to make people feel better about their actions years later.
Divides appeared again, like they disappeared? Divides they help escalate you mean to make the war effort easier. The same structure that was destroyed? I guess there is an easy answer in there somewhere.
I guess in a similar fashion to how the Shia militias were / are?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
This is rather like saying 'If we knock down that derelict building, it's going to destabilise it'. Well yes, it is. But you cannot build where a derelict building exists.
Obama announced last week he would be arming the "moderate" Al Qaeda in Syria, provoking questions of how any part of Al Qaeda can be termed "moderate".
This "ISIS", which has been described as "so hardcore they were kicked out of Al Qaeda" is like a gift for him in that respect. Because now a distinction is being made between "Al Qaeda" and "ISIS hardcore terrorists".
Now, don't ask me why the US would be behind ISIS (and I'm not even convinced they are), but the timely "coincidence" is uncanny and should be factored in when attempting to understand what the hell's going in.
It could well be that these guys have been kicked out of Syria, and told they would not be among the groups to receive arms, and have decided "well, let's do Iraq then". So it could also be blowback in that sense (as they have been supported by the West in Syria so far, and have possibly now gone "splinter/rogue"). But it just seems these guys (ISIS) are so bloody well-armed, that it's actually them who've been directly armed by the US, for some reason. Unless the story is true that they very easily captured the Humvees/choppers etc from the Iraqi army.
The reluctance of the US to make absolutely sure Maliki's government is safe, is quite telling. It's like this is part of a plan. Maliki appealed for US air strikes against ISIS last month, and was turned down. Now, consider how the US is carrying out drone strikes all over the place... Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen (killing plenty of innocent people while they're at it). And yet you have this ISIS group rising to power in Iraq, and they don't provide air support? It's all very strange right now.
This "ISIS", which has been described as "so hardcore they were kicked out of Al Qaeda" is like a gift for him in that respect. Because now a distinction is being made between "Al Qaeda" and "ISIS hardcore terrorists".
Now, don't ask me why the US would be behind ISIS (and I'm not even convinced they are), but the timely "coincidence" is uncanny and should be factored in when attempting to understand what the hell's going in.
It could well be that these guys have been kicked out of Syria, and told they would not be among the groups to receive arms, and have decided "well, let's do Iraq then". So it could also be blowback in that sense (as they have been supported by the West in Syria so far, and have possibly now gone "splinter/rogue"). But it just seems these guys (ISIS) are so bloody well-armed, that it's actually them who've been directly armed by the US, for some reason. Unless the story is true that they very easily captured the Humvees/choppers etc from the Iraqi army.
The reluctance of the US to make absolutely sure Maliki's government is safe, is quite telling. It's like this is part of a plan. Maliki appealed for US air strikes against ISIS last month, and was turned down. Now, consider how the US is carrying out drone strikes all over the place... Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen (killing plenty of innocent people while they're at it). And yet you have this ISIS group rising to power in Iraq, and they don't provide air support? It's all very strange right now.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
Ah interesting, thanks for that, will research a little more.
who said it was... we didn't go in because they wanted us to - our motivations for going in are a separate issue entirely - most of the population did however happen to want Saddam gone... and it is a large chunk both the Shia(65%) and the Kurds (15-20%) (you seem to have forgotten the Kurds - they might be Sunni but they're no fans of Saddam). Saddam and his party were a minority elite that didn't deserve to be in power
I'm not following what you're trying to say there - who said divides went away.... they've remained there in spite of other efforts - even when both groups are represented in power they can't work together
yes... that's part of the problem... outside interests within the region are providing funding to groups outside of the govt
Frankly, given whats happening in Syria, a similar Insurgency could well have occurred even if Iraq hadn't been invaded... Whether it would have been one from ISIS or whether we'd have seen another Shia uprising backed by Iran is another matter.
Last edited:
they're not - that's just ridiculous
They haven't been kicked out of Syria - they've done rather well over there and have extended their fight into Iraq
Isn't it ridiculous already that the US is arming parts of Al Qaeda? Shall we quibble over who gets armed?
You're talking as if they conquered Syria and moved on to Iraq. Al-Assad is still in power, and kicking their arses, last time I checked. Why would they start things up in Iraq without coming close to finishing the job in Syria, unless their prospects for the near-term in Syria were not optimistic?
Yes... and its not quibbling its just me refuting a silly assertion - the US is not funding/supporting ISIS
No I'm not and why wouldn't they - they've done well in Syria compared to other rebel groups, are still fighting there and want to continue fighting in Iraq... their name might be a bit of a giveaway
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,321
- Location
- Southampton
erm
no
so anyone who apposes assad is Al Qaeda ? there is no such thing as moderate Al Qaeda, and Obama is certainly not arming them
you are mistakenly lumping anyone who is anti assad into a big group along with the hardline islamaist groups including AQ and ISIS
(who in reality in Syria are also fighting the moderate groups at the same time as fighting assad)
ISIS is showing up in Iraq now because
1) Assad is winning / pushing them out of Syria
2) Iraqi sunnies are feeling persecuted because of nouri al-maliki being too pro shia and therefore giving room for these people to get annoyed and turn to the extremests for help
they only US equipment involved is because the Iraq army is leaving it behind while they run away
the US are not providing air support because they widthdrew from combat operations in iraq years ago and dont want to get dragged back in, and Iraq is supposed to be standing on its own two feet
not sure what you are getting at but its based on a lot of nonsence
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,728
- Location
- North
The guy I was replying to who claimed people were jumping on the rafters for our help. It's irrelevant if they wanted him gone or not, nor do you have anything to suggest that was the case as simply providing percentages of religious divide does not inherently mean they opposed him.
Are you saying only 15% of the population is Sunni?
hence why I said 60/40
Is that surprising? Taking power away from a large minority, handing it to someone else who you have supported to suppress / kill the large minority and then you expect them to play nice. Why are we playing god here?
Agreed, with the biggest coming from the US/UK.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
They aren't arming Al Qaeda per say. Al Qaeda is just an umbrella term for a disparate bunch of Jihadi groups.
ISIS control northern Syria. They don't recognise the national borders of Iraq or Syria, so why would they need to conquer the whole of Syria? Their territory runs through both.
No
Which is misleading as a big chunk of that 40% are the Kurds who are also opposed to Saddam. Its not a slight majority its a rather large majority.
Yes... they have a democracy - they had both Shia and Sunni politicians in prominent roles and they screwed it up...
What outside groups are we supporting?