NationStates

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.

It's their choice, but unless they divide, there might not be a functioning Iraq left.

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.

It's not really one country to begin with; the Kurds have functioned well independently for a while. Who are the Iraqi government to tell them how to run their country?

Geilinor 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.

It's their choice, but unless they divide, there might not be a functioning Iraq left.

There was a functioning Iraq to begin with?

The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Genivaria wrote:The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Genivaria wrote:The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

It wouldn't hurt to send in UN peacekeepers.

Laurasia wrote:I was watching a Special Report earlier about the ISIS actions in Iraq. President Obama was stating the government's position that they were considering options for intervention in Iraq besides putting boots on the ground.

In other words, the US won't do jack.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Genivaria wrote:The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

Having the UN bomb the shit out of ISIL might not hurt. And a brief deployment of peacekeepers to at least stabilize the situation and give the Iraqi military some breathing room also might not be so terrible.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Genivaria wrote:The UN, EU, and NATO have all declared no intention to get involved.
I am utterly disapointed in these organizations.

Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

Quagmire? There's a rather clear situation here.
1. The Iraqi government is under threat of an extremist Islamic group which is trying to upgrade itself into an actual country and outright EXTERMINATING those that refuse to submit.
2. The Iraqi government has asked for and given permission for airstrikes agaist ISIS to support the Iraqi army which we trained.
3. Iraq currently has a relatively liberal president who is a secularist and a believer in democracy.

Why the fuck should we NOT get involved?

Geilinor wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

It wouldn't hurt to send in UN peacekeepers.

History would seem to contradict that notion.

Geilinor wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

It wouldn't hurt to send in UN peacekeepers.

UN peacekeepers have done exactly jack shit in every engagement they've been deployed to.

Genivaria wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
Yes, because what the world really needs is a whole shitload of nations going into that quagmire and getting stuck indefinitely.

Quagmire? There's a rather clear situation here.
1. The Iraqi government is under threat of an extremist Islamic group which is trying to upgrade itself into an actual country and outright EXTERMINATING those that refuse to submit.
2. The Iraqi government has asked for and given permission for airstrikes agaist ISIS to support the Iraqi army which we trained.
3. Iraq currently has a relatively liberal president who is a secularist and a believer in democracy.

Why the fuck should we NOT get involved?

How much popular support does the government have vs. the rebels, and would Western troops have a chance of being seen as liberators and peacekeepers rather than invaders and torturers, especially considering America's rather shaky recent past in the region?

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Quagmire? There's a rather clear situation here.
1. The Iraqi government is under threat of an extremist Islamic group which is trying to upgrade itself into an actual country and outright EXTERMINATING those that refuse to submit.
2. The Iraqi government has asked for and given permission for airstrikes agaist ISIS to support the Iraqi army which we trained.
3. Iraq currently has a relatively liberal president who is a secularist and a believer in democracy.

Why the fuck should we NOT get involved?

How much popular support does the government have vs. the rebels, and would Western troops have a chance of being seen as liberators and peacekeepers rather than invaders and torturers, especially considering America's rather shaky recent past in the region?

I don't believe anyone is suggesting having Western troops anywhere.
Just send in air support to bomb the shit out of ISIS and let the Iraqi army have the glory, that'll fix the government's support problem right there.

Genivaria wrote:

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
How much popular support does the government have vs. the rebels, and would Western troops have a chance of being seen as liberators and peacekeepers rather than invaders and torturers, especially considering America's rather shaky recent past in the region?

I don't believe anyone is suggesting having Western troops anywhere.
Just send in air support to bomb the shit out of ISIS and let the Iraqi army have the glory, that'll fix the government's support problem right there.

We only sent planes to Libya and still got flak for being foreign, civilian-killing invaders from the Libyan general public.

Cata Larga wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I don't believe anyone is suggesting having Western troops anywhere.
Just send in air support to bomb the shit out of ISIS and let the Iraqi army have the glory, that'll fix the government's support problem right there.

We only sent planes to Libya and still got flak for being foreign, civilian-killing invaders from the Libyan general public.

All Iraq needs is some assistance to fight off a terrorist threat.

Cata Larga wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I don't believe anyone is suggesting having Western troops anywhere.
Just send in air support to bomb the shit out of ISIS and let the Iraqi army have the glory, that'll fix the government's support problem right there.

We only sent planes to Libya and still got flak for being foreign, civilian-killing invaders from the Libyan general public.

This isn't a black-vs-grey situation here, this is actually black and white for once.
We'll get more flak for NOT doing something then if we intervene.

Geilinor wrote:

Cata Larga wrote:We only sent planes to Libya and still got flak for being foreign, civilian-killing invaders from the Libyan general public.

All Iraq needs is some assistance to fight off a terrorist threat.

also soldiers that actually have balls and will fight

Genivaria wrote:

Cata Larga wrote:We only sent planes to Libya and still got flak for being foreign, civilian-killing invaders from the Libyan general public.

This isn't a black-vs-grey situation here, this is actually black and white for once.
We'll get more flak for NOT doing something then if we intervene.

Yeah, I'm with Gen here. And I believe that what Mr.Obama is saying is that we're considering air support as opposed to sending in the army. Which has been a decision the US has made quite a few times.

Macedom wrote:

Geilinor wrote:All Iraq needs is some assistance to fight off a terrorist threat.

also soldiers that actually have balls and will fight

Yeah, the dissolution of the Iraqi army fucked them big time.

i bet they reget that now

Volnotova wrote:

Geilinor wrote:It's their choice, but unless they divide, there might not be a functioning Iraq left.

There was a functioning Iraq to begin with?

Some say during this guys rule. See short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD3aPm3RzAA

Seeing as I have to go now I'll say this.
Bomb the crap out of any troops traveling with a ISIL flag.

In a surprise move one of you will be drafted to be Pm or Iraq, required to remain in office and Baghdad until the end of this civil war.

Genivaria wrote:Seeing as I have to go now I'll say this.
Bomb the crap out of any troops traveling with a ISIL flag.

That is the problem they don't really use flags by the time you know it is them it is hard to hit them without hitting noncombatants.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Quagmire? There's a rather clear situation here.
1. The Iraqi government is under threat of an extremist Islamic group which is trying to upgrade itself into an actual country and outright EXTERMINATING those that refuse to submit.
2. The Iraqi government has asked for and given permission for airstrikes agaist ISIS to support the Iraqi army which we trained.
3. Iraq currently has a relatively liberal president who is a secularist and a believer in democracy.

Why the fuck should we NOT get involved?

How much popular support does the government have vs. the rebels, and would Western troops have a chance of being seen as liberators and peacekeepers rather than invaders and torturers, especially considering America's rather shaky recent past in the religion?

I'm quite certain the government has far more popular support, even from some Sunnis. ISIS has been disowned by Al-Qaeda, and is murdering people in the streets of Mosul. The government may not be very popular, but any rational person would rather have Maliki than ISIL.

And no one is proposing ground units, but a few drone strikes and maybe some bombers out of our bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia might not hurt.

Also, Genivaria, your third point is a bit shaky. The Iraqi president has always been something of a figurehead, it's the PM who has the real power, and Maliki has become something of a strongman at this point.

greed and death wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Seeing as I have to go now I'll say this.
Bomb the crap out of any troops traveling with a ISIL flag.

That is the problem they don't really use flags by the time you know it is them it is hard to hit them without hitting noncombatants.

I'm sure Iraqi Army spotters would be willing to help.

And, I know it'll get me a lot of flak since this is NS and everyone is absolutely disgusted by war and icky killing, but have any of you heard of acceptable casualties? A few civilian deaths- terrible, yes, I'm not arguing that- along with the halt of the ISIL advance are far preferable to the collapse of the Iraqi state.