Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:10 am
by Benuty
Al-Qaeda Offshoot Routs US-Trained Forces And Captures Iraq's Second Largest City Business Insider By Michael Kelley REUTERS/Stringer
Extremists fighters from the al-Qaeda offshoot Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have captured the capital of northern Iraq, Liz Sly and Ahmed Ramadan of The Washington Post report.
American-trained Iraqi forces reportedly fled posts in Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, and all of the city's critical facilities — including the government complex and the prisons — are now controlled by the insurgents.
“When the battle got tough in the city of Mosul, the troops dropped their weapons and abandoned their posts, making it an easy prey for the terrorists,” Iraq’s speaker of parliament Osama Nujaifi stated in Baghdad.
Sly emphasized the significance of northern Iraq falling to ISIS.
ISIS militants have captured Mosul. The US trained security forces fled. A huge day for Iraq. And the US.
ISIS has brutally reigned over the population in northern Syria after blurring the border between the.two countries last year.
Nujafi, highlighting Mosul's significance, asked for international and government help to retake the city.
“Everything is fallen. It’s a crisis,” he said. “Having these terrorist groups control a city in the heart of Iraq threatens not only Iraq but the entire region.”
The Post notes that the rapid fall of Mosul, a key commercial and trading center, " suggests the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces are even more vulnerable than had previously been thought. "
The U.S. military focused on Mosul during its effort to stabilize Iraq after years of war. ISIS reportedly took the city's airport, and Iraq's parliament speaker said that militants obtained helicopters when they took over what was a hub for American troops and advisors.
Here's a look at what ISIS controlled as of August 2013.
Opinion: Despite the comic nature of part of the title it is no laughing matter at all. I suppose even with all that training and weaponry it is no good if no morale is uniform among the troops. Anyway, what say you oh unleavened and leavened masses of NSG?
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:12 am
by Keyboard Warriors
It's time the Saudis got off their ass.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:13 am
by National Socialist Korea
Seems like all those Vietnam War lessons Bush applied for the Gulf War finally paid off.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:18 am
by Allentyr
Not to sound racist, but people here have always said Iraqis were cowardly... This is a horrible day when radicals win.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:21 am
by Benuty
Allentyr wrote:Not to sound racist, but people here have always said Iraqis were cowardly... This is a horrible day when radicals win.
To be fair they fought Iran for eight years before finally saying "fuck it" by that time Iran was sending young teenagers to run over the mines they set up in defense. I suppose that and the whole defeat in the 1990's set the Iraqi's up for what they thought would be a quick regime change in 2003. Instead the US disestablished the entire army instead of revamping it and is surprised many of them followed Saddam's plan for terrorism even more fanatically than he wanted.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:24 am
by Toishima
Cue new US intervention, plus several more years of US troops remaining in the area... >__>
Allentyr wrote:Not to sound racist, but people here have always said Iraqis were cowardly... This is a horrible day when radicals win.
To be fair they fought Iran for eight years before finally saying "fuck it" by that time Iran was sending young teenagers to run over the mines they set up in defense. I suppose that and the whole defeat in the 1990's set the Iraqi's up for what they thought would be a quick regime change in 2003. Instead the US disestablished the entire army instead of revamping it and is surprised many of them followed Saddam's plan for terrorism even more fanatically than he wanted.
I know... But still, can't believe they just upped and left after a few firefights. Frankly speaking, if they don't fight back now, they'll die anyways.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:26 am
by Gaelic Celtia
Wait, according to the map have the insurgents seized part of Baghdad as well?
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:33 am
by Benuty
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Wait, according to the map have the insurgents seized part of Baghdad as well?
It appears they are in fact breaching the areas near it on the map from wikipedia I posted.
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Wait, according to the map have the insurgents seized part of Baghdad as well?
It appears they are in fact breaching the areas near it on the map from wikipedia I posted.
If Baghdad is also in danger of falling then this got far more alarming.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:41 am
by Sklavinia
Wow, nice going Iraq. They can't even defend Mosul, Baghdad is so screwed.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:41 am
by Saiwania
Toishima wrote:Cue new US intervention, plus several more years of US troops remaining in the area... >__>
If there is to be another intervention, I don't think there should be any more nation building. Instead, what the US needs to do is install a dictator that can keep Iraq under control. Despite being a cruel despot, Saddam Hussein was able to keep control and instill order. Sometimes a country needs an authoritarian ruler with an iron hand to stabilize it, if it shows no signs of reacting favorably towards a democratic tradition.
Toishima wrote:Cue new US intervention, plus several more years of US troops remaining in the area... >__>
If there is to be another intervention, I don't think there should be any more nation building. Instead, what the US needs to do is install a dictator that can keep Iraq under control. Despite being a cruel despot, Saddam was able to keep control and sometimes a country needs an authoritarian ruler to stabilize it if it shows no signs of reacting favorably towards a democratic tradition.
Except the whole genocide of the Kurds. Thats not what I call stable rule when part of the popula tion lives in perpetual fear of death.
Lets not go back to that. If you install a ruler with absolute power, its inevitable what will eventually happen.
Gaelic Celtia wrote:If Baghdad is also in danger of falling then this got far more alarming.
It seems as if ISIS is trying to split the country in half before taking over Baghdad [an isolated city cut off from supplies will eventually fall].
Based on what happened in Mosul, it doesnt seem like that will be neccesary
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:50 am
by Estado Paulista
ISIS. Those guys are brutal. They've got some videos on YouTube. [MODEDIT]I hope it's okay for me to post this one.[/url] Also, are they really al-Qaeda fanboys? I think there is an ongoing fight between al-Qaeda-affiliated forces in Syria and ISIS.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:54 am
by Saiwania
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Except the whole genocide of the Kurds. Thats not what I call stable rule when part of the popula tion lives in perpetual fear of death. Lets not go back to that. If you install a ruler with absolute power, its inevitable what will eventually happen.
Saddam committing genocide against the Kurds destabilized Iraq how?
It might not have been morally correct, but if anything- Saddam was merely liquidating what he viewed as an enemy that was causing problems for his regime and with neighboring Turkey. I'd say losing the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars negatively affected Saddam more so than whatever international criticism he got for human rights abuses.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:57 am
by Respawn
Good job America. Now we are back to square one in Iraq.
Respawn wrote:Good job America. Now we are back to square one in Iraq.
Not so! Saddam is gone, don't forget that.
Anyway, the reason this is happening is because we pulled out to fast.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:15 am
by Calimera II
This is terrible! I wouldn't mind an international intervention.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:16 am
by Viletta
Saiwania wrote:Saddam committing genocide against the Kurds destabilized Iraq how?
It might not have been morally correct, but if anything- Saddam was merely liquidating what he viewed as an enemy that was causing problems for his regime and with neighboring Turkey. I'd say losing the Iran-Iraq and Gulf wars negatively affected Saddam more so than whatever international criticism he got for human rights abuses.
Iraq was already well destabilized before Saddam gassed the Kurds. They have been looking for an independent state of their own for a long time now, and they continue to do so in Syria and Turkey.
Gaelic Celtia wrote:Except the whole genocide of the Kurds. Thats not what I call stable rule when part of the popula tion lives in perpetual fear of death. Lets not go back to that. If you install a ruler with absolute power, its inevitable what will eventually happen.
Well populations always live in some fear of death from their state and other actors like ideological groups or individuals like muggers. Most people are capable of wielding the sword of death against others and some have an inherent inclination towards doing so. Under a reasonably strong tyranny this right is hoarded by the tyrant and his minions. While this state of affairs is not the most desirable it is not the least either.
Because of the potentical consequences it would bring to the Middle East?
The Middle East has to change in some fundamental respect or the present state of affairs will continue to reign supreme. Consequences both desirable and undesirable will be an inevitable product of this change.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:19 am
by Murkwood
Calimera II wrote:This is terrible! I wouldn't mind an international intervention.
As would I, but the anti-war chorus is too loud for that to happen.
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:10 am