The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Posts
This actually sounded like they did not want to train another mujahadeen. IMO.
Rinse and repeat.
Which is why I understand the restrictions of Obama's plan, we were for once trying to ensure the same thing wouldn't happen this time. But as we have seen it's a pretty lofty ideal that didn't pan out.
On the other hand, the US administration hasn't been nearly so squeamish in even the recent past, good buddies as they are with the Saudis, I think it's Obama wanting to avoid an embarrassing situation really. But it doesn't matter, NATO arming locals on the ground who fit their bill won't be changing the situation on the ground any time soon other than the Kurds. Which means an ongoing civil war, with some air strikes thrown in from outside for good measure, and I wouldn't expect them to make a big difference.
which leads to an ISIS that is so un-pressured that it has free time to plot oversees attacks
At least with the Syrian rebels you can argue even the hardest among them really just want a homeland, and not a global jihad
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Arming insurgent groups is almost never a great idea, even when it can accomplish the goals you want.
according to the reporting coming from the G20 over the weekend, that is exactly what is being discussed... probably not so cut and dry, but Obama and Putin were talking over the weekend
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Those rebels don't do us much good if they aren't willing to fight the bigger threat. ISIS is only a force of 25-30 thousand fighters which for a comparison is one tenth the size of the Iraqi military in 2013. But when the two forces faced off the Iraqi soldiers turned tail and left their weapons behind for ISIS to pick up. The whole reason ISIS is so disruptive is basically no one in the Middle East outside of Assad is willing to fight them. Until that changes I see no way we can change our policy of not arming people we can't trust.
Every time the US think it knows whom the badder guy is a worse one appears that somehow benifitted from our actions.
Baghdad has been steadily transformed into a Shia city since Saddam was taken out. That's why ISIS haven't attacked Baghdad, and won't (outside some bombings from their agents within the city), because they also don't want to fight a Shia militia in a mostly Shia city.
The Shia militias that made up the Iraqi military, and their Iranian backers, totally will fight ISIS if they turn up on their doorstep, though. It's not a case of them being unreliable, so much as it's a case of there being an expectation that a Shia militia would fight like a standing army to defend Sunni territories just because they are in the same nationality. Why would they?
If France want to take a crack at ISIS, and NATO want to support them, then they will have to co-operate with Russia and engage with Assad, as unpleasant as that will be. It's their only real option other than fruitlessly throwing missiles into ISIS territory on the map for the next few years.
Sunni's hate ISIS too because they are brutal to their own people even
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Perhaps to prevent them from growing into the larger, more dangerous foe and attacking in the future both with direct assaults and suicide bombings which they fully intend to do?
the same is true of the Saudi's and the Turks
All these nations know that ISIS is bad news, but we have a stupid US-imposed imaginary no-fly zone that prevents ANYONE but the US and her best friends from conducting formal military ops in the region
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Forget it, America. It's Chinatown.
The article this article is about?
thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/
Now it just feels exploitative.
What, by taking them on in hostile territory? Losing people to defend places where the locals don't like you and don't give a shit that you're dying? No. They weren't a properly trained army no matter what the US poured into them, they were a bunch of Shia militias that Al-Maliki had brought in because they were his people.
And the Sunni/Shia thing absolutely does come into this. Sure, ISIS are brutal to Sunnis too, but at the end of the day, they operate in Sunni territory and they recruit from Sunni tribes because that's what they're aligned with. They've got support in the region too, that's how they've managed to survive for so long. These guys aren't some random bunch of superhuman Islamists who are keeping a hold on their area despite the best efforts of the locals, they're well supported by many local groups.
Steam // Secret Satan
On the other hand, that.
The border between Syria and Iraq was drawn by the colonial powers in the wake of World War I, by uniting Sunnis across these borders IS in some ways righting a thing which has been traditionally regarded as a wrong by many in the Middle East
They also have the support of many former officials who served under Saddam Hussein, IS would not have been able to rise as quickly if the US had not alienated the Sunni minority in Iraq after the conquest
It's perhaps also worth pointing out that the Iraqi army and Shia militias have indeed regained territory from IS, they are just in an incredibly difficult situation in Sunni territory since the population there has had trouble identifying with the US-backed state since 2003 - there also very real concerns that Shia militias might commit atrocities against Sunnis or use the conflict as a stage for ethnic cleansing
I mean, you do what you gotta, but if it was something that a buddy linked on Facebook? I mean, he saw a big article about a complex issue that looked well-researched and came from a big publication like the Atlantic, it probably looked fairly legit to him
I don't find it to be a particularly hateful piece, certainly not worth getting mad at someone for posting, but that's just me
I think it paints a wrong picture to just talk about "the Kurds" - the Kurdish people is represented by different parties and groups across three states, you have the Kurdish Supreme Committee in Syria led by the PYD and the Kurdish National Council (whose fighting arm are the People's Protection Units - YPG), then you have the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq with the Peshmerga who were involved in multiple rebellions against Saddam Hussein
Then there is also the Kurdistan Workers' Party which uses Iraqi territories as a refuge area but has mainly fought against oppression of the Kurdish population in Turkey by the Turkish government (and has been designated a terrorist group by some NATO members) - they agreed on a ceasefire with the Turkish government in 2012, however Erdogan started bombing PKK targets in Iraq in 2015 for domestic political reasons
All these groups represent a wide variety of political views and short-term goals, if they have things in common it is their Kurdish nationality and that most would rather live in a Kurdish nation state which has been repeatedly denied by the Western powers
the rest of NATO probably couldn't give a shit
on that note, here on NPR today.
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/11/16/456246515/after-taking-back-iraqi-town-yazidis-vow-revenge-on-isis-supporters
I feel for the Yazidis, absolutely, and I can't imagine what it's like to go through what they have and then be in a position to deal that back out
But god this makes me so sad
HOWEVER, I think even if Iraq was a completely Sunni state these assholes would still exist. Their platform doesn't strike me as religious or political so much as "rape and murder as many people as able"
we also talk about other random shit and clown upon each other
Nope, Iraq has always been majority Shia
It's just that Ba'athist Iraq had a notorious preference for Sunni Arabs when selecting people for positions of power.
Nationalism!
also the Kurds I guess
would that be in any way helpful or practical
It'd be the same as trying to set up East and West Germany all over again. Or worse, North and South Korea.
fuck no and no
One side would almost certainly get the fertile land, water sources, natural resources, infrastructure, and so forth
Also, the guy Rambo helped in that village was based off of this dude, who got murdered by the Taliban on September 10th, 2001.