US considers air strikes and air drops to help Iraqis trapped on mountain by Isis

RobitTV

The Obama administration is considering US air strikes and humanitarian air drops to help besieged religious minorities chased up a mountain by militants in Iraq.

The move comes as Qaraqosh, Iraq's largest Christian city, was all but abandoned as the jihadist group Islamic State advanced through minority communities in the country's north-west and towards the Kurdish stronghold of Irbil.

The US military is already helping the Iraqi government coordinate air drops of vital supplies to at least 40,000 Iraqis, mostly from the Yazidi minority, trapped on top of Mount Sinjar in the north after death threats from the Islamists who have overrun much of Sunni and northern Iraq

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/us-aid-iraqi-trapped-mountain-isis

:cool: Oh dear i honestly don't know if this is a move which can bring some sort of a positive result.

If US Aircraft get shot down and service men and woman killed then we will see more anger and will lead to a serious conflict.

Black Swan wrote: »

MOD: Moved to US Politics.

Manach

Given the news coming over the past few weeks out of Iraq, I'm thinking that this is already in the realm of serious conflict. However, on the basis of what occurred during the period of post-first Iraq war, token air strikes in support of Kurds, then similar short-time military action might not solve the issue.

Larry Wildman

The US should go in immediately and wipe these ISIS clowns out.

They have 40,000 people (mostly women and children) surrounded on a mountain with massacre threatening from below and dehydration / starvation threatening immediately.

Something must be done.

comongethappy

Larry Wildman wrote: »

The US should go in immediately and wipe these ISIS clowns out.

They have 40,000 people (mostly women and children) surrounded on a mountain with massacre threatening from below and dehydration / starvation threatening immediately.

Something must be done.

Indeed something must be done.

The Iraqi army outnumber ISIS about 20:1
They must step it up & defend the people from ISIS......

No international intervention should be needed with that overwhelming advantage....

walshb

Has Iraq ever been in worse shape since the U.S. and its allies toppled Hussein?

comongethappy

walshb wrote: »

Has Iraq ever been in worse shape since the U.S. and its allies toppled Hussein?

Hard to say.

Hussein killed millions, but the country ran better & had secure borders.

wes

Its stunning how ISIS have managed to get a hold of advanced American weapons that the Iraqi army left behind (and money from Iraqi banks), when they fled ISIS. The Iraqi army should have made short work of ISIS, due to there superior numbers, and superior weapons, but they some how messed up.

Its good to see that aid is being sent to refugees fleeing ISIS, but air strikes will not defeat a group like ISIS, as they are a guerrilla army. The only group who seem to be competent are the Peshmerga, but they are armed with old weapons, which are no match for ISIS, who captured the latest US stuff.

gandalf

Considering the US have created this mess then they should be dealing with it decisively.

I cannot understand how the US equipped Iraqi Army have not been able to halt the advance of these ISIS terrorists though? As stated above they outnumber them totally. The only reason I can think of is Al-Maliki's government is using them to do a bit of "cleansing" and to help keep him in power due to the feel factor.

shanered

comongethappy wrote: »

Hard to say.

Hussein killed millions, but the country ran better & had secure borders.

millions is the wrong word, he killed roughly about 120k Kurds, 100k Sunnis and 300k died in Iran Iraq conflict.

This compares to about 100k civilian deaths and 190k violent deaths US invasion in 2003.

The way the country has been torn apart should lead to an increasing death rate into the future with a huge loss of stability.

I would certainly be careful in presuming one was better than the other....

wes

gandalf wrote: »

The only reason I can think of is Al-Maliki's government is using them to do a bit of "cleansing" and to help keep him in power due to the feel factor.

I think he is just incompetent, and that he is surprised as the rest of us, as to ISIS advance.

Does anyone know if any Generals etc have been fired? If not that is further proof of incompetence on the part of the Iraqi government.

Red Nissan

shanered wrote: »

I would certainly be careful in presuming one was better than the other....

Overall life in Iraq was indeed better under Saddam for those who supported and believed in him. Arguably there is no quality of life anywhere in the greater Iraq today and no peace for the forseeable future.

comongethappy

shanered wrote: »

millions is the wrong word, he killed roughly about 120k Kurds, 100k Sunnis and 300k died in Iran Iraq conflict.

True, though aside from the Iran war & rebellion suppression, there was huge numbers of people abducted, tortured or murdered over the decades of the regime.

Largely undocumented so numbers are impossible to be certain.

Some estimates put the numbers killed overall by the Hussein regime at a million, but impossible to verify.

hmmm

It would be useful if some of the captain hindsights on this forum gave us their opinion now. What should the US do:
a) Nothing
b) Drop supplies
c) Drop supplies & some airstrikes
d) Wide ranging airstrikes

And we'll look back on the decision in a few years time.

Personally I believe they should fully back the Kurds to hold their territory, on condition that they protect minorities in their area. The Shias and Sunnis can fight it out until such time as they decide what century they wish to live in - in particular they can decide if Maliki and his sectarian government is their choice of prime minister.

hmmm

gandalf wrote: »

I cannot understand how the US equipped Iraqi Army have not been able to halt the advance of these ISIS terrorists though? As stated above they outnumber them totally. The only reason I can think of is Al-Maliki's government is using them to do a bit of "cleansing" and to help keep him in power due to the feel factor.

Maliki has gutted senior ranks and appointed lackeys, valuing loyalty over ability. Sounds familiar to us in Ireland.

The Sunni Iraqis see the army as Maliki's private army, and are in support of ISIS. For now.

Shia soldiers were never going to fight hard in Sunni towns when their officers abandoned them and surrounded by a hostile population.

riffmongous

comongethappy wrote: »

True, though aside from the Iran war & rebellion suppression, there was huge numbers of people abducted, tortured or murdered over the decades of the regime.

Largely undocumented so numbers are impossible to be certain.

Some estimarmtes put the numbers killed overall by the Hussein regime at a million, but impossible to verify.

It should also be remembered that Sunni favouritism was widely practiced under Saddam and is in someway responsible for the conditions that have made it so favourable for ISIS, i.e. Sunnis discriminated against Shias when they were in power so now the Shias return the favour.

gandalf

hmmm wrote: »

It would be useful if some of the captain hindsights on this forum gave us their opinion now. What should the US do:
a) Nothing
b) Drop supplies
c) Drop supplies & some airstrikes
d) Wide ranging airstrikes

And we'll look back on the decision in a few years time.

Personally I believe they should fully back the Kurds to hold their territory, on condition that they protect minorities in their area. The Shias and Sunnis can fight it out until such time as they decide what century they wish to live in - in particular they can decide if Maliki and his sectarian government is their choice of prime minister.

Yep hindsight is a bitch but tbh after the US "won" the 2nd Gulf War I knew there were going to be serious problems down the line when they stood the whole Iraqi army down and effectively dismantled the structures of Government.

I agree with you on the Kurds, their area has been the most stable up to the rise of ISIS and would provide a good basis for stability going forward. The problem there is that Turkey would have a "mickeyfit" if the US backed the Kurds.

hmmm

gandalf wrote: »

The problem there is that Turkey would have a "mickeyfit" if the US backed the Kurds.

The Turks seem to be moving closer to an accomodation with Kurds. It's a topsy turvy world, with old alliances and enemies swapping. From a historic point of view it's fascinating, because the past 100 years or so of Western domination of the area can be seen as a temporary halt to hostilities between the various groupings - what's happening now is the continuation of religious wars dating back to the early middle ages. In particular unfortunately it may be the last stand for Christians in the near Middle East.

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-351625-celik-signals-turkey-to-welcome-independent-kurdish-state-in-iraq.html

realweirdo

Life was "better" under Saddam mainly because of the fear people had of Saddam if they stepped out of line. Many germans felt life was better under Hitler even as he rounded up opponents and the jews. Many older Russians thought life was better under Stalin. A few months ago many residents of Mosul thought life was better under ISIS. Much of this is a rose tinted view. For most people life was hell under Saddam. However there was a certainty to Saddam's barbarity wheras these days there isn't. Ultimately Iraqis are as entitled to vote for the government as Irish people are. However when well armed and well trained Iraqi soldiers throw down their arms and run away without so much as a fight its hard to blame America for that or the fact that a bunch of stone age cavemen with guns are currently over running Iraq. Ultimately Iraqis and followers of Islam have to take responsibility for their own society.

sin_city

comongethappy wrote: »

Hard to say.

Hussein killed millions, but the country ran better & had secure borders.

Can you provide documentation on the millions he killed?

beauf

sin_city wrote: »

Can you provide documentation on the millions he killed?

You want him to provide documentation for the undocumented deaths?

sin_city

beauf wrote: »

You want him to provide documentation for the undocumented deaths?

No...I think if you are going to throw out a statement like Hussein killed millions you better have some proof, some details, something to justify it....otherwise it is just nonsense.

I mean, if we are to believe stuff like that without proof...who knows? What is next?...they'll be telling us he had weapons of mass destruction.

beauf

That post has already been qualified so I'm not sure whats purpose is served in going back to an old comment.

Even if you had data would we really be able to trust, it as everyone has a vested interest. I think its enough to say that it wasn't great. It wasn't as bad under the Collation occupation but still not great.

Has this region (Iraq) ever had a long period of 50 yrs or more of relative calm.

shanered

It wasn't millions, but lets not get bogged down with numbers, also just to add to that its been better under the coilition is not exactly true, its been a much shorter period of time then saddams rule and an equally if not larger death toll under saddam exculding the Iran-Iraq war.

Both are a disaster, but the way the coilition have left the state is potentially more detructive as a whole in my view, but thats only my perspective.

beauf

The end result seem to have de-stabilized the country even further.

I think they misread or ignored the inherent instability of the region.

Larry Wildman

beauf wrote: »

The end result seem to have de-stabilized the country even further.

I think they misread or ignored the inherent instability of the region.

Democracy doesn't suit these people.

They would be far better off under the iron rule of someone like Saddam Hussein.

riffmongous

I think the question is "Why should Iraqi's care for Iraq"? Saddam was able to make them through his cult of personality, and killed/suppressed those who didn't believe. The Coalition went in and tried to install a totally alien form of government without making sure it would function properly. The performance of the Iraqi army reminds me of the South Vietnamese, you can train them and equip them but if you don't give them a proper reason to fight then they won't.

riffmongous

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Democracy doesn't suit these people.

They would be far better off under the iron rule of someone like Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's policies of Shia discrimination have a lot to do with the current mess. Strongmen only suppress the problems at a high cost, as soon as they are gone the problems resurface so what was the point in suppressing them in the first place instead of trying to solve them?

Iraq in it's current form is not a viable state, it's an arbitrary entity created by drawing a few straight line on a map. The sensible solution would be to redraw the boundaries but since there is no appetite for this internationally perhaps a highly federalised Iraq with minority rights could survive. It would need to be done in a way that fits in with the local cultures and norms though rather than just forcing western institutions upon them.

beauf

riffmongous wrote: »

I think the question is "Why should Iraqi's care for Iraq"? Saddam was able to make them through his cult of personality, and killed/suppressed those who didn't believe. The Coalition went in and tried to install a totally alien form of government without making sure it would function properly. The performance of the Iraqi army reminds me of the South Vietnamese, you can train them and equip them but if you don't give them a proper reason to fight then they won't.

Perhaps the question is there actually a cultural entity called Iraq in the first place.

shanered

It really is a terrible scenario at the moment, and it looks like it will deteriate further.
The Coilition really messed this one up, it was a mistake to invade and only made things worse.
The went to war on the back of lies and look how it turned out. I have a feeling the Coilition's invasion of Iraq will have a deeper long lasting scar on the Iraqi people then Saddam inflicted.
The Colition inflicted much more damage via destroying infrastructure of the country, allowing the destruction of their culture via an attempt to westernize Iraq and allowing the burning of their national libraries and the privitization of their natural resources to the corporate world.
Also, with a huge death toll of the Iraqi people since the invasion, which would almost outweigh Saddam's death toll over the total period of his rule.

The country is fairly doomed as it stands with no plan being thought up.
The Coilition's invasion was a bad move, I'm not even sure if this is the accepted line of thought, as I feel people always tend the err on the side of Saddam being worse...

I also see the futility in trying to get in a battle of justification of who was worse, Saddam or the Coilition as both have left a legacy of destruction.

The main point to me is the lies sold to the western media to justify the Coilition's invasion, and the way people actually believe that it was a positive move for the people of Iraq.
The invasion was never about the Iraqi people.
If the colition really cared about any group of people in the middle east I think the people of Gaza wouldn't mind a few nations getting together to clear Israel of its weapons of mass destruction and liberate the nation, alas, their is deeper western zionist motives for invasions of countries such as Iraq, which become apparent when you listen to the rethoric of western media when covering the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Gaza by Israel.

It was always geopolitics at play and still is, but things are taking a turn for the worst and we only have ourselves to blame for believing the mainstream media's version of events.

There's a storm brewing in the middle east which Israel and the US have stirred up and it have to be dealt with, this time they might not have to lie to their populations because as a result of their own lies they've created a monster which will actually threaten their current standings.

The new war will almost revert back to a religious one, which is always more dangerous then the idea of a state, as religiousness always seems to run a little deeper then the idea of state with people, this is mainly because of the promise of heaven, which results in hell on eath most of the time.

renegademaster

beauf wrote: »

The end result seem to have de-stabilized the country even further.

I think they misread or ignored the inherent instability of the region.

shanered wrote: »

It really is a terrible scenario at the moment, and it looks like it will deteriate further.
The Coilition really messed this one up, it was a mistake to invade and only made things worse.
The went to war on the back of lies and look how it turned out. I have a feeling the Coilition's invasion of Iraq will have a deeper long lasting scar on the Iraqi people then Saddam inflicted.
The Colition inflicted much more damage via destroying infrastructure of the country, allowing the destruction of their culture via an attempt to westernize Iraq and allowing the burning of their national libraries and the privitization of their natural resources to the corporate world.
Also, with a huge death toll of the Iraqi people since the invasion, which would almost outweigh Saddam's death toll over the total period of his rule.

The country is fairly doomed as it stands with no plan being thought up.
The Coilition's invasion was a bad move, I'm not even sure if this is the accepted line of thought, as I feel people always tend the err on the side of Saddam being worse...

I also see the futility in trying to get in a battle of justification of who was worse, Saddam or the Coilition as both have left a legacy of destruction.

The main point to me is the lies sold to the western media to justify the Coilition's invasion, and the way people actually believe that it was a positive move for the people of Iraq.
The invasion was never about the Iraqi people.
If the colition really cared about any group of people in the middle east I think the people of Gaza wouldn't mind a few nations getting together to clear Israel of its weapons of mass destruction and liberate the nation, alas, their is deeper western zionist motives for invasions of countries such as Iraq, which become apparent when you listen to the rethoric of western media when covering the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Gaza by Israel.

It was always geopolitics at play and still is, but things are taking a turn for the worst and we only have ourselves to blame for believing the mainstream media's version of events.

There's a storm brewing in the middle east which Israel and the US have stirred up and it have to be dealt with, this time they might not have to lie to their populations because as a result of their own lies they've created a monster which will actually threaten their current standings.

The new war will almost revert back to a religious one, which is always more dangerous then the idea of a state, as religiousness always seems to run a little deeper then the idea of state with people, this is mainly because of the promise of heaven, which results in hell on eath most of the time.

I'm prepared to wager that as far as aybodyhigh up connected to the war on iraq and afgan considers everything to be going to plan, look at the money that's been made off the back of all this and there's NO end in sight

Red Nissan

shanered wrote: »

The Coilition's invasion was a bad move, I'm not even sure if this is the accepted line of thought, as I feel people always tend the err on the side of Saddam being worse...

In a Muslim country, the ruler, either, King, Cleric [and I know there are no clerics in Islam] or Dictator can rule as long as he supports the rule of Islam and obeys it too.

Any act in conflict MUST see a population uprising to oust the leader and replace him with another one.

There was no people's revolt against Saddam.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Considering the US have created this mess then they should be dealing with it decisively.

I cannot understand how the US equipped Iraqi Army have not been able to halt the advance of these ISIS terrorists though? As stated above they outnumber them totally. The only reason I can think of is Al-Maliki's government is using them to do a bit of "cleansing" and to help keep him in power due to the feel factor.

And more than likely corruption - units that exist only on paper, lack of training, equipment & ammunition that doesn't exist.

PopePalpatine

beauf wrote: »

Perhaps the question is there actually a cultural entity called Iraq in the first place.

IIRC, someone (I don't know who) described Iraq as a "buffer state" between Iran (the main Shia regional power) and Saudi Arabia (the main Sunni regional power).

realweirdo

Here is a good starting point.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/saddamhussein/a/husseincrimes.htm

Thats not to mention the iran-iraq war which he started and whixh cost 1.5 million lives.

And as has been said most of his victims were undocumented.

All in all Saddam was primarily responsible for at least 2 million deaths.

sin_city wrote: »

Can you provide documentation on the millions he killed?

hmmm

On the one hand the US, which is imperfect but in general tries to do what is "right".
On the other hand ISIS, which rapes and beheads children.

Even the most ardent leftie is going to find this hard to spin against the US.

comongethappy

hmmm wrote: »

On the one hand the US, which is imperfect but in general tries to do what is "right".
On the other hand ISIS, which rapes and beheads children.

Even the most ardent leftie is going to find this hard to spin against the US.

They will try.

Larry Wildman

US Special Forces need to get in there and massacre these ISIS clowns.

Show no mercy...leave no survivors.

ISIS must be eliminated.

Red Nissan

hmmm wrote: »

On the one hand the US, which is imperfect but in general tries to do what is "right".
On the other hand ISIS, which rapes and beheads children.

Even the most ardent leftie is going to find this hard to spin against the US.

I don't know why you got thanks for this post, it's idiotic, the USA does not try to do 'right' and ISIS is no more extreme than any other Islamic Cult and it does not especially do the highlighted.

God, Allah, man get a grip.

Red Nissan

Larry Wildman wrote: »

US Special Forces need to get in there and massacre these ISIS clowns. Show no mercy...leave no survivors.
ISIS must be eliminated.

I know August is silly season, but, seriously how many years has the US had special forces in Iraq?

US Special forces in this situation would be beheaded and hung from the nearest tree inside five minutes. Every faction is the USA's enemy.

The beautiful community that the US are trying to protect with air strikes had been living with Muslims of both sides, long before the US arrived.

realweirdo

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't know why you got thanks for this post, it's idiotic, the USA does not try to do 'right' and ISIS is no more extreme than any other Islamic Cult and it does not especially do the highlighted.

God, Allah, man get a grip.

This is bullsh1t. Where are the germans, italians, scandanavians, arab league or EU in the current situation or 90% of catastrophes man-made or not anywhere around the world. Answer nowhere. Few countries stand up to genocidal groups around the world. Fact is they aren't interested and never will be. They sit back and wait for the US or Brits to do something and then whinge and say I wouldn't have done it like that.

If it was left to the EU or Germans the Balkans conflict would still be ongoing, make no mistake about it.

Nodin

realweirdo wrote: »

This is bullsh1t. Where are the germans, italians, scandanavians, arab league or EU in the current situation or 90% of catastrophes man-made or not anywhere around the world. Answer nowhere. Few countries stand up to genocidal groups around the world. Fact is they aren't interested and never will be. They sit back and wait for the US or Brits to do something and then whinge and say I wouldn't have done it like that.

If it was left to the EU or Germans the Balkans conflict would still be ongoing, make no mistake about it.

You evidently don't remember the Clinton administration trying to avoid Rwanda.

Red Nissan

realweirdo wrote: »

If it was left to the EU or Germans the Balkans conflict would still be ongoing, make no mistake about it.

It is.

realweirdo

Red Nissan wrote: »

It is.

It's not. All the main protagonists are dead or in prison thanks largely to the USA. Left to the liberal europeans and milosevic would be an EU commissioner at this stage. The EU disgusts me most of the time. No interest in anything outside the EU. Insular, weak, naval gazers and back slappers who are too busy eating from the expenses trough to care about anything else. Total joke of an organisation.

realweirdo

Nodin wrote: »

You evidently don't remember the Clinton administration trying to avoid Rwanda.

It came not long after somalia and the black hawk down situation so american public was war weary. Again why should america be expected EVERY TIME to sort out conflicts or humanitarian issues. Where are the Germans? Where is the Arab League? Lets see someone else step up to the plate just once.

realweirdo

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't know why you got thanks for this post, it's idiotic, the USA does not try to do 'right' and ISIS is no more extreme than any other Islamic Cult and it does not especially do the highlighted.

God, Allah, man get a grip.

Its so extreme even al qaida were disgusted by their actions. You know its bad when AQ are shocked! Its the most extreme group to emerge in 1500 years in the region. And there is no question it would slaughter every last christian, yaziadi or kurd it got its hands on. Its sad to see so many brain washed thugs taking their example from fictional accounts of a guy there is zero contempory historical accounts of.

Big Cheese

Back to war...

Simi

Red Nissan wrote: »

I don't know why you got thanks for this post, it's idiotic, the USA does not try to do 'right' and ISIS is no more extreme than any other Islamic Cult and it does not especially do the highlighted.

God, Allah, man get a grip.

Google 'IS beheading children' click the catholic.org link - look, vomit & come back here & tell me they don't behead children.

Red Nissan

Simi wrote: »

Google 'IS beheading children' click the catholic.org link - look, vomit & come back here & tell me they don't behead children.

Where did I say they don't?

Hidalgo

hmmm wrote: »

On the one hand the US, which is imperfect but in general tries to do what is "right".
On the other hand ISIS, which rapes and beheads children.

Even the most ardent leftie is going to find this hard to spin against the US.

America generally does whats right for its interests. It will prop a state if it suits and prop whomever is in charge of said state. If it suits US interests it will let said ruler be removed.

woodoo

I wonder does any of this mess in Iraq keep George W up at night.. i doubt it.

realweirdo

woodoo wrote: »

I wonder does any of this mess in Iraq keep George W up at night.. i doubt it.

In fairness the current mess in syria also played a large part as well as the fact the iraqis were given their freedom, have a huge army and are well armed and yet when the first real opportunity came for them to stand on their feet and defend their country they broke ranks and ran for it. Any country where an army runs away despite having a 10 to 1 superiority is not going to succeed. Its time for the iraqis to man up and stop blaming others. 2003 is a long time ago and a lot has happened since then. Its far easier for the iraqis to blame george bush than take ownership of the need to fight a rag tag movement.