Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

Harold Weiss · 16-06-2014 10:18pm

Sand wrote: »

Ha, you'll be waiting quite a while. I wont waste my time talking to someone who refuses to engage with other's points like you have done here.

Oh, I know I'll never get a coherent explanation out of you.
Thanks for clearing that up, Sand.

Jonny7 · 16-06-2014 10:25pm

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Well, I'm still awaiting your explanation as to why US/UK and France want to remove Assad.

Let's hear it....won't be holding my breath.

There are two countries which still support Assad, Russia and Iran (three if we count Lebanon)

Just about every other country wants Assad gone, mainly because he's been butchering his own countrymen just to stay in power. Ruining the lives of millions.

The major nations with clout, such as the US, UK, France are obviously the most vocal, and at the forefront.. trying to solve the situation from the beginning and build international consensus

However repeated resolutions are blocked at the UN by Russia which is a permanent member

Any attempts at peace just fail, even by the Arab league, Assad just uses them to play for time, knowing that with Russia on his side international consensus is impossible and that the West will be very unlikely to risk military intervention mainly due to Iraq (Syria's military, geography, etc is v different from Libya, making any intervention, even air only, extreme difficult and likely quite messy - plus public will is very low for another war in the M.E)

As to why most countries want him gone, well..

Assad took a gamble at using force to suppress protests, it backfired.. badly, and he's had to ratchet up the violence up to a horrendous level, it's slaughter on an industrial scale.. he knows he wouldn't even make it to a war crimes tribunal, he'd be torns to bits long before, so looks like he'll keep going to the death, or his position becomes so untenable he takes an offer of exile

Either way the country is shattered, fractured - it's one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes presently in the world

In any devastating earthquake or natural disaster, every country would rush to help, but because "politics".. a situation far far worse has continued for years

realweirdo · 16-06-2014 10:28pm

Harold Weiss wrote: »

I know you're desperately trying to forget the huge strategic blunders by US/UK in Iraq but unfortunately, ignoring problems doesn't make them disappear.

Not really...long before 2003 sunni and shia were massacring each other by the thousands. Saddam was massacring the shia and Assad was massacring the sunni in at least as many numbers as happened post 2003. Its just that it wasnt in the western mainstream media. There was no 24/7 western news channels embedded on the ground.

Harold Weiss · 16-06-2014 11:11pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are two countries which still support Assad, Russia and Iran (three if we count Lebanon)

Just about every other country wants Assad gone, mainly because he's been butchering his own countrymen just to stay in power. Ruining the lives of millions.

The major nations with clout, such as the US, UK, France are obviously the most vocal, and at the forefront.. trying to solve the situation from the beginning and build international consensus

However repeated resolutions are blocked at the UN by Russia which is a permanent member

Any attempts at peace just fail, even by the Arab league, Assad just uses them to play for time, knowing that with Russia on his side international consensus is impossible and that the West will be very unlikely to risk military intervention mainly due to Iraq (Syria's military, geography, etc is v different from Libya, making any intervention, even air only, extreme difficult and likely quite messy - plus public will is very low for another war in the M.E)

As to why most countries want him gone, well..

Assad took a gamble at using force to suppress protests, it backfired.. badly, and he's had to ratchet up the violence up to a horrendous level, it's slaughter on an industrial scale.. he knows he wouldn't even make it to a war crimes tribunal, he'd be torns to bits long before, so looks like he'll keep going to the death, or his position becomes so untenable he takes an offer of exile

Either way the country is shattered, fractured - it's one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes presently in the world

In any devastating earthquake or natural disaster, every country would rush to help, but because "politics".. a situation far far worse has continued for years

I appreciate you taking the time to respond Jonny7 but you're still advancing a narrative by mainstream news that US/UK and France want Assad deposed in order to protect Syrians which to me is highly questionable.

Prince Charles visited Saudi Arabia in February being hosted by the unelected repressive House of Saud. What was he there for? To finalize a deal with BAE to sell fighter jets.

Anyone that knows Saudi Arabia knows they have never had elections in 40+ years and have very strict laws against Women.

This doesn't seem to bother US/UK though, obviously because so long as the theocratic regime remains in place, cheap oil exports to the detriment of Saudi citizens will continue.

Why does the US/UK and France prop up dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and various other nations? Isn't it obvious?

This has nothing to do with human rights. Bahrain were busy butchering their citizens for protesting and the western media / politicians ignored it. The most recent story is of a 14-year old boy being shot dead. Did the mainstream media discuss it?

So when you call me absurd, naive or gullible but then avoid providing a cogent, logical explanation as to why US/UK and France care about Syrians but not about Bahrain citizens or the Palestinians or the Saudi citizens, you undermine my confidence in believing anything you say.

realweirdo · 16-06-2014 11:45pm

It's in everyone's interests that Syria does not become an ungovernable failed state. That alone should be reason for intervention. Today Iraq is suffering an overflow from the syrian conflict, but where next? Jordan? Lebenon? A failed state in the middle east is in no-ones interest.

Russia have got it completely wrong re Syria. They could have encouraged Assad to step down and moderates from all sides in Syria to form a transitional government. Unfortunately its way too late for that and syria today is a failed fractured state.

Its pointless expecting sunni and shia to share countries in any case, a result of the arbitrary drawing of borders in the past.

Jonny7 · 16-06-2014 11:55pm

Harold Weiss wrote: »

Anyone that knows Saudi Arabia knows they have never had elections in 40+ years and have very strict laws against Women.

North Korea never had elections, is one of the most severe nations on earth, yet amazingly countries do business with it..

even it's direct neighbour can be seen to "support it", and at points develop a relationship, likewise the US at has engaged with the Kim dynasty, even sending food aid

Maintaining a relationship is a different kettle of fish altogether.. should the world stop doing business with Saudi because of the fact they are undemocratic? maybe, but where does it end though?.. we stop any and all business with China because of human rights and the situation in Tibet?

It's a complex interplay. Saudi has received criticism for it's reaction to protests during the Arab spring, but I'd argue not enough - enough for the world to stop doing business with it?.. well not quite..

I also remember the same critics who condemned the "cosy" relationship with Gadaffi then condemning the world attempting to do something about it

This has nothing to do with human rights. Bahrain were busy butchering their citizens for protesting and the western media / politicians ignored it.

I would disagree about it being ignored, and "the media" isn't a controlled singular entity. The Arab spring was a spontaneous uprising occurring all across the M.E. and N Africa - I remember catching a lot of news about Bahrain. Over 90 people died, which on it's own was serious matter, however in the scope of what was happening in Egypt, Libya and Syria where hundreds were dying, later turning into thousands - didn't keep it in the spotlight

AbusesToilets · 17-06-2014 4:24am

Manic Moran wrote: »

If the Kurds haven't changed in the years since I was in Iraq, his opinion on why ISIS hasn't gone after them is likely correct. They are disciplined and motivated, even if not massively well trained. That counts for a lot.

I suspect ISIS has gotten about as far as it can. The Iraqi military is starting to fight back, and executions of prisoners such as ISIS has started has a wonderful way of motivating people to fight and not surrender in the future.

From listening to some sources, some of the perceived momentum of ISIS in capturing territory is somewhat illusory. The thrust of it being that rather than it being a case of a blitzkrieg rolling up through the country, it's more of a case of various cells becoming overtly active in areas where they were already entrenched and well established. The possible veracity of this being evidenced by their lack of penetration into majority Shia areas.

BuilderPlumber · 17-06-2014 8:09am

I notice how over the past 35 years or so how the West treated different events. Now, first off, ALL of these dictatorships deserved to go in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world.

1979: Iran. The Shah Pahlavi fell leaving way for a worse military/clerical dictatorship to take over. The West never seriously did anything to stop this happening. Reason: Pahlavi's regime was getting too independent, the new regime was worse for Iranians but the West could contain it and the West feared an even more fanatic regime. OR worse still for them: a communist Iran.
1982: Argentina. Argentina invaded the UK owned Falklands. The UK acted alone, took back the islands and within a short period the military regime in Argentina fell. Memories of Vietnam still fresh in the US probably contributed to the lack of US support.
1990: Iraq. After supporting Saddam to an extent since the 1980s, the West turned on him when he invaded Kuwait. A war followed in 1991 and Saddam was driven home from Kuwait. He was left in power. The reason was he was weak, defeated and no threat. An attempted uprising came but the West did nothing to support this. Why? they feared a mess in Iraq would follow!!
1999: Serbia. The West took out the Milosevic dictatorship. A threat to EU expansion and an obstacle on the oil and gas pipelines. Also, they knew he was the only militant threat in Serbia and an insurgency there post Milosevic was not possible. So, a nice clean war: weaken Milosevic and then the Serbian people themselves did the rest and took him down the following year.
2001: Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan. 9/11 happened and these guys deservedly needed to be taken out. Not only 9/11, but their 1996-2001 reign was by far the worst 'Islamic' dictatorship ever seen in recent times. So, on a roll from the Milosevic success, they followed the same tactics: airbomb the Taliban and al Qaeda positions and leave the Afghans do the rest. A little secret support from Iran came in handy too. And hey presto the Taliban and al Qaeda were ousted from power seemingly relatively successfully.
2003: Iraq. With Serbia and Afghanistan seemingly successful, Bush had a perfect opportunity to take out the thorn in the side of the West for 13 years: former ally Saddam Hussein. The plan again was simple. Go in, take out Saddam and the Iraqis would set up a democracy. Instead, a violent rebellion against the West paired with a vicious cycle of civil wars and sectarianism is what followed. By far the worst war experience for the US since Vietnam.
2009: Green Revolution of Iran. The West's media always lambasted Iran's then president as a gormless, inexperienced culchie prone to saying the most silly remarks that could do unintended damage of the type an Iranian version of Killiniskully would caricature! True, Ahmadinejad was not exactly the most experienced of leaders and was weak but when he was re-elected controversially, the West did nothing to support the opposition of the more seasoned and tactful Mousavi.
2011: Arab Spring. Gaddafi was taken out in a very similar manner to Milosevic. There was little Western commitment and the West merely backed the rebels. The West trusted the military in Egypt to take care of things. They never really lost power as we now know. Tunisia was left to its own device. The West toyed with going into Syria but seem to know that as bad and all as Assad can be, there is only a choice between him or Iraq-style chaos.
2013: Iran. Ahmadinejad goes quietly to be replaced by the more experienced, moderate and cautious Rouhani. The West have formed new deals with him and relations have improved openly. The secret deals in the background remain.
2014: Iraq. The West cannot sell another intervention into Iraq. Afterall, the 2003 Iraq war is directly and indirectly a cause and contribution to all the West's problems from terrorism to recession to emigration from the ME into Europe. So, expect limited US support and more Iranian support.

Azwaldo55 · 17-06-2014 7:45pm

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I notice how over the past 35 years or so how the West treated different events. Now, first off, ALL of these dictatorships deserved to go in an ideal world. But we are not in an ideal world.

1979: Iran. The Shah Pahlavi fell leaving way for a worse military/clerical dictatorship to take over. The West never seriously did anything to stop this happening. Reason: Pahlavi's regime was getting too independent, the new regime was worse for Iranians but the West could contain it and the West feared an even more fanatic regime. OR worse still for them: a communist Iran.
1982: Argentina. Argentina invaded the UK owned Falklands. The UK acted alone, took back the islands and within a short period the military regime in Argentina fell. Memories of Vietnam still fresh in the US probably contributed to the lack of US support.
1990: Iraq. After supporting Saddam to an extent since the 1980s, the West turned on him when he invaded Kuwait. A war followed in 1991 and Saddam was driven home from Kuwait. He was left in power. The reason was he was weak, defeated and no threat. An attempted uprising came but the West did nothing to support this. Why? they feared a mess in Iraq would follow!!
1999: Serbia. The West took out the Milosevic dictatorship. A threat to EU expansion and an obstacle on the oil and gas pipelines. Also, they knew he was the only militant threat in Serbia and an insurgency there post Milosevic was not possible. So, a nice clean war: weaken Milosevic and then the Serbian people themselves did the rest and took him down the following year.
2001: Taliban/al Qaeda Afghanistan. 9/11 happened and these guys deservedly needed to be taken out. Not only 9/11, but their 1996-2001 reign was by far the worst 'Islamic' dictatorship ever seen in recent times. So, on a roll from the Milosevic success, they followed the same tactics: airbomb the Taliban and al Qaeda positions and leave the Afghans do the rest. A little secret support from Iran came in handy too. And hey presto the Taliban and al Qaeda were ousted from power seemingly relatively successfully.
2003: Iraq. With Serbia and Afghanistan seemingly successful, Bush had a perfect opportunity to take out the thorn in the side of the West for 13 years: former ally Saddam Hussein. The plan again was simple. Go in, take out Saddam and the Iraqis would set up a democracy. Instead, a violent rebellion against the West paired with a vicious cycle of civil wars and sectarianism is what followed. By far the worst war experience for the US since Vietnam.
2009: Green Revolution of Iran. The West's media always lambasted Iran's then president as a gormless, inexperienced culchie prone to saying the most silly remarks that could do unintended damage of the type an Iranian version of Killiniskully would caricature! True, Ahmadinejad was not exactly the most experienced of leaders and was weak but when he was re-elected controversially, the West did nothing to support the opposition of the more seasoned and tactful Mousavi.
2011: Arab Spring. Gaddafi was taken out in a very similar manner to Milosevic. There was little Western commitment and the West merely backed the rebels. The West trusted the military in Egypt to take care of things. They never really lost power as we now know. Tunisia was left to its own device. The West toyed with going into Syria but seem to know that as bad and all as Assad can be, there is only a choice between him or Iraq-style chaos.
2013: Iran. Ahmadinejad goes quietly to be replaced by the more experienced, moderate and cautious Rouhani. The West have formed new deals with him and relations have improved openly. The secret deals in the background remain.
2014: Iraq. The West cannot sell another intervention into Iraq. Afterall, the 2003 Iraq war is directly and indirectly a cause and contribution to all the West's problems from terrorism to recession to emigration from the ME into Europe. So, expect limited US support and more Iranian support.

The peacenik idiots who crow from the sidelines don't have a clue.

As the character Control said cynically in John Le Carré's classic novel The Spy Who Came In From The Cold:

"I mean we can't be less ruthless than the opposition simply because you government's policy is benevolent, can you now?"

BuilderPlumber · 17-06-2014 10:57pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The peacenik idiots who crow from the sidelines don't have a clue.

As the character Control said cynically in John Le Carré's classic novel The Spy Who Came In From The Cold:

"I mean we can't be less ruthless than the opposition simply because you government's policy is benevolent, can you now?"

In an ideal world, none of this stuff would be happening. Poor decisions were made that unfortunately can't be reversed. Only for them, the Middle East would be a very different place today.

It is human nature for people to be greedy. Basically, the US and USSR both wanted to be top dog and they did whatever they had to to do so. Some will admit they made mistakes (such as ex hostage takers from the 1980 embassy siege in Iran), others will justify what they did as the 'right thing' (Blair!!). In reality, all were engulfed in an unstoppable cycle of evil and greed that predated them and they were dealing with the consequences of the poor decisions of those who went before them.

Both the West and Middle East have been served poorly politically for years by weak, indecisive and often evil men. The Bush/Blair/9/11/Taliban/al Qaeda era was not one of the finest times for humanity but as much as I don't like all of these, they are all products of the past and their environs.

I know world peace is a pipe dream. I know there's always evil people like terrorists who the world does need to go to war on. ISIS regardless of our views on the past (I opposed the Iraq war for example) do need to be taken out no matter what. Sure, they were a consequence of the past but so too was the 2003 war.

wes · 18-06-2014 10:21am

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The peacenik idiots who crow from the sidelines don't have a clue.

I would say that its pretty clear that the neo-con's were completely wrong (to everyone but the neo-con's), as everything that people against the 2003 war have said would happen has you know happened. In fact things are probably worse than predicted by opponents of the 2003 war.

Iraq is a complete mess, and we know for a fact, that every single reason for the 2003 war was a lie, and quite frankly all the various supporters of the war, who are crawling out of the wood work now, should be ignored for the frankly dangerous idiots that they are.

They were wrong, and refuse to admit it, and as such should be ignored (if not out right condemned for doubling down on there stupidty) as they haven't a clue.

Azwaldo55 · 18-06-2014 10:55am

wes wrote: »

I would say that its pretty clear that the neo-con's were completely wrong (to everyone but the neo-con's), as everything that people against the 2003 war have said would happen has you know happened. In fact things are probably worse than predicted by opponents of the 2003 war.

Iraq is a complete mess, and we know for a fact, that every single reason for the 2003 war was a lie, and quite frankly all the various supporters of the war, who are crawling out of the wood work now, should be ignored for the frankly dangerous idiots that they are.

They were wrong, and refuse to admit it, and as such should be ignored (if not out right condemned for doubling down on there stupidty) as they haven't a clue.

Overthrowing a fascist dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people was wrong?

Giving millions of ordinary Iraqis the right to vote and cast their ballots in local, region and national elections was wrong?

Trying to create a stable democratic state with competent security forces was wrong?

What other possible future can Iraq or indeed any other troubled country in the world have except if the West try and assist them to become democratic, free, liberal, secular societies with human rights and liberties for all?

You actually think leaving Saddam in power was a viable option?

Wars have to be fought and blood has to be spilled. Many times it will not pay off and a new round of war will follow.
Read a history book and you will know this has happened again and again and again since the world began.

Our own history in Ireland is a catalog of disastrous rebellions and defeats until finally we got freedom in 26 of our counties. Today our state seems to be unraveling so I presume you want to be ruled by the British again?

You have no solutions.

Change comes about through risk and sacrifice. Not caution.

wes · 18-06-2014 12:21pm

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Overthrowing a fascist dictator who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people was wrong?

Now, now, enough with the goal post changing. The stated reasons were WMDs (there were none) and links with Al Qaeda (there were no links, and they showed up in great numbers afterwards).

So over throwing a dictator on false pretenses, and then complete bungling the whole thing, where the country is still in chaos, over a decade after is what is wrong. Its very simple, the people behind the war, are not only liars, there also incompetent.

Incompetent liars have no business talking about the current situation, they helped created.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Giving millions of ordinary Iraqis the right to vote and cast their ballots in local, region and national elections was wrong?

You leave out the bit, were the incompetents allowed ethnic cleansing to take place, that result in a sectarian regime, which has given rise to the current conflict.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Trying to create a stable democratic state with competent security forces was wrong?

You leave out the part of completely failing to do so due to breath taking stupidity.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

What other possible future can Iraq or indeed any other troubled country in the world have except if the West try and assist them to become democratic, free, liberal, secular societies with human rights and liberties for all?

Except that isn't what the West does, or anyone else for that matter. BTW, the stated reason for the war was WMDs and Al Qaeda links. So again, with the goal post changing, and forgetting the "fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here" business that American politicians like to harp on about.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You actually think leaving Saddam in power was a viable option?

I fail to see how Saddam being in power is worse, than the Saudi king being in power, or Assad, or Kim Jung Un.

BTW, the fact remain the stated reason for the war was WMDs, and Al Qaeda links, and not removing Saddam Hussein. Again, goal post changing.

Also, the other fact is that the people who lied about the invasion, also messed up Iraq in a major way. I think it fair to say that such incompetents have no business being involved in foreign policy again. Now if politic's wasn't a complete joke, were complete idiots can get away with there stupidity for years, we would never hear from these peopl ever again.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Wars have to be fought and blood has to be spilled. Many times it will not pay off and a new round of war will follow.

Ah, so your making excuses for stupidity due to past stupidity.....

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Read a history book and you will know this has happened again and again and again since the world began.

So your answer, is to do the same thing over and over again.......

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Our own history in Ireland is a catalog of disastrous rebellions and defeats until finally we got freedom in 26 of our counties. Today our state seems to be unraveling so I presume you want to be ruled by the British again?

Our state in unraveling? WOW, that is some of the most nonsensical hyperbole, I have seen from you so far. IMHO, you need a dose of realism, as its seems you actually believe the over wrought stuff you spout.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You have no solutions.

Who said I had none. There are plenty of other options, beyond having the same idiots who caused the mess in the first place (and deny doing so to boot), having another go. My criticism is really rather simple, those people are incompetent, and should not be listened to, as they have proven there complete lack of competence on the matter, and should be ignored.

Doing nothing, when doing something will make things worse, is actually a perfectly sane thing to do. I know it may make some politicians feel impotent, but doing something for the sake of it, even if it will make a situation work is stupid. However, I never said nothing should be done, but it can and is a viable option sometimes.

The best thing to do is work with the Iraqi government and the Iranians, while making such support dependent on Al Maliki ending sectarianism in his regime, once ISIS are defeated. Ultimately, beating back ISIS now is pointless unless there are changes to how Iraq is run.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Change comes about through risk and sacrifice. Not caution.

Risk and sacrifice, I am sure the lads in ISIS are spouting similar bollox, to drum up support. It always interesting that those who call for sacrifice, almost always mean someone else will have to sacrifice, often the poor who have 0 or few options.

Gringo180 · 18-06-2014 1:17pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

There are two countries which still support Assad, Russia and Iran (three if we count Lebanon)

Just about every other country wants Assad gone, mainly because he's been butchering his own countrymen just to stay in power. Ruining the lives of millions.

The major nations with clout, such as the US, UK, France are obviously the most vocal, and at the forefront.. trying to solve the situation from the beginning and build international consensus

However repeated resolutions are blocked at the UN by Russia which is a permanent member

Do you not see a similarity in these few paragraphs to the situation in Palestine/Israel? The U.S are doing the exact same as the Russians are doing with Syria and vetoing any sanctions on Israel and there apartheid state. Maybe the Russians would play ball with the U.S if they stopped supporting human right atrocities on the Palestinians.

Gringo180 · 18-06-2014 1:23pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

North Korea never had elections, is one of the most severe nations on earth, yet amazingly countries do business with it..

North Korea doesn't directly fund jihadist terrorist militant groups, Saudi Arabia does.

Jonny7 · 18-06-2014 2:28pm

Gringo180 wrote: »

North Korea doesn't directly fund jihadist terrorist militant groups, Saudi Arabia does.

and the Palestinian authorties have supported extremists who have targeted men, women and children.. likewise the Israeli's have conducted their own savage attacks on innocents..

North Korea is a severe regime which puts thousands into deathcamps, condemns millions to live in poverty and regularly threatens regional neighbours

The new Egyptian government is unsavory.. likewise elements in Libya, Iran, Lebanon, etc, etc - the list goes on and on

What to do, blacklist them all?

Right now Iraq, the US, and Iran are focused on dealing with the ISIS/ISIL and Sunni extremist threat in Iraq - Saudi and Qatar share guilt in this, with financiers not so subtly having provided many of the funds for those outfits

BuilderPlumber · 19-06-2014 12:06am

Jonny7 wrote: »

Right now Iraq, the US, and Iran are focused on dealing with the ISIS/ISIL and Sunni extremist threat in Iraq - Saudi and Qatar share guilt in this, with financiers not so subtly having provided many of the funds for those outfits

Yes. And it seems that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Arab Gulf States all finance anti-Assad, anti-Maliki and anti-Iran groups which means Sunni extremists which means al Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban.

I know that SA was one of 3 countries to recognise the Taliban, the others being Pakistan and UAE. What I am less sure about is the extent to which the Gulf Arab states esp. SA fund African terror groups like Boko Haram, AQIM and Al Shabaab.

But the one thing they complain about then is when they eventually turn their guns on Saudi's cities or other Arab Gulf cities like Dubai and Doha. I guess to them it is all okay to mess things up in Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad or Beirut as well as making life very difficult in Tel Aviv of course but it is a different story when al Qaeda decide to attack Saudi Arabian cities and lay claim to Mecca and Medina in particular!!

WakeUp · 19-06-2014 3:57pm

nacho libre wrote: »

i was wondering the same thing in regards to the House of Saud- is this payback for America trying to reach a deal with Iran on its nuclear program. If it is, it's a miscalculation, because Iran and America share a common enemy in ISIL. Surely the house of Saud didn't envisage maliki's government falling. perhaps their goal is to simply bog Iran down in another conflict and remind America that if you sideline them there are consequences.

That was the first thing that came to mind are they miffed because of Obamas overtures to Tehran over their nuclear program. though the more I think about the more a US/Iranian alliance even to counter the jihadis just doesn't make any sense. I smell a trap I've nothing to back that assertion up with though my instinct tells me something isn't right. I read today that the Americans have all but said Maliki needs to go along with his government wonder what the Iranians make of that. That would indicate to me a concession/consensus or alignment with the Saudi position. The Americans are smart crafty devious and cunning when ever they appear to be doing something with the right hand I automatically start watching their left maybe that's just me. Though the Iranians are no fools themselves they know how to play the game too I would hazard a guess that all the various involved actors are to some degree playing each other. All we need now is for the Russians and Chinese to get involved.

Ren2k7 · 19-06-2014 6:04pm

The one good thing to come out of all this is that the Kurds are closer than they've ever been to having their own independent state.

Below is territory (Red and Purple) controlled by Kurds just after the fall of Saddam in 2003. Gold is areas with Kurdish majority, claimed by KRG, but controlled by Iraqi government.

2003:
20140613025934%21Disputed_areas_in_Iraq.svg

20140613025934%21Disputed_areas_in_Iraq.svg

Areas now controlled by Peshmerga forces. All parts of Iraqi Kurdistan now under KRG authority apart from three remaining districts.

2014:

The Kurdish north should now split away and absorb Syrian Kurdish areas to the east that are also under Kurdish control. The Sunni parts of Iraq and Syria meanwhile should merge and the Shia part of Iraq given to Iran. The Shia coastal part of Syria (Latakia) could be merged with Lebanon, which itself also has a substantial Shia population.

Jonny7 · 19-06-2014 6:44pm

Ren2k7 wrote: »

The Kurdish north should now split away and absorb Syrian Kurdish areas to the east that are also under Kurdish control.

Unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds have largely flourished since the invasion. Very determined people.

Ren2k7 · 19-06-2014 6:59pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Unlike the rest of Iraq, the Kurds have largely flourished since the invasion. Very determined people.

I have a lot of respect for the Kurdish people. Despite all the horrors and carnage in the rest of Iraq they have created a peaceful and prosperous entity that is the envy of the region. I hope they one day have a nation of their own that includes all parts of the historical Kurdistan region; they certainly deserve it.

BuilderPlumber · 20-06-2014 12:08am

Ren2k7 wrote: »

I have a lot of respect for the Kurdish people. Despite all the horrors and carnage in the rest of Iraq they have created a peaceful and prosperous entity that is the envy of the region. I hope they one day have a nation of their own that includes all parts of the historical Kurdistan region; they certainly deserve it.

Yes. Kurdistan is the sole success story in Iraq. By right, this is what should have been created in the first place out of these ex Ottoman lands: A Kurdistan, Turkey sans Kurdistan and an Arab Iraq sans Kurdistan. The Sunni and Shia should then be facilitated in that latter state.

20-06-2014 4:20am

Will Turkey allow a strong Kurdistan to form?

aboysham · 20-06-2014 5:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

Will Turkey allow a strong Kurdistan to form?

Turkey will only do what the Americans tell them to do. A vassal state. Bush II promised inclusion in the E.U. if they would allow American Air bases.

comongethappy · 20-06-2014 6:34am

aboysham wrote: »

Turkey will only do what the Americans tell them to do. A vassal state. Bush II promised inclusion in the E.U. if they would allow American Air bases.

So GW decides EU membership?
Ridiculous comment.

Countries have their own agendas no one is anyone's vassal.

aboysham · 20-06-2014 6:54am

comongethappy wrote: »

So GW decides EU membership?
Ridiculous comment.

Countries have their own agendas no one is anyone's vassal.

That is exactly what Bush offered, blind man.

comongethappy · 20-06-2014 7:09am

aboysham wrote: »

That is exactly what Bush offered, blind man.

Prove that please.
Knowing that such a promise is not within the presidents power to offer & that Turkey (last time I checked) isn't in the EU.

You'd nearly think you were talking nonsense!
Not a man either hun!

aboysham · 20-06-2014 7:12am

comongethappy wrote: »

Prove that please.
Knowing that such a promise is not within the presidents power to offer & that Turkey (last time I checked) isn't in the EU.

You'd nearly think you were talking nonsense!
Not a man either hun!

George Bush offered Turkey entry to the E.U. if they allowed air bases to facilitate the war on Iraq. Fact. Find the truth.

comongethappy · 20-06-2014 7:14am

aboysham wrote: »

George Bush offered Turkey entry to the E.U. if they allowed air bases to facilitate the war on Iraq. Fact. Find the truth.

Or you can show us....

Also still waiting for turkeys entrance to the eu , just as Bush "promised to deliver" (apparently).
Tick-tock George!
Drop the water colours & get that country into the EU.... Cos apparently it was in your power all along!

aboysham · 20-06-2014 7:16am

comongethappy wrote: »

Or you can show us....

Also still waiting for turkeys entrance to the eu , just as Bush "promised to deliver" (apparently).
Tick-tock George!
Drop the water colours & get that country into the EU.... Cos apparently it was in your power all along!

You appear to have two fingers, use them. Google is your friend.

Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

Comments