The largest ethnic cleansing in 60+ years in taking place today in Iraq

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I think they have a big pile of cocaine.

I've not finished the season, they got Pam some help in the end then?

Jamsiek

bumper234 wrote: »

Where did i say isis are in any way shape or form "the good guys"?

Ok I admit I misread your post

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

I've not finished the season, they got Pam some help in the end then?

I don't think she needed any help getting through the cocaine.

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think she needed any help getting through the cocaine.

So where are they getting their money? Malory must have another idea up her sleeve.

Cantremember

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Thanks. I was born in Ireland, however, to Irish parents. Themselves of Irish descent. That's as far back as I know. You're doing ..... Ok on the usage of English yourself.

Lmao. You referred to Iraqi Christians integrating in a second. Perhaps you can't remember. Or more likely you prefer not to admit the exaggeration and silliness of your post because of an ideological stance. That's the problem with buying into that sort of thinking: you end up making ridiculous statements with no foundation in reality to advance your ideology and end losing credibility. The plus side is that open minded people see through your statements to the poverty of your ideology itself. Best of luck promoting utopia.

mad muffin

ScumLord wrote: »

I think they have a big pile of cocaine.

I hear they have a guy called Hussanberg making some primo blue meth.

DeadHand

Agree fully with calls to arm and support the Peshamerga. Perhaps the only truly moderate and moral (insofar as any force can be moral) force in the region. They have provided shelter and protection to all sects and ethnicities and locked down their regions against the barbarism happening in the rest of Iraq.

ISIS is one of the most malevolent movements to emerge in modern history. Come on, when you're so crazy Al-Queda won't get in bed with you and, more shocking still, you force the US and Iran to fully agree on something it's saying a lot.

The good news is: ISIS won't last. Not surrounded as they are on all sides by powerful forces intent on their eventual destruction (Iran, Turkey, The Kurds, USA, Assad's Syria, Israel and the remnant of the Iraqi government and army). As well as this, they will be vulnerable to internal strife as they contain a large element of Saddam's Baathist old guard who will happily put a knife in their back as soon as the opportunity arises. Let's hope they are unable to subject the Iraqi people to much more medival brutality before this inevitable collapse happens.

One positive that may arise from the catastrophic nightmare that is the Middle East at the moment is a recognised state for the Kurds at last. Christ knows they deserve it.

Cantremember

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

We should give them refugee status.

We shouldn't. Reasons previously outlined.

bumper234

Jamsiek wrote: »

Ok I admit I misread your post

Happens to us all

wendell borton

We had a program for Vietnamese refugees in the 70's that was very successful, don't see why we can't do It again.
If the Iraqi minorities move across the border to the neighboring countries they will face the same discrimination. They'll habe no rights and no chance of getting citizenship.

jank

FTA69 wrote: »

What nonsense is this? As bad and terrible as Iraq was under Hussein....

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties, a man who invaded Kuwait to achieve regional hegemony, a man who's regime cost Iraq up to a million lives and sent the country into poverty.

Screw the average Iraqi, don't give a **** about them. All that matters is my ideological pureness and self righteousness. Sure Kim Jong il is a great guy for stabilising North Korea, Stalin had his virtues too didn't he? Look at how he kept all those republics in toe. We can be sure that there would be no mess in Ukraine now if he was in charge! Things would be a lot simpler in the world with a few strong men like him in charge....then I can be left in peace in my sunny back garden to write my letters to the Irish Times blaming the west for all that is wrong in the world, ah bliss.

comongethappy

wendell borton wrote: »

We had a program for Vietnamese refugees in the 70's that was very successful, don't see why we can't do It again.
If the Iraqi minorities move across the border to the neighboring countries they will face the same discrimination. They'll habe no rights and no chance of getting citizenship.

Depopulating areas of Iraqi citizens won't fix Iraq though.

If anything it would give impetus to ISIS

Sierra Oscar

Deleted User wrote: »

It was more of a rhetorical question but I don't think that's where they're getting their funding. :P

Mainly from rich families involved in the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. More recently they have been seizing resources and using them to drive their growth. They are exporting / smuggling oil out of oilfields that they have captured in Syria and Iraq.

Apparently ISIS is paying its fighters quite well.

Sierra Oscar

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Mainly from rich families involved in the Wahhabi movement in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. More recently they have been seizing resources and using them to drive their growth. They are exporting / smuggling oil out of oilfields that they have captured in Syria and Iraq.

Apparently they are paying their fighters quite well.

Like I said, rhetorical.

jank

jank wrote: »

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties, a man who invaded Kuwait to achieve regional hegemony, a man who's regime cost Iraq up to a million lives and sent the country into poverty.

Screw the average Iraqi, don't give a **** about them. All that matters is my ideological pureness and self righteousness. Sure Kim Jong il is a great guy for stabilising North Korea, Stalin had his virtues too didn't he? Look at how he kept all those republics in toe. We can be sure that there would be no mess in Ukraine now if he was in charge! Things would be a lot simpler in the world with a few strong men like him in charge....then I can be left in peace in my sunny back garden to write my letters to the Irish Times blaming the west for all that is wrong in the world, ah bliss.

Yup that guy is the entire left.

Putin

jank wrote: »

This is why ladies and gentlemen, the left over reach and put themselves on the fringes. In an effort to blame everything on the US we are left with the opinion that Iraq was better of under Saddam... a man who used chemical weapons on his own people, a man who invaded Iran in a war that cost a million casualties.

A man who was given the blessing of the US and many Western nations in his day. Nations who turned a collective blind to him, when it suited them of course. So maybe you should remove your selective blinkers there, because it might help you see the whole picture.

Saddam was a scumbag, and good riddance to him. But I advise you to look at the death toll in Iraq after the US invented invasion. You might notice that toll and the amount of death and suffering went up. Ironic how the Americans bring their ‘freedom’ and death and suffering shoots through the roof.

But since it was them that created the conditions for the s**t storm that’s now happening in Iraq. Perhaps they should now resolve it. The complete elimination of ISIS would be the right and proper thing to do. And if they do it? Then they deserve no slaps on the back for cleaning up their own mess.

Awkward Badger

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

LorMal

FTA69 wrote: »

LorMal wrote: »

What are you on about? I never said that for a second. I said that smashing a society to pieces and plunging it into the chaos of protracted war allows for these sort of groups to emerge and gain traction. That's just a plain fact. It has happened in Iraq, Libya and a multitude of other countries. When you dismantle existing society and replace it with f*ck all it stands to reason that dystopic mental groups will emerge because there is nobody to stand up to them. If Irish society was plunged into instability and poverty for years and then invaded we'd probably have loopy groups emerge too. It has p*ss all to do with the nationality in question so please stop inferring I'm patronising people in the Middle East, I have more experience of the gaff and its people than most.



I'm advocating that the Yanks shouldn't have invaded the place to begin with. However, we are where we are now and they probably have a duty to help clean up the mess they created. They won't be getting praise from me in doing so however.



Wartard nonsense. Death and destruction should never be cheered.

Of course it should. There is no reasoning with these people. Live by the sword, die by the sword

Cantremember

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

Is there anyone different from "any of the rest of them"? The answer is no. In the grown up world it generally comes down to choosing the least of the many evils available.

Iwasfrozen

Awkward Badger wrote: »

The issue here is that people like jank refuse to accept that the US are no different than any of the rest of them and write off all criticism as anti US the same as Israeli supporters refuse to accept reality and dismiss everyone as anti Israel.

They will support terror, torture and murder when it suits them, commit it when it suits them and then denounce it when it suits them.

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

Awkward Badger

Cantremember wrote: »

Is there anyone different from "any of the rest of them"? The answer is no. In the grown up world it generally comes down to choosing the least of the many evils available.

That doesn't mean the least of those evils is beyond reproach.

Awkward Badger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

I don't blame Americans, I certainly don't blame them for the existence of fanatical Muslims . I just accept that their war in Iraq was motivated purely out of self interest and that the end result of that war is a very unstable region where there are currently a lot of people suffering.

Given it happened very recently I don't think its anti US or out of line to bring such things up.

Iwasfrozen

Awkward Badger wrote: »

I don't blame Americans, I certainly don't blame them for the existence of fanatical Muslims . I just accept that their war in Iraq was motivated purely out of self interest and that the end result of that war is a very unstable region where there are currently a lot of people suffering.

Given it happened very recently I don't think its anti US or out of line to bring such things up.

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billions to remove Saddam?

America does hold responsibility for creating the conditions that allowed fanatical muslims to gain power but the majority of the blame lies with ISIS itself. America is our best chance of removing ISIS.

Cantremember

Awkward Badger wrote: »

That doesn't mean the least of those evils is beyond reproach.

That is true. It is also true that I realised that. What it implies is that in determining the least of all evils one component to weigh is the open ness to the expression of reproach, the willingness and capacity to reform and let it be said an open debate with the reproachee. Sometimes reproach is offered from an impractical and naive view of humanity. Just my opinion of course. You understand.

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billion to remove Saddam?

Some people made an awful lot of money.

Iwasfrozen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Some people made an awful lot of money.

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

Iwasfrozen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

Where do you think the money that was spent went? Who had loads of connections to those companies? It's really not complicated.

bumper234

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Who did? How? And in what way did these people influence Bush's decision to invade?

That was all down to."God"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

"President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Awkward Badger

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What self interest? What did the US gain from spending billions to remove Saddam?

Question is why did they remove Saddam. And the answer isn't because they wanted to help the Iraqi people.

America does hold responsibility for creating the conditions that allowed fanatical muslims to gain power but the majority of the blame lies with ISIS itself. America is our best chance of removing ISIS.

I agree, ISIS seem to be the problem and if the US help deal with the problem and stabilise the region then good.

Sound of Silence

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why blame America? If you go back far enough you could blame the Soviets for destabilising the area and providing an environment for Saddam to rise.

Or the Ottomans for leaving a power vacuum.

Blaming Americans for the existence of fanatical muslims is daft. Especially since the Americans are probably working on Bagdadi's assassination ad we speak.

The US certainly shouldn't take all the blame.

But saying that, however, it's clear that the Americans went into Iraq without any semblance of a clear exit strategy, let alone any real objectives. It was a long and pointless War which chewed up people and resources and flung an entire population into even greater disarray - All for a Government which essentially toppled the moment it was challenged. They then dropped the Country like a hot potato for ISIS to collect, and who would blame them.

They should have taken the opportunity to split the Country three ways to ensure stability rather than invest in the false notion of a unified Iraq for the sole purpose of countering Iran. Now all they can do is some damage control in the form of surgical strikes and hope that the tide of ISIS reaches it's peak and the Middle-East can settle into an uneasy calm.