ISIS plans larger empire than we thought

[Avenio]

I don't know, but that shouldn't be a basis to going to war. We "THOUGHT" IRAQ had WMDs, they didn't didn't they? That was a ploy to get in there. We can't go into the Mid east based off of assumptions. We've tried for the last 10-12 years to promote "stability," the moment we leave the region is thrown into chaos. What happened when we left Libya? Chaos. They will deal with insurgencies, only thing that changed is the Government.

What, a potential direct threat to national security isn't a good enough reason to go to war?

Why can't the African union handle this? Why not Britian, france, etc? Why us?

Because the US is the world's biggest military power. You're also the head of NATO - other nations look to you for leadership. That's the role you've taken since the 1940's, and that's the role history has assigned you. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending 70+ years of history is just going to go away if you close your eyes helps no-one, and is a surefire way to get real people hurt and killed.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Yeah, it's like Libya where we spent [url=Jesus Christ how many times do we have to say it no one is putting boots in the ground even the Neo-Cons are against it. Plus this is nothing like 2003 Iraq or 1991 Iraq]two billion[/url] dollars a day in fighting. Just a nice add to the deficit, there.

When have we put boots in Libya, the most we did there was fly planes to bomb selected targets with actual allies, rather than go alone like fucking Rambo.

Terrorist state? You mean the terrorists that our CIA trained up and prompted up to fight the Soviets(Al-Quada) and then used our own tactics on us and betrayed us? Even though we knew they were a radical islamist group who hated America? Them? I think we're partially to blame for that.

We funded Mujahadeen during the 90s to fight against a common enemy, the Soviets. We used to fund murderous dictators in Latin America because they have a raging hate on for the Communists. That is relevent because?

Yeah, the guys that spawned from spawns that we trained..

Why is this relevant?

But Terrorists can hide with or without a terrorist state supporting them. We can only ward them off for so long. They train for anti-western attacks with or without a terrorist state. The threat will be there regardless, with or without a terrorist state.

The point is that they are severely weakened without a terrorist state from which to launch their attack on America.

We have been in the Mid east for 10-13 years attempt to promote stability with both air, naval and ground support. It helped for a bit, but once we left chaos ensured. The region can't be helped. It's an appeal to emotion to state that "OH THEY'RE GOING TO DIE SO WE NEED TO HELP THEM." America has it's purpose, it can't endlessly pour dollars into the Mid east for this dream of utopian stability.

Because we can ignore the problems over there as it has no connection with what is happening over here, because this is totally not going to bite us in the ass even harder if we don't do something now, because we would not lose more standing in the international community if we don't do something. Isn't it our Christian duty to alliviate the suffering of others, or does Christ's teaching not apply here.

Why don't all regional powers work together and eliminate this threat? Why do we need to do it? This is their territory.

That we fucked up.

You're going off of assumption. it'd be scary to send our men into battle off of assumption.

It is scary to think that we are sending in our men under the assumption that if we are better coordinated and better organised, and going in with allies, we would lose less men.

.This is a different time and atmospehre from allied force. The U.S. coordinated with all of NATO in Libya and it still costed us 2 billion dollars per day, we ended up picking up the tab, like we always do.

How many soldiers have we lost in the Libyan conflict?

It's not worth us sending a nothing cent into the hellhole that is the Mid east, they should handle there own problems. It is cowardly when 30,000+ Iraqi soldiers run from under 900 millitants..That's pathetic. And you want to help that? What about when we leave?

The world is connected, what we ignore there will definitely come back to bite us hard. There aren't as many Iraqi soldiers as you believe, nor are they trained as well as we would like, while the militants are in an advantageous position. Sending in a few soldiers and having a better organised plan of attack that does not result in alienating almost everyone there would do wonders.

I think we should stay out of it.

Our interest says that we should take care of this now so as to nip it at its bud.

[Genivaria]

Ottoman Empire was Best Empire.

You spelled worst wrong. Ali is the rightful heir of Muhammad, all Sunnis are traitors.

Hereditary rule is stupid.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You spelled worst wrong. Ali is the rightful heir of Muhammad, all Sunnis are traitors.

Hereditary rule is stupid.

It is surprising to see people still kill each other over a political dispute that no longer has any relevence.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Why they gotta pull this like during the Holy Month

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Hereditary rule is stupid.

It is surprising to see people still kill each other over a political dispute that no longer has any relevence.

It's not surprising... Just dumb.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, but the Middle East has an impressive influence on US gas prices, as evidenced by the last 11 years, and then 1970s Gas Crisis. If ISIS did manage to win the support of most oil-exporting nations in the Middle East, you could see gas prices in the US skyrocket to beyond any worst-case-scenario type of level.

The odds of ISIS winning that kinda of support without an international outcry from the civilized world is as likely as Zombie Hitler dancing to Disco with Joseph Stalin.

Wasn't that an addon for Castle Wolfenstein?

[Dracoria]

I don't know, but that shouldn't be a basis to going to war. We "THOUGHT" IRAQ had WMDs, they didn't didn't they? That was a ploy to get in there. We can't go into the Mid east based off of assumptions. We've tried for the last 10-12 years to promote "stability," the moment we leave the region is thrown into chaos. What happened when we left Libya? Chaos. They will deal with insurgencies, only thing that changed is the Government.

What, a potential direct threat to national security isn't a good enough reason to go to war?

Why can't the African union handle this? Why not Britian, france, etc? Why us?

Because the US is the world's biggest military power. You're also the head of NATO - other nations look to you for leadership. That's the role you've taken since the 1940's, and that's the role history has assigned you. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending 70+ years of history is just going to go away if you close your eyes helps no-one, and is a surefire way to get real people hurt and killed.

As long as noone complains about the US acting as the world's policeman for a while.

[Andarro]

This is absolutely terrible, now begins the further regression of an already underdeveloped region, by a Bloodthirsty, Savage, Barbaric Regime. As if the Middle East wasn't bad enough already. Back to the freakin' dark ages now.
These cavemen must be stopped, before the region becomes really destabilized.

Woah woah, hold on now. I agree that this is bad, but it seems every time somebody steps in to 'stabilize' the region it ends up being worse then it was before they made every effort to 'stabilize it.

At some point we should put the shovel down, rather then digging an even deeper hole.

[Aushanit]

Yeah, it's like Libya where we spent [url=Jesus Christ how many times do we have to say it no one is putting boots in the ground even the Neo-Cons are against it. Plus this is nothing like 2003 Iraq or 1991 Iraq]two billion[/url] dollars a day in fighting. Just a nice add to the deficit, there.

When have we put boots in Libya, the most we did there was fly planes to bomb selected targets with actual allies, rather than go alone like fucking Rambo.

Terrorist state? You mean the terrorists that our CIA trained up and prompted up to fight the Soviets(Al-Quada) and then used our own tactics on us and betrayed us? Even though we knew they were a radical islamist group who hated America? Them? I think we're partially to blame for that.

We funded Mujahadeen during the 90s to fight against a common enemy, the Soviets. We used to fund murderous dictators in Latin America because they have a raging hate on for the Communists. That is relevent because?

Yeah, the guys that spawned from spawns that we trained..

Why is this relevant?

But Terrorists can hide with or without a terrorist state supporting them. We can only ward them off for so long. They train for anti-western attacks with or without a terrorist state. The threat will be there regardless, with or without a terrorist state.

The point is that they are severely weakened without a terrorist state from which to launch their attack on America.

We have been in the Mid east for 10-13 years attempt to promote stability with both air, naval and ground support. It helped for a bit, but once we left chaos ensured. The region can't be helped. It's an appeal to emotion to state that "OH THEY'RE GOING TO DIE SO WE NEED TO HELP THEM." America has it's purpose, it can't endlessly pour dollars into the Mid east for this dream of utopian stability.

Because we can ignore the problems over there as it has no connection with what is happening over here, because this is totally not going to bite us in the ass even harder if we don't do something now, because we would not lose more standing in the international community if we don't do something. Isn't it our Christian duty to alliviate the suffering of others, or does Christ's teaching not apply here.

Why don't all regional powers work together and eliminate this threat? Why do we need to do it? This is their territory.

That we fucked up.

You're going off of assumption. it'd be scary to send our men into battle off of assumption.

It is scary to think that we are sending in our men under the assumption that if we are better coordinated and better organised, and going in with allies, we would lose less men.

.This is a different time and atmospehre from allied force. The U.S. coordinated with all of NATO in Libya and it still costed us 2 billion dollars per day, we ended up picking up the tab, like we always do.

How many soldiers have we lost in the Libyan conflict?

It's not worth us sending a nothing cent into the hellhole that is the Mid east, they should handle there own problems. It is cowardly when 30,000+ Iraqi soldiers run from under 900 millitants..That's pathetic. And you want to help that? What about when we leave?

The world is connected, what we ignore there will definitely come back to bite us hard. There aren't as many Iraqi soldiers as you believe, nor are they trained as well as we would like, while the militants are in an advantageous position. Sending in a few soldiers and having a better organised plan of attack that does not result in alienating almost everyone there would do wonders.

I think we should stay out of it.

Our interest says that we should take care of this now so as to nip it at its bud.

Thank you very much for saying what I was going while I was away at the gym.

But yeah basically what I was going to say.

[Herrebrugh]

I wonder what their policy will be on global warming...

[Asigna]

Unlike Christian awareness to the pope, The majority of the Muslims would be indifferent to this Caliphate, in fact, they would be just as well more apathetic to other caliphates even if they are recognized as legal caliphates.

Muslims, from what i know, demand a life free from the constraints of some suppressible Sharia law. They ought to glorify allah in their own way.

-Personal experiences

[Genivaria]

This is absolutely terrible, now begins the further regression of an already underdeveloped region, by a Bloodthirsty, Savage, Barbaric Regime. As if the Middle East wasn't bad enough already. Back to the freakin' dark ages now.
These cavemen must be stopped, before the region becomes really destabilized.

Woah woah, hold on now. I agree that this is bad, but it seems every time somebody steps in to 'stabilize' the region it ends up being worse then it was before they made every effort to 'stabilize it.

At some point we should put the shovel down, rather then digging an even deeper hole.

Are you actually suggesting that we should let ISIS continue to cause chaos in the region?

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Woah woah, hold on now. I agree that this is bad, but it seems every time somebody steps in to 'stabilize' the region it ends up being worse then it was before they made every effort to 'stabilize it.

At some point we should put the shovel down, rather then digging an even deeper hole.

Are you actually suggesting that we should let ISIS continue to cause chaos in the region?

Sure, let them work it out themselves. If they fail ISIS will fall in time, if ISIS is defeated by a middle eastern coalition it will help bring the region together. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all traditional enemies are willing to unite to combat ISIS, this is an opportunity that rarely presents itself, if they defeat ISIS by themselves (which they probably will) it will unite the middle east.

[Constantinopolis]

Unlike Christian awareness to the pope, The majority of the Muslims would be indifferent to this Caliphate

Indifferent? They're more likely to consider it blasphemy. This is like Mel Gibson declaring himself Pope.

[Dracoria]

Are you actually suggesting that we should let ISIS continue to cause chaos in the region?

Sure, let them work it out themselves. If they fail ISIS will fall in time, if ISIS is defeated by a middle eastern coalition it will help bring the region together. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all traditional enemies are willing to unite to combat ISIS, this is an opportunity that rarely presents itself, if they defeat ISIS by themselves (which they probably will) it will unite the middle east.

I suppose there would be some irony in that. ISIL attempts to unite the Middle East under a caliphate, only for the Middle East to unite in bringing it down.

[Cuprum]

C’est le son qui réécrit l’histoire
Sortez tous dans la rue on va chanter l’espoir
L’espoir que pour changer ce monde
on s’croisera forcément vu puisque la terre est ronde
L’espoir que les choses puissent avancer
qu’on aime tous les accents quand on parle en francais
L’espoir qu’un jour ce sera normal
de voir des bloc party à l’assemblée nationale
Les képis, policiers, les kipas les tchadors,
les casquettees à l’envers même combat
Les bobos, les prolos, les bourgeois, les nantis, les cailleras
Vous etes tous invités sur la piste
C’est la danse de demain quelque peu utopiste
Mais cette époque a besoin d’espoir
Soyons un peu rêveur faut y croire pour le voir

Inch'Allah!

[The Greater Luthorian Empire]

Sure, let them work it out themselves. If they fail ISIS will fall in time, if ISIS is defeated by a middle eastern coalition it will help bring the region together. Iran, Iraq, Syria, all traditional enemies are willing to unite to combat ISIS, this is an opportunity that rarely presents itself, if they defeat ISIS by themselves (which they probably will) it will unite the middle east.

I suppose there would be some irony in that. ISIL attempts to unite the Middle East under a caliphate, only for the Middle East to unite in bringing it down.

Honestly the whole situation is just beautiful, seeing international cooperation in such a traditionally wartorn and divided region. Iran offering to help Iraq, Britain's Prime Minister wanting to reopen the British embassy in Iran, Russia and America supporting the same side in a conflict. Honestly it may be for the best if ISIS succeeds more as it will force nations to unite even further and as long as the West doesn't directly intervene victory is gonna be a good long term outcome for the middle east.

Russia and NATO can send guns, planes, tanks, and money, but for the love of Allah, or any other heathen God they should stay the hell out of the conflict directly.

[Reborn Ottoman Sultan]

We are witnessing the true workings of a geo-political mastermind. The prerogative is destabilization because there is a greater priority at hand. The United States has no interest in joining forces with Iran to stabilize Iraq as a nation because of its strong relationship with Israel. The Israelis desire the destruction of Iran as a regional power which implies that it does not desire to observe its international insulation from the United States. Iraq as a nation was designed and built along sectarian lines; the only way to effectively rule Iraq as a stabilized nation is through a totalitarian dictatorship which explains why the Saddam era was relatively stable. There are two scenarios that can gain fruition; either A) Iraq dismembers itself and breaks apart into competing proxies fighting for the greatest American payout of support or B) a new totalitarian epoch will emerge setting the stage for a second Iran-Iraq War with the desired outcome of dismantling the incumbents in Tehran.

With the elimination of Iran as a regional power, Iraq can resume that role and once again resume a role as a geographic barrier between Iran, Israel, and the oil rich monarchies of the Arabian/Persian Gulf. The idea of an International Islamic Community is definitely a desired one, but it seems that wherever there are Muslims war, strife, and absolute hardship depict three qualities that aren’t too far behind. Those that proclaim to uphold the return of the caliphate are dogmatic bigots that selectively choose what to implement; the destiny of that approach is doomed for total failure because extremism is met with an equal amount of hypocrisy. The reestablishment of the caliphate is made possible through a firm understanding of what it means to be a balanced egalitarian. Equal opportunity must be extended to all of its members and the sharing of political power stands as an inalienable directive.

A significant stride that is made toward the reestablishment of the caliphate will realize that Islamic Law is not just about implementing punishments that are essentially cruel and unusual, but using Islamic jurisprudence to deliver the best possible outcome that is fair because it is dialectically balanced. Unfortunately the Muslims have a long way to go before realizing that because Muslims must learn to accept each other before they can start reforming and progressing. As soon as that happens aliments of the past and present can be pragmatically healed in the here and now.

[Baltenstein]

All this is clearly Iznogoud's doing.

[Gezi Park]

I'm curious as to how many fucks it will get.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

All this is clearly Iznogoud's doing.

Should we call Asterix over to solve it?

[Deamonopolis]

Thousand-and-one Arabian Nights is getting weird

[Imperializt Russia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0


Russia is getting more involved in the Iraq vs ISIS situation. The new relationship between Iraq and Russia is seen as a slap in the face to Europe and the USA.

In response the US has finally agreed to give Apache attack helicopters and F16s to the Iraqi government. But they won't arrive until sometime around September or October. Not soon enough to make any difference in the war against ISiS. The SU 25s meantime have already begun arriving with the first batch arriving last night.

I think this conflict will almost certainly continue well into the new year. ISIS failed in Syria and made significant losses. So they moved their operations to Iraq with a new and clearly more effective battle plan. They're entrenched themselves into cities, infrastructure and production and are proving difficult to dislodge.

Israeli media have been reporting since last night that Israel will get involved if ISIS attacks any other nations besides Iraq and Syria.

The Israeli government has vowed to protect Jordan, Kuwait, and other Arab nations in the region from ISIS aggression. Israeli military forces are being prepared in case other nation's in the region are attacked by ISIS.

I wonder if this will help fight the rampant anti-semetism in the middle east.

I think it's a huge cause for concern.
Because Israel fighting an Arab state with other Arab states is exactly what Saddam wanted to happen in the Gulf War, to try and tear the coalition asunder. Israeli involvement will be the last thing that many Arab states want to see.

Iran has announced that it will be returning all combat aircraft which Saddam Hussein stashed away in Iran just before the US invaded in 2003.

I thought it was the 1991 Gulf War when that happened?
Still, welcome move I guess

[The Archregimancy]

Technically speaking, the new Caliph Ibrahim (as I understand Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi now wishes to be known) is Ibrahim II - always assuming this new Caliphate recognises its Ummayad predecessors.

But then I'm probably just about the only person historically pedantic enough to notice.

Edit:

I'm about to merge this into the existing ISIS thread [and done].