Print

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

[Sinistar]

Here's one interesting video by VICE News about ISIS, Iraq Army and Kurdish forces.


Also, one of BBC's reporters get's caught in the gunfight.

[palsch]

Iraq formally requests American air strikes against rebels.

[miljan]

Why shit is happening in iraq:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9tExYbjm8

[smjjames]

Why shit is happening in iraq:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey9tExYbjm8

I read the transcript and it doesn't sound like the person speaking ever gets to the point he is making. Or the main point is that Iraq is a clusterfuck, but we already knew that.

It's also comparing Libya, but Libya and Iraq are completely different situations. Also there are LOTS of different values in the HDI, and it was enforced by a brutal dictator.

[DJ]

And it's not like a non-interventionist policy has worked out that great in the past.

[LordSlowpoke]

explain what went wrong with it

[DJ]

World wars.

[Sergarr]

But they happened exactly because of interventionist policies? Like colonialism for example.

[LordSlowpoke]

not to mention that some parties only arrived in the second by stupidity to not call it sheer and utter manipulation of society

[DJ]

Talking about USA's role here. They weren't behind the first one. And the non-interventionism policy would've dictated that they stay the hell out of it. Do you really think the world would've been a better place if the Western Front dragged on for another decade or so?

[10ebbor10]

The war wouldn't have lasted that much longer. Both sides were running on their last legs.

In fact, one could have argued that it would be better. While the first world war would have been a bit bloodier, the war would have ended relatively soon, depending on how little or how much the US intervened (is sending supplies intervening? Is escorting said supplies intervening?)

The main thing is, that it wouldn't have been a major victory for whichever side won the war. So the peace treaty would have been much more neutral.

And then we enter complete speculation.

[Urist McManiac]

Just a quick question, out of curiosity: what exactly is preventing the US from using military might (in whichever form) against ISIS? I mean, the NATO (granted, this was not really the US alone) did bomb the sh*t out of Gaddaffi, who was admittedly a douchebag par excellance, but a controllable and mostly sane one. So how is fighting militant fanatics a problem?

[10ebbor10]

Because there's a significant difference in the situation.

With Gaddaffi, all we had to do was to stop his air advantage, supply some weaponry, and bomb a few key military bases for victory.
ISIS has no air force, the Iraqi army is fully supplied with weaponry, and we have no targets to bomb.

Air force alone can't win a land war. Especially because ISIS likes to operate in cities, and bombardements will involve some civilian casualties.

Also, ISIS has a tendency to retreat everywhere they're engaged, and attack at another spot. The main operating base is in Syria, but Assad isn't going to allow the US in to bomb them there.

[smjjames]

The war wouldn't have lasted that much longer. Both sides were running on their last legs.

In fact, one could have argued that it would be better. While the first world war would have been a bit bloodier, the war would have ended relatively soon, depending on how little or how much the US intervened (is sending supplies intervening? Is escorting said supplies intervening?)

The main thing is, that it wouldn't have been a major victory for whichever side won the war. So the peace treaty would have been much more neutral.

And then we enter complete speculation.

Germany did provoke the US with the the Lusitania sinking and the zimmerman telegram. If they didn't want the US to join into the war, they shouldn't have goaded us.

[XXSockXX]

Because there's a significant difference in the situation.

With Gaddaffi, all we had to do was to stop his air advantage, supply some weaponry, and bomb a few key military bases for victory.
ISIS has no air force, the Iraqi army is fully supplied with weaponry, and we have no targets to bomb.

Air force alone can't win a land war. Especially because ISIS likes to operate in cities, and bombardements will involve some civilian casualties.

Also, ISIS has a tendency to retreat everywhere they're engaged, and attack at another spot. The main operating base is in Syria, but Assad isn't going to allow the US in to bomb them there.

Right, sending drones might help a bit as support, but if the Iraqi army keeps losing or disintegrating, drones won't make a difference.
Ground troops might help more, but sending ground troops into Iraq again is probably not going to happen, it would be wildly unpopular in both the US and Iraq and it might cause new complications.