Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Lackadaisical2]

It has been the ISIL's plan to far outreach Al Qaeda and establish a world Calhpihate.

They claim to "fight to succeed where Zawahiri and his Al Qaeda is currently failing at".

That's the propaganda they are pitching sure. But given that their methods seem to be simply conventional warfare we know full well they know full well that it's an impossible goal. Maybe we should just give them some land to play in and satisfy their lust for blood and than bomb them back to those borders if they try and expand further.

I think this ignores the situation on the ground, while ISIS is taking a lot of notice, it is clear by the rapid advance, that there is broad sunni support for an autonomous or independent state, and that they are only aligned with ISIS as long as their goals coincide.

See: This article posted a bit ago by Benuty, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520

[Lackadaisical2]

Armenia will have to cleanse the shit out of Azerbaijan, though. Having a mortal enemy must be a pain.

The problem for Armenia in taking over the region would be its small population.

But I do think that the military of even the small Armenian Republic of Nagorno Karahakh is much better then the Iraqi military. And they will fight unlike the Iraqi military which for all intended purposes with all the US training and money they got should be up there among the best.

Video of Nagorno Karabakh tank forces - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusM5HpADIw

The comments on that video are hilarious by the way.

[Greed and Death]

They already are - through funding that abomination we call ISIL/ISIS.

source?
According to all I've read the Saudi are not and never have been founding ISIS directly, although some Saudi money might have ended up in the hands of ISIS. Quite the opposite, they've been founding groups to fight ISIS. ISIS has been targeting SA as well: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... syria.html. Like all Islamist they hate the saudi monarchy for collaborating with 'US infidels'.
€ And I'm talking about the saudi government here, not saudi citizens.

It is extremely unlikely the Iranians are helping the ISIS, ISIS are Sunni and an extremely variety that thinks we must convert or behead the Shi'ites. Iran is largely Shi'ite. Iran has helped the Syrians government and I can see them helping the Iraqi government.

[Rio Cana]

The problem for Armenia in taking over the region would be its small population.

But I do think that the military of even the small Armenian Republic of Nagorno Karahakh is much better then the Iraqi military. And they will fight unlike the Iraqi military which for all intended purposes with all the US training and money they got should be up there among the best.

Video of Nagorno Karabakh tank forces - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusM5HpADIw

The comments on that video are hilarious by the way.

I have no idea since I do not speak Armenian. I understood the word "Tanque" which is how the word "Tank" is said in Spanish and which seems to be how it is said in Armenian. Also have heard the Russians say it.

[Lackadaisical2]

The comments on that video are hilarious by the way.

I have no idea since I do not speak Armenian. I understood the word "Tanque" which is how the word "Tank" is said in Spanish and which seems to be how it is said in Armenian. Also have heard the Russians say it.

No, I mean the comments sections, below the video... don't know if I can even quote them on NS, but they're pretty funny.

[Senkaku]

Firstly, military action will slow, halt, or roll back the ISIL advance.
Secondly, if ISIL's advance is slowed, that gives the Iraqi and Kurdish governments breathing room, improving the situation.
Thirdly, you act like there isn't already a Sunni-Shia war. That ship already sailed, pal.
And the way you help the men, women, and children being tortured, enslaved, and killed, is not by doing as you suggest and indiscriminately raining death on Iraqi cities like we did in the Tokyo firebomb raids, but by using these nifty things called drones, guided missiles, and laser-guided bombs, to kill as few civilians as possible while eliminating the ISIL threat.

1. No doubt.
2. In the short run, yeah.
3. I consider it more of a smolder rather than a wildfire, but whatever.
4. ISIL isn't some rag tag militia group with no combat experience. If you think drones, missiles, and planes can save Iraq and maintain any semblance of stability, let alone peace, then you are even more naive than Al-Faisal. They haven't worked in Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the Middle East, and they won't work in Iraq.

Drones, missiles, and planes, cannot, in and of themselves, save Iraq. However, they can certainly give the Iraqi Army and the Peshmerga a great deal of support in defending Baghdad and Kirkuk from ISIL.
And frankly, no one can maintain stability or peace in Iraq until it's been split into three, as it has usually been for the last 1,400 years or so.

Also, drones have worked quite well in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East, as have missiles and aircraft. They have usually been used, however, in assassination or single-target strikes, not coordinated assaults intended to help support an army operating on the ground. If you don't think they've worked... well, I don't even know.
And ISIL is a militia group- though they have some decent equipment and lots of combat experience.

Look, I'm not saying air strikes are the key for Iraq's long-term stability. That would be retarded and I'm a little insulted you think I'm dumb enough to think that. I'm saying air strikes are the short-term solution to halt ISIL's advance and give the Iraqis and the Kurds some breathing room, and they will also be of tremendous importance in supporting the Iraqis and Kurds if anyone wants to get Mosul back anytime soon.
The key for long-term stability (though, with Kirkuk's de facto breakaway, we may see Iraq cease to be a state or shrink significantly) is to replace al-Maliki with someone who won't alienate the Sunnis and the Kurds, and actually help the Iraqi military instead of firing its most competent commanders.

Military action is only inevitable if you decide so. Terrorists groups have been taken out before. Senior terrorist leaders have been assassinated. Scores of low level, uneducated, illiterate, boys who have take up the terrorist banner have been killed. Guess what? Terrorism still continues on. Iran has been relatively safe from hardline groups like ISIL, but that's only because they've been so busy fighting the United States and Western troops across the Middle East. That will change once Iran intervenes. Iran, like Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia and Niger, Mali and Yemen, will be besieged by terrorist attacks. That is a near certainty. The United States has been lucky. There is too much distance between the Middle East and North America. Iran won't be so lucky. She's smack dab in the middle of a hornet's nest just waiting to be unleashed.

Do I think that ISIL can defeat the Iranian military? No. No I do not. However, mauling Iraq isn't going to save anyone. Maybe in the short run ISIL will be run out of Iraq. Maybe ISIL and its leadership will be annihilated. So what? Some other group will replace them in the future. Maybe an even worse group if that's humanly possible. Then again, they said the same about al-Qaeda so I suppose its possible.

It took the Iraqi military all but two years to fall apart after American withdrawal from the country. There's no reason to expect that a new one set up by Iran will do any better.

So, basically, because other terrorist groups will appear at some point, there's no point and we might as well let ISIL in because if we kill them someone worse could come along.
Okay. Makes total sense.

No.

I'm going to assume right now that you didn't read the rest of my post. My point is that intervening into Iraq will only work in the short term. It won't make Iraq stable. It won't help Sunnis and Shi'as get along. It won't stop terrorism in Iraq.[/quote]

I agree, but that's not the reason military intervention needs to be launched right now. That would be absurd.
The reason military intervention needs to get the go-ahead is to stop ISIL's advance and preserve at least southern Iraq as a functioning state. I'm not suggesting it's a long-term solution (though a long-term solution may also need international support, if not necessarily military), rather, it's a short-term one to help support the Iraqi Army, which appears to be rapidly collapsing.

[Rio Cana]

I have no idea since I do not speak Armenian. I understood the word "Tanque" which is how the word "Tank" is said in Spanish and which seems to be how it is said in Armenian. Also have heard the Russians say it.

No, I mean the comments sections, below the video... don't know if I can even quote them on NS, but they're pretty funny.

Oh, the written comments left by Youtubers. Seems Armenian vs. Azerbaijani Youtubers arguing at each other.

[Purpelia]

That's the propaganda they are pitching sure. But given that their methods seem to be simply conventional warfare we know full well they know full well that it's an impossible goal. Maybe we should just give them some land to play in and satisfy their lust for blood and than bomb them back to those borders if they try and expand further.

I think this ignores the situation on the ground, while ISIS is taking a lot of notice, it is clear by the rapid advance, that there is broad sunni support for an autonomous or independent state, and that they are only aligned with ISIS as long as their goals coincide.

See: This article posted a bit ago by Benuty, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520

Sure there is support. But it's not like they could overrun say Germany any time soon.

[Lackadaisical2]

I think this ignores the situation on the ground, while ISIS is taking a lot of notice, it is clear by the rapid advance, that there is broad sunni support for an autonomous or independent state, and that they are only aligned with ISIS as long as their goals coincide.

See: This article posted a bit ago by Benuty, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27836520

Sure there is support. But it's not like they could overrun say Germany any time soon.

O.o

Thats not what I meant at all, sorry. I mean, its likely you will have a somewhat moderate sunni-state, if they succeed in getting independence, rather than an ISIS ruled hellhole. It'll just be a regular hellhole, like the ones we're used to. I absolutely agree that theres no need to see this offensive/civil war as something the wider international community needs to get involved in, as it doesn't really threaten our interests, let alone our countries, perhaps with the exception of Iran, which has a hard-on for the Al Maliki government.

[Purpelia]

O.o

Thats not what I meant at all, sorry. I mean, its likely you will have a somewhat moderate sunni-state, if they succeed in getting independence, rather than an ISIS ruled hellhole. It'll just be a regular hellhole, like the ones we're used to. I absolutely agree that theres no need to see this offensive/civil war as something the wider international community needs to get involved in, as it doesn't really threaten our interests, let alone our countries, perhaps with the exception of Iran, which has a hard-on for the Al Maliki government.

That much we agree on than. As far as I am concerned what kind of hell the locals forge for them self should be none of our concern. Just as long as European interests aren't in danger.

[Al-Faisal]

Its hardly self-defense for Iran when they haven't been attacked. If anything its a preemptive attack.

Whatever helps you sleep better. Better to ignore your neighbor being murdered next than call for help or take any action.

That response doesn't apply and you know it. If Iran's decision is to intervene only when terrorists threaten Baghdad then its going to end up doing it over and over again, raining death and destruction and inflaming tensions even more each time.

No, it does apply. Your entire post rings with an out-of-place attitude the screams ignorance of the situation. Iran was invited to help, and so its just in doing so.

That doesn't matter.

Says you. The women being raped and treated like animals, and the boys about to be beheaded scream otherwise. Whose voice shall we hear?

Not specific and not true.

Don't say stupid thing then.

1. Does it matter?
2. If being in the military made someone good at achieving peace then the Iraq War would have been a success and Iraq would be land filled with lollipops and rainbows.
3. Historical instances show that quickly intervening with no intention to stay in the long term solves nothing.

1. Hard to take you seriously if you don't have any reason to be taken seriously.
2. See above. If you think the military ran the US occupation of Iraq, you're sorely mistaken.
3. I suppose the French should have stayed in America after 1783... oh wait, you don't know anything military and admitted it. Opinion discarded.

Then prove me wrong.

I don't have the time or tenure. Cite a source for you doubts and we'll discuss it.

Uh huh. How is military assault working in countries like Russia and China? They seem pretty intent on crushing Chechnyan and Uighur extremists, respectively. What about Afghanistan? Pakistan? Somalia? Mali? Niger? Nigeria? Sudan? The Central African Republic? How about the Philippines? Myanmar? How about Colombia? Mexico? Brazil? Then there's other places like India, Western Sahara, and Ukraine.

"Do nothing because some countries have problems."
We go right back to your "don't bother reporting being raped, you'll just be raped again" mindset. Russia crushed the Chechens so strongly that they fight in other countries now. It works. If you think otherwise you may as well spread your cheeks and submit to the first person who comes along, because apparently to you life and security aren't worth putting a fight over.

Did you just ignore what I said about the analyst on AJAM and how it was mainly Sunni soldiers who gave up?

So you want to see what they can do because you already know it was mainly Sunni soldiers giving up? Then you wonder why I ignore half of what you say...

"Lion of Damascus"? Riiiiight...

Yes, a man that if he had your attitude his country would be raped, murdered and pillaged at the hands of ISIS. Thank goodness he doesn't.

It makes perfect sense when you consider that the Shi'a helped run them out and that they are now in charge of Iraq.

Indeed, but it is still disturbing.

Iraq has structural problems that, like Saiwania said, may warrant it being dismantled and divided.

I agree.

[Al-Faisal]

Supposedly the Mahdi army is being reformed to meet the threat of ISIS, if one tweet is to be believed.

https://twitter.com/IraqiFighters/status/477859267483930624/photo/1

[Volnotova]

ISIL/ISIS capture Air Force Base north of Tikrit

(For those confused by the term 'Da-ish', it's basically another term used to describe the group)

Also,

Iraqi forces kill 50 in air strikes?
Iraqi forces kill hundreds in air strikes?

There seem to be conflicting reports, including as to what cities are currently under control by the militants.

Also, a border town with Iran was captured.

[Volnotova]

Baiji refinery officially under ISIS/ISIL control

[Rio Cana]

O.o

Thats not what I meant at all, sorry. I mean, its likely you will have a somewhat moderate sunni-state, if they succeed in getting independence, rather than an ISIS ruled hellhole. It'll just be a regular hellhole, like the ones we're used to. I absolutely agree that theres no need to see this offensive/civil war as something the wider international community needs to get involved in, as it doesn't really threaten our interests, let alone our countries, perhaps with the exception of Iran, which has a hard-on for the Al Maliki government.

That much we agree on than. As far as I am concerned what kind of hell the locals forge for them self should be none of our concern. Just as long as European interests aren't in danger.

Guest where a good number of the people who are running will end up. So can Europe absorb a couple of million people all at once.

[Purpelia]

That much we agree on than. As far as I am concerned what kind of hell the locals forge for them self should be none of our concern. Just as long as European interests aren't in danger.

Guest where a good number of the people who are running will end up. So can Europe absorb a couple of million people all at once.

A better question might be why should we? As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to cross over should just be shipped back. This is not our problem and we should not allow these people to make it our problem.

[Greed and Death]

Baiji refinery officially under ISIS/ISIL control

Silk road already has oil for sell from that refinery.

I am going to order me a few barrels.

[Condunum]

Guest where a good number of the people who are running will end up. So can Europe absorb a couple of million people all at once.

A better question might be why should we? As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to cross over should just be shipped back. This is not our problem and we should not allow these people to make it our problem.

US involvement could potentially boost Iraqi-US and Iran-US relation, so there is at least some reason to involvement.

[Distruzio]

Guest where a good number of the people who are running will end up. So can Europe absorb a couple of million people all at once.

A better question might be why should we? As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to cross over should just be shipped back. This is not our problem and we should not allow these people to make it our problem.

Agreed. Both Europe and America should stay the hell away. Let the people involved settle the disputes.

[Volnotova]

Baiji refinery officially under ISIS/ISIL control

Silk road already has oil for sell from that refinery.

I am going to order me a few barrels.

Sauce?

[Greed and Death]

Silk road already has oil for sell from that refinery.

I am going to order me a few barrels.

Sauce?

Go to silkroad and take a look yourself.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/20/how-to-access ... -deep-web/

[Volnotova]

Sauce?

Go to silkroad and take a look yourself.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/20/how-to-access ... -deep-web/

Had someone check it.

It's actually true.

[Purpelia]

I wonder if they deliver.

[Senkaku]

Guest where a good number of the people who are running will end up. So can Europe absorb a couple of million people all at once.

A better question might be why should we? As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to cross over should just be shipped back. This is not our problem and we should not allow these people to make it our problem.

Umm.... Wow. "I don't want to deal with the world's problems and these people won't make me."

Firstly, you should, because if you ship them back they'll be in danger for their lives. Also, it's not that easy to just ship back a few million people. Ask the US Border Patrol.

Fortunately, these things aren't up to you, so the EU's immigration agencies will decide.

[Distruzio]

A better question might be why should we? As far as I am concerned anyone who tries to cross over should just be shipped back. This is not our problem and we should not allow these people to make it our problem.

Umm.... Wow. "I don't want to deal with the world's problems and these people won't make me."

Firstly, you should, because if you ship them back they'll be in danger for their lives. Also, it's not that easy to just ship back a few million people. Ask the US Border Patrol.

The difficulty of an activity when inactivity renders your way of life endangered hardly suggests that the activity should be avoided.

Fortunately, these things aren't up to you, so the EU's immigration agencies will decide.

Don't like the hypothetical game, huh?