Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strife26]

It means that Iraq isn't a nation-state, by most definitions of the term, which in this case is more or less equal to the borders being arbitrarily drawn. Iraqis don't, as a general rule, identify as Iraqi, and all of none of them are willing to take a round for the idea of Iraq.

[smjjames]

How would the Sunni and Shiia borders be drawn though? It's not like there is a sharp division in between, there is a large swath with mixed Shiia-Sunni population, and Baghdad is right smack in the middle of it.

I don't see the Sunni and Shia borders being drawn non-violently.

[Dutchling]

Yeah let's not have a mini India/Pakistan :S

[FearfulJesuit]

ISIS mourns Robin Williams.

[aenri]

Establishment of the IS Caliphate is a very good thing for Europe, as it will suck up most of the hardcore jihadist soldiers from all over Europe and hopefully they will die in service of their god.
As for US or anyone elses intervention, it should be only something symbolic like drone strikes or other kind of aerial bombardment. This will allow for IS to topple the state of Iraq, subsequently Syria and by extension Kuwait/Lebanon. Then they will be bordering with Israel which will probably be a source of conflict for another at least 50 years.

[smjjames]

Establishment of the IS Caliphate is a very good thing for Europe, as it will suck up most of the hardcore jihadist soldiers from all over Europe and hopefully they will die in service of their god.
As for US or anyone elses intervention, it should be only something symbolic like drone strikes or other kind of aerial bombardment. This will allow for IS to topple the state of Iraq, subsequently Syria and by extension Kuwait/Lebanon. Then they will be bordering with Israel which will probably be a source of conflict for another at least 50 years.

Do you seriously want the Middle East to become and remain a hellhole for the next 50 years? I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

[Ai Shizuka]

Does anybody else think they can feasably do more than just airdrops at this point?

And can anybody else refute Ai Shizukas strawmanning (or whatever logical fallacy is being used)?

You are quickly filling all the requisites to be archived in my virtual "ignore" folder.
Not sure if you simply are one of those USA#1 cheerleaders or a...not very bright person. Maybe a mix of the two.

You are missing the point I'm trying to get across. Not by a little. Completely.
I never said anything like "I expect the US to help them, because I decided they must". And I never said you must create a land corridor by force.
What I'm saying is, you promised help to the Yazidis but are not delivering it because it would put US soldiers at risk. Wich would be a very reasonable position if you didn't make your usual bs proclaims at the very beginning of this situation.

Concrete help in that scenario involve soldiers on the ground. Western soldiers in the same area with ISIS soldiers. There's no way around it.
You don't like the scenario, you don't fucking announce you'll help in the first place. You could, you know, ignore the whole thing as you ignore many ongoing genocides going on all over the world in less profitable or valuable regions. Or you could have examined your options before going all white-knight in front of the entire world.

Your president announced a completely new course of action, different from the usual "let's bomb everything" approach. Probably to improve your foreign image, wich isn't exactly stellar right now. But, so far, it's not working.
Today an iraqi helicopter crashed because too many desperate people tried to jump on it.
Most of the people escaped so far went to syrian refugee camps on their own. Fantastic rescue job right there.

You are committed to this situation now, so you better start dealing with it seriously. As said above, pretend they are US citizens and react accordingly.
These are the words of your president:
"The United States cannot turn a blind eye. We can act. Today, America is coming to help."
I'll be ready to retract my words when I'll see some concrete help.

If you feel the need to throw me more "land corridor is impossibru" bullshit, read what I'm saying again.
If you still can't come up with a meaningful reply, don't bother. There are way more interesting people and opinions in this thread to waste my energy on you.

[Baffler]

Barely contained vitriol isn't going to get you the "meaningful reply" you're after, I think. We may need an injection of chill in here.

[Ai Shizuka]

Look at my earlier replies in this thread.
Look at HIS replies to my replies.
Guess where that vitriol is coming from.

[Dutchling]

vitriol origins is not a one sum game.

:v

[Ai Shizuka]

Ok, I'll elaborate a bit.
When talking about international politics, or generally engaging themes, the various opinions about a topic often fascinate me more than the topic itself.
And I'm not a teenager with an over-inflated self-image, so over the years I realized it's exceedingly rare to find an opinion I completely disagree with. This applies to all the current hot topics: Ukraine, Gaza, Lybia, Iraq. I usually can see where most reactions are coming from. This is why, about the current topic, I don't feel I can totally disagree with any specific point of view.

One of the "sub-topics" of this topic is "Why do some people expect/do not expect something from the United States about the current Iraq situation?"
This is what I'm trying to explain: it's completely reasonable, even for the same person, to not have expected anything from the US ten days ago, but to expect a different course of action now.

But all I get in return from that guy are obtuse one-liners about tanks or what I would do, like, concretely.
Meaning he's missing the point by a hundred miles and still tries to be a smartass about it.
Should have ignored him right from the start and focused on more interesting people, probably.

[martinuzz]

<whistles>
Try to play the ball and not the man please.

Resume play!

[burningpet]

Establishment of the IS Caliphate is a very good thing for Europe, as it will suck up most of the hardcore jihadist soldiers from all over Europe and hopefully they will die in service of their god.
As for US or anyone elses intervention, it should be only something symbolic like drone strikes or other kind of aerial bombardment. This will allow for IS to topple the state of Iraq, subsequently Syria and by extension Kuwait/Lebanon. Then they will be bordering with Israel which will probably be a source of conflict for another at least 50 years.

Yeah, i am also not certain if that's sarcasm or not.

If its not then, Actually, an establishment of an islamic caliphate is an extremely bad thing for Europe. most of these "hardcore jihadist soldiers from all over europe" don't actually die in the battlefield, they come back to europe and pull more "moderates" to the extreme, making europe unstable.

It will take ISIS a few good years (decades?) before it could allow itself to seriously entangle with Israel, that is, if it even manage to handle syria/lebanon/kuwait/itself. the main reason it manage to succeed is because it is fighting extremely weak armies, most of which scatter in fear even before shooting a single bullet. ISIS greatest strength is its PR and the terror it inflicts on weak islamic arabs who barely identify with their own country. when facing real opposition, like the pashmerge or hezbollah, it isn't as successful. its also pretty soon going to have to care for all the civilians it is controlling now, otherwise, it will have to fight other terror cells that emerge from within its own controlled areas.

[smjjames]

Ai Shizuka, I only mentioned tanks once and I was being sarcastic, I even said I was being sarcastic.

Okay, yes, I was feeling somewhat irritated at you for saying the 'US should help' but not really giving any explaination for how. Plus you seemed to think that we could just drive right through ISIS territory without problems with buses, or something like that.

Plus you kept dodging my question on how you think we can help 'for real'.

Meaning he's missing the point by a hundred miles and still tries to be a smartass about it.
Should have ignored him right from the start and focused on more interesting people, probably.

What IS the point you're trying to make? I get that the US needs to fix things it screwed up, but sometimes the people whose stuff we screwed up don't even want our help.

[Mr. Strange]

What IS the point you're trying to make? I get that the US needs to fix things it screwed up, but sometimes the people whose stuff we screwed up don't even want our help.

These are the words of your president:
"The United States cannot turn a blind eye. We can act. Today, America is coming to help."
I'll be ready to retract my words when I'll see some concrete help.

I think this was the point. "Help" was promised, but not delivered in meaningful ways.