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

[Vetalia]

I guess the only hope here is it's spreading them out and making them more vulnerable across multiple fronts.

[Deusaeuri]

A map has been created on Wikipedia detailing towns and who is currently in control of them between the ISIL, Iraqi military, Kurdish Peshmerga, and other groups if applicable.

[The blood ravens]

Guardian live feed

ISIL claims to have executed 1700 Shia soldiers.

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.

Iran has sent soldiers to help stop them apperently.

[Valaran]

uh what? So you think Iraq is fine by itself, given the current situation? I'm not saying the US should intervene, but the view that Iraq is teetering on the edge of disintegration is pretty obvious.

It should have been obvious that I was being sarcastic.

Oh its cool then

It actually sounded serious though...

[Senkaku]

Even if the Iraqis can't, based on that map Deusaeuri posted, the Peshmerga appears to be capable of holding it's own.

Also, the Iranians are only sending token forces, it's clear they're not too worried yet.

[Lackadaisical2]

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.

http://www.aawsat.net/2014/06/article55333146
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-the-viol ... mas-fault/
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle- ... -stability

[Valaran]

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.

[Lackadaisical2]

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.

Absolutely there will be violence, no matter what. Its just a question of what will have the least violence and longest-term stability.

[Senkaku]

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.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

Could we see an independent Kurdistan soon?

Will the USA intervene (again) ?

[Deusaeuri]

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.

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.

[Valaran]

Could we see an independent Kurdistan soon?

Will the USA intervene (again) ?

Well it is de facto independent/autonomous (it conducts its own oil deals with Turkey). The US won't intervene, but Iran is already sending troops. The US might send drones and just possibly use its air-force, but these are only possibilities. The Iraqis are already using F16s given to them to pounds ISIS and the Peshmerga (Kurdish force of many thousands), Quds (Iranian special forces), and shia militias are all mobilizing to fight ISIS.

[The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain]

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.

A noble sentiment, but I doubt Iraq is in any condition to decide such things until many more thousands have died.

[Senkaku]

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.

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.

[Allet Klar Chefs]

I guess the only hope here is it's spreading them out and making them more vulnerable across multiple fronts.

It's a few hundred chancers. They can be bombed in an afternoon. Jesus christ. This is like the Vikings all over again. Problem is resolved pretty quickly if everyone doesn't shit themselves.

[Deusaeuri]

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.

It was probably done even before, but records are hard to come by, and before the Caliphate, Kurdistan and Iraq were two separate countries, not often united.

[Deusaeuri]

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.

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.

[Valaran]

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.

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)

[Deusaeuri]

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)

This has nothing to do with my comment.

[Wind in the Willows]

A few drones and a lot of bombs will sort them out. I would also like to see an Independent Kurdistan, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves.

[Valaran]

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.

uh actually it did. I was agreeing with your view that other powers shouldn't decide how Iraq is split up, but then starting that Iraqi's aren't in a position to make that decision themselves.

[Deusaeuri]

This has nothing to do with my comment.

uh actually it did. I was agreeing with your view that other powers shouldn't decide how Iraq is split up, but then starting that Iraqi's aren't in a position to make that decision themselves.

You literally just contradicted yourself.

[Valaran]

uh actually it did. I was agreeing with your view that other powers shouldn't decide how Iraq is split up, but then starting that Iraqi's aren't in a position to make that decision themselves.

You literally just contradicted yourself.

Its called a balanced argument. Nothing is a simple yes or no with Iraq (or the Middle east as a whole), and that was the fundamental point I was making. If you ignore the fact that both sides have flaws in this case, then you are not being empirical or objective and merely stating an opinion. I never stated what my view was, so how can I be contradicting it?

[Rio Cana]

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.

ISIS is gaining territory in Eastern Syria against other non-ISIS rebels and not against the Syrian military. The Syrian military has tended to forget about trying to hold on to Eastern Syria. Except for some oil areas, that part of Syria is sparsely populated and a desert. In Syira, the prize is the ancient city of Damascus. Like I said before, the person who controls Damascus generally controls Syria.

[Laurasia]

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. But I think that this whole matter demonstrates the failure of American foreign policy under both George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. It has only been two and a half years since American troops ended their occupation of Iraq, and look where that country is going now. Baghdad will be stormed by these terrorists if thinks keep on going like this. And it gives us a ominous warning of what will happen in Afghanistan when American and Coalition troops leave that country at the end of this year.