Advertisement
by The blood ravens » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:15 am
Napkiraly wrote:
I'm still hoping that the West decides to offer some assistance or at least push some of the more moderate Islamic countries in the region (such as Jordan) into intervening.
And despite my misgivings, I think it's time to lay off of the Assad regime. These guys are far, far worse.
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:24 am
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Senkaku » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:33 am
by Lackadaisical2 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:58 am
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:13 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Don't know if this idea has been floated, probably has already, but I'm not reading 27 pages I'm afraid.
I think this demonstrates why there is a need for Iraq to be separated, this disintegration is necessary for the area to move on. The West should not have felt the need to maintain an artificial state where nations ought to reside. The state of Iraq has never truly been stable, at least partly because it is an artificial construct, the solution to this can only be the disintegration of the Iraqi state.
It is clear from other articles I've read that the success of ISIS is largely due to the replacement of competent military personnel with political appointees (shia for sunni). The rule of Al Maliki, at least of a united Iraq, needs to end as he is mostly to blame for re-segregating the military. The Iraqi government forces did not fight because it wasn't their land. If ISIS forces advance into Shia neighborhoods, then there will be more fierce fighting. It would be better to simply acknowledge the legitimate concerns of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and divide the state along ethno-religious lines. The only problem is what to do with Baghdad and similarly mixed areas, but that seems better than the civil war which looms now.(Image)http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333146
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-viol ... mas-fault/
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... -stability
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Lackadaisical2 » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:26 am
Valaran wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote:Don't know if this idea has been floated, probably has already, but I'm not reading 27 pages I'm afraid.
I think this demonstrates why there is a need for Iraq to be separated, this disintegration is necessary for the area to move on. The West should not have felt the need to maintain an artificial state where nations ought to reside. The state of Iraq has never truly been stable, at least partly because it is an artificial construct, the solution to this can only be the disintegration of the Iraqi state.
It is clear from other articles I've read that the success of ISIS is largely due to the replacement of competent military personnel with political appointees (shia for sunni). The rule of Al Maliki, at least of a united Iraq, needs to end as he is mostly to blame for re-segregating the military. The Iraqi government forces did not fight because it wasn't their land. If ISIS forces advance into Shia neighborhoods, then there will be more fierce fighting. It would be better to simply acknowledge the legitimate concerns of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and divide the state along ethno-religious lines. The only problem is what to do with Baghdad and similarly mixed areas, but that seems better than the civil war which looms now.(Image)http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333146
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-viol ... mas-fault/
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... -stability
Don't worry its been noted on nearly every page , though it should still be brought up.
I even made your exact point on the ethnic overlap last page
I agree that splitting it up is best in the long term, but it would be exceedingly hard to achieve without some kind of violence (which may lead to Yugoslavia style situation). Furthermore, tensions would still remain (its the middle East after all).So, I would definitely create a Kurdistan, and probably a sunni-shia split, although the latter is much harder to get right.
The Republic of Lanos wrote:Proud member of the Vile Right-Wing Noodle Combat Division of the Imperialist Anti-Socialist Economic War Army Ground Force reporting in.
by Senkaku » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:31 am
Lackadaisical2 wrote:Don't know if this idea has been floated, probably has already, but I'm not reading 27 pages I'm afraid.
I think this demonstrates why there is a need for Iraq to be separated, this disintegration is necessary for the area to move on. The West should not have felt the need to maintain an artificial state where nations ought to reside. The state of Iraq has never truly been stable, at least partly because it is an artificial construct, the solution to this can only be the disintegration of the Iraqi state.
It is clear from other articles I've read that the success of ISIS is largely due to the replacement of competent military personnel with political appointees (shia for sunni). The rule of Al Maliki, at least of a united Iraq, needs to end as he is mostly to blame for re-segregating the military. The Iraqi government forces did not fight because it wasn't their land. If ISIS forces advance into Shia neighborhoods, then there will be more fierce fighting. It would be better to simply acknowledge the legitimate concerns of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and divide the state along ethno-religious lines. The only problem is what to do with Baghdad and similarly mixed areas, but that seems better than the civil war which looms now.(Image)http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333146
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-viol ... mas-fault/
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... -stability
by Empire of Vlissingen » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:43 am
by Deusaeuri » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:48 am
Senkaku wrote:Lackadaisical2 wrote:Don't know if this idea has been floated, probably has already, but I'm not reading 27 pages I'm afraid.
I think this demonstrates why there is a need for Iraq to be separated, this disintegration is necessary for the area to move on. The West should not have felt the need to maintain an artificial state where nations ought to reside. The state of Iraq has never truly been stable, at least partly because it is an artificial construct, the solution to this can only be the disintegration of the Iraqi state.
It is clear from other articles I've read that the success of ISIS is largely due to the replacement of competent military personnel with political appointees (shia for sunni). The rule of Al Maliki, at least of a united Iraq, needs to end as he is mostly to blame for re-segregating the military. The Iraqi government forces did not fight because it wasn't their land. If ISIS forces advance into Shia neighborhoods, then there will be more fierce fighting. It would be better to simply acknowledge the legitimate concerns of Sunnis, Shias and Kurds and divide the state along ethno-religious lines. The only problem is what to do with Baghdad and similarly mixed areas, but that seems better than the civil war which looms now.(Image)http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333146
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-viol ... mas-fault/
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... -stability
I said this a ways back as well, and so have other people. The West needs to take a leaf out of the Ottoman Empire's book and split Iraq in three.
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:48 am
Empire of Vlissingen wrote:Could we see an independent Kurdistan soon?
Will the USA intervene (again) ?
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:58 am
Deusaeuri wrote:Also, dividing Iraq is not the west's decision. It's Iraq's decision. We have no right to tell them how to govern their country.
by Senkaku » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:00 pm
Deusaeuri wrote:Senkaku wrote:I said this a ways back as well, and so have other people. The West needs to take a leaf out of the Ottoman Empire's book and split Iraq in three.
You mean the Rashidun?
Iraq was divided into three provinces by Umar, the second Rashidun caliph (alt. spelled Omar), in to Basra, Kufa, and Jazira, making up south, middle, and upper Iraq respectively.\
Also, dividing Iraq is not the west's decision. It's Iraq's decision. We have no right to tell them how to govern their country.
by Allet Klar Chefs » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:02 pm
Vetalia wrote:I guess the only hope here is it's spreading them out and making them more vulnerable across multiple fronts.
by Deusaeuri » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:03 pm
Senkaku wrote:Deusaeuri wrote:You mean the Rashidun?
Iraq was divided into three provinces by Umar, the second Rashidun caliph (alt. spelled Omar), in to Basra, Kufa, and Jazira, making up south, middle, and upper Iraq respectively.\
Also, dividing Iraq is not the west's decision. It's Iraq's decision. We have no right to tell them how to govern their country.
I didn't know the Rashiduns did it, but the Ottomans did as well- three provinces, centered around Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra, to keep the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias better separated.
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:11 pm
Deusaeuri wrote:The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain wrote:
A noble sentiment, but I doubt Iraq is in any condition to decide such things until many more thousands have died.
So because you don't think Iraq can decide, we have the right to do it for them?
That's not how it works. Iraq is an independent country, and they will remain as such.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Deusaeuri » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:23 pm
Valaran wrote:Deusaeuri wrote:So because you don't think Iraq can decide, we have the right to do it for them?
That's not how it works. Iraq is an independent country, and they will remain as such.
I agree that we shouldn't just draw lines in the sand (that is partially what started this mess) but I doubt Iraq is in much state to do ti themselves either. The North-east is de facto seceded/become autonomous and the rest may follow soon. The immediate issue is restoring order and defeating ISIS, and then we can get to dealing with the long term business (hopefully)
by Wind in the Willows » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:26 pm
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:28 pm
Deusaeuri wrote:Valaran wrote:
I agree that we shouldn't just draw lines in the sand (that is partially what started this mess) but I doubt Iraq is in much state to do ti themselves either. The North-east is de facto seceded/become autonomous and the rest may follow soon. The immediate issue is restoring order and defeating ISIS, and then we can get to dealing with the long term business (hopefully)
This has nothing to do with my comment.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Valaran » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:48 pm
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire
by Rio Cana » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:58 pm
Geilinor wrote:United Marxist Nations wrote:So, they basically want to recreate the Caliphate?
I don't know, but they did say they'll kill the king of Jordan and are gaining ground in Syria.
by Laurasia » Fri Jun 13, 2014 3:08 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Post War America
Advertisement