Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DeWitz

Islamic State in the Levant Advances

278 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener

An aircraft carrier is headed there now and that is the one benefit they will NOT enjoy. Any massed movements of materiel will be bombed before it can be transferred.

Yeeess.... however.. that carrier is in the Mediterranean. It's aircraft will have to fly almost 400 miles just to GET to the Baghdad area, across either Syrian airspace, or Lebanese/Jordanian airspace. At that range, they would only be able to carry a small number of bombs or air-ground missiles, and they would have very little 'linger time' over the combat area. In the absence of competent Forward Air Controllers on the ground in Iraq, I'm not entirely sure what the carrier can achieve ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Yeeess.... however.. that carrier is in the Mediterranean. It's aircraft will have to fly almost 400 miles just to GET to the Baghdad area, across either Syrian airspace, or Lebanese/Jordanian airspace. At that range, they would only be able to carry a small number of bombs or air-ground missiles, and they would have very little 'linger time' over the combat area. In the absence of competent Forward Air Controllers on the ground in Iraq, I'm not entirely sure what the carrier can achieve ?

perhaps, since the "rebels" that Assad is fighting are at least in part supported by Al Q, the Syrian govt. might allow warplanes to cross their airspace to attack Al Q-affiliated "rebels" in Iraq. Whereas if the Hawks (and T. Blair) had had their way, the "West" would be fighting Assad on behalf of the Syrian "rebels".

Isn't it confusing for a poor simple minded "Western" politician who can only see things in nice simple black & white Good and Evil terms. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

is there one example of "Nation building" or imposing "Freedom" on anywhere in the Middle East that the West has done that has been a success? or one case where the "War on Terror" has actually succeeded in reducing extremism?

It's succeeded at causing terrorism (revenue streams for the defense/energy sectors).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yeeess.... however.. that carrier is in the Mediterranean. It's aircraft will have to fly almost 400 miles just to GET to the Baghdad area, across either Syrian airspace, or Lebanese/Jordanian airspace. At that range, they would only be able to carry a small number of bombs or air-ground missiles, and they would have very little 'linger time' over the combat area. In the absence of competent Forward Air Controllers on the ground in Iraq, I'm not entirely sure what the carrier can achieve ?

The carrier will be in place before any significant transfer of heavy vehicles could take place. As to forward controllers, not much of a stretch to insert some in advance. I'm not saying some materiel won't reach Syria - just that there will be no massive transfers. We left A LOT of goodies they'd like to take back to Syria, they just won't have time to do it. Of course that's assuming Obama will actually deny them the use of the stuff. He may look on it as a chance to resupply them under the table. :(

Kerry just said yesterday that we could work with the Iranians to stop ISIS progress. So my prediction of becoming Iran's airforce in Iraq is looking solid :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Would you prefer to fight both? Or is Iran so much more of a threat that the "West" should turn a blind eye to the latest atrocities committed by those who Iran might be prepared to fight? It's all too complicated for a nice simple world of good & evil, isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Would you prefer to fight both? Or is Iran so much more of a threat that the "West" should turn a blind eye to the latest atrocities committed by those who Iran might be prepared to fight? It's all too complicated for a nice simple world of good & evil, isn't it.

Quite the smug piece of work aren't you? Iran is about to control Iraq openly I believe and if the Iraqis are so fractured in their desires to have a nation then that's on them. Sunni and Shia were killing each other long before now and will continue to do long after. Nothing overly complicated here actually. They kill because it's what they do. :)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Can you compare the situation in iraq to before and after the invasion. To what degree where they killing each other before the invasion and is it remotely comparable to after the invasion. And Then your analysis entirely diminishes the fact that the slaughter of Sunni vs Shia was entirely escalated by the wests intervention. As such you are only mildly correct in saying that they have always killed each other - but we facilitated the current slaughter.

The West is the only body here that can really fit the label evil - since they intervened in a cack handed way and then walked away from the consequences. They directly caused the deaths of getting on for a million people in little over two decades of meddling.

I would say that there is a lesson to be learned in all that, but it seems that the west is unlikely to learn it without causing the killing a few hundred thousand more innocent civilians. The lesson has to be don't meddle in things you neither understand or can control in any meaningful way.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Quite the smug piece of work aren't you? Iran is about to control Iraq openly I believe and if the Iraqis are so fractured in their desires to have a nation then that's on them. Sunni and Shia were killing each other long before now and will continue to do long after. Nothing overly complicated here actually. They kill because it's what they do. :)

Oh seriously man, can you try to answer without being all hurt and offended for once. Look, is it not a perfectly reasonable question to put? You fear Iran, that's obvious. You fear them having power and influence over Iraq. Do you fear them controlling Iraq more than you fear these "Rebels" in Iraq? would you be happy to have Al Q in control of Iraq as long as it's anyone but Iran? would you be happy to see a perpetual civil war in Iraq, rather than have Iran intervene? And are the Liberals all to blame for it, as usual? Edited by Admiral Rhubarb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Oh seriously man, can you try to answer without being all hurt and offended for once. Look, is it not a perfectly reasonable question to put? You fear Iran, that's obvious. You fear them having power and influence over Iraq. Do you fear them controlling Iraq more than you fear these "Rebels" in Iraq? would you be happy to have Al Q in control of Iraq as long as it's anyone but Iran? would you be happy to see a perpetual civil war in Iraq, rather than have Iran intervene? And are the Liberals all to blame for it, as usual?

I merely point out your way of phrasing questions - nothing "hurt" about it. You try to be prickly in a subtle way and it gets old. As for what the Sunni and Shia do to each OTHER I really don't care so much as it's not my fight. Anything that strengthens Iran's position in the world will eventually affect us all. I realize you think this is ridiculous but I think you are wrong. Does that about sum it up for you? As usual, we disagree in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

These "terrorists" are Sunnis who want to create an Islamic state ruled under sharia, no? Yes they are taking advantage of the current situation there, you are absolutely correct.

Unbelievable you agree with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And YES, the US invasion to depose Saddam made the conditions ripe for chaos but that really isn't what's at the heart of this particular issue.

Well the creator of the topics didn't explicitly wrote that it isn't the heart of the isuue

The Sunni/Shia rift is at the root of it.

No this is because of terrorism.Terrorist need a safe heaven so why not pick up Iraq since it has been teared apart.

Al Maliki is a Shia stooge for Iran and the whole idea of a single group from among the main 3 -Sunni,Shia and Kurd being given unending control over the country was not the plan the US had.

Ironic isn't it because US thought that Al Maliki would be a US stooge

The Iraqis allowed that to happen.

Just saying so doesn't prove it you know

As I recall the power and wealth were supposed to be shared equally. Sitting back now and simply blaming America may feel good but it solves nothing does it?

No US plan was to tear Iraq apart piece by piece.Their plan was to ensure the geopolitics interest of US.They didn't go there to destroy WMD or removing dictator their plan was to establish a puppet government and ironic it hilariously went wrong

I believe that from the moment our government decided to leave the Iraqis to their own devices the nation's fate was sealed. Iran will own them OR they will fall into a civil war very much like what's going on in Syria.

If Iran is planning to do so at least they should first learn a lesson from US

Edited by jeem
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

It's succeeded at causing terrorism (revenue streams for the defense/energy sectors).

You got my point brother.I was trying to say the same thing in "Terrorism behind the scenario"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jeem

An aircraft carrier is headed there now and that is the one benefit they will NOT enjoy. Any massed movements of materiel will be bombed before it can be transferred.

So they are going to make another mess in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk

In my opinion the US never should have/had the right to invade Iraq; only insofar as "might makes right."

Well, if it was a matter of "might makes right" then Saddam should have never invaded Kuwait or even gassed his own people. Res 1441 gave anyone the legal right to invade. Saddam had violated the cease fire on numerous occasions. But this was really a matter of Saddam not abiding by the law. When that happens, you can’t allow the violator to get away with it (show weakness) or he will thumb his nose at you. That’s what Saddam was doing, basically undermining our authority and the authority of the UN (which is pitiful anyway). The entire Muslim world was watching. And very much what we are seeing with Russia and ISIS now. There is no more American Hegemony. The world will have to fend for itself which means that devastating wars are on the horizon. Granted, want we are seeing now is early and neither may explode but these are but just the first to break out. More is coming and it is because America is retreating. If preventing this stuff is right (we’re in the 21st Century now), then we had better regain our might!

My biggest disagreement with you is that you appear to be applying 19th (the Raj) and 20th (total war) prescriptions to a 21st century problem.

What gets me is that why do people feel that just because the century flipped to a new number that Man somehow is now enlightened? Nothing has changed in his condition. Only the technology has changed but Man’s frailties are still the same. Now this *may* change when we become a Type I Civilization. We’ll just have to wait and see. But for now, we are still the same creature of just a few hundred years ago.

We would not have today's scenario had we not invaded Iraq without the will to stay--this was not the "progressives'" responsibility.

That is what I’ve been saying but because we have pulled out early, the current scenario is squarely on the shoulders of the Progressives/Liberals/Socialists.

The US violently and thoroughly destabilized Iraq without a follow-up plan,

That was correct. The first 3 phases of OPPlan 1003 were near flawless. However, phase IV was lacking. I’m confident that they had rushed going to war because France was just weeks away at proposing to lift sanctions on Iraq which would have allowed Chirac the opportunity to help rebuild Saddam’s nuclear capabilities as a counter to Iran. In the end, our invasion prevented that scenario. Our invasion also halted (at least temporarily) Iran’s nuclear development. And this has probably saved millions of lives. We don’t need another Pakistan/India standoff between Iran/Iraq where both sides wouldn’t mind launching a nuke at Israel.

and the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld troika never controlled the situation in the first place. It was a neocon botch from A to Z.

They never had full control but that wasn’t a possibility. There was a Sunni/Shiite civil war brewing and nobody was going to *control* that. We eased it a bit. The point was to gain control over the generations (like the British did in India). It was hardly botched. It was an uphill struggle from the beginning. We never really lost the initiative until we started to retreat. That threw out all of our gains. The neocons put a heavy investment of blood and treasure and the Progressives just nullified it (spat on it and shoved in down the drain) and ensured that a heavier toll will have to be paid later down the road. That is incompetence.

The long view of what "shoulda-coulda" doesn't change what happened. There were no WMD's and 'Hussein was a WMD'' only because, under Reagan, the US supplied him with WWI-era poison gas.

The NIE never denied that Saddam didn’t have WMD. The inspectors never found anything. That doesn’t mean they were never there. The inspectors were not omnipotent. The Iraqis had compromised IAEA communications. The Iraqis knew when and where the inspectors were going to be. It’s no wonder nothing was found.

Saddam got his WMD from other sources. The nerve gas was but one small part of it. And that was supposed to have been destroyed from the Gulf War but here he was still using it a decade later. France was building his nuclear capabilities. Israel thwarted that for a while. But like how Germany became an expert at hiding the rebuilding of their war machine in the 20s and 30s, Saddam was the master of the shell game.

It all could have been avoided by smarter leadership 2000-2009. That was lacking.

Not really. If we were going to go to war, Cheney and Rumsfeld, I think, were the ones you would want to lead the effort. There were none smarter. Could they have been smarter? Yes of course. But you go to war with what you have.

What we have now isn't much better, but Obama did not create the angry hornet's nest.

What we have now is far worse. The community organizer does not understand the dynamics of foreign policy. He is the epiphany of weakness. The leadership of a superpower does not have the right to exhibit such weakness. But this current leadership thinks that because we are in the next century, that the nature of Man has magically changed. Neither Bush nor Obama created the nest but Obama is saying, “don’t worry about it”. He’ll just use drones to destroy the house.

People knew what they were voting for when he campaigned on pulling back from so-called 'nation-building,'

Yup, people knew what they were voting for and still voted Obama in. And not only once, but twice. I’ve been running into more and more die hard Obama supporters that are losing their health insurance that have lost the *faith*. But you’re right we get the government we deserve. The MSM owns the low information voter.

against which Bush campaigned in 2000--then he went and tried it, and bungled. . . badly. That history cannot be rewritten.

It’s all in your point of view, but it wasn’t bungled under Bush and history has shown that. An endeavor like this is OJT. The Progressives did a good job in demonizing the term “nation building”. That was the whole point of going into Iraq. If you break it, you should fix it and nation building was the only way to fix it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Can you compare the situation in iraq to before and after the invasion. To what degree where they killing each other before the invasion and is it remotely comparable to after the invasion. And Then your analysis entirely diminishes the fact that the slaughter of Sunni vs Shia was entirely escalated by the wests intervention. As such you are only mildly correct in saying that they have always killed each other - but we facilitated the current slaughter.

The West is the only body here that can really fit the label evil - since they intervened in a cack handed way and then walked away from the consequences. They directly caused the deaths of getting on for a million people in little over two decades of meddling.

I would say that there is a lesson to be learned in all that, but it seems that the west is unlikely to learn it without causing the killing a few hundred thousand more innocent civilians. The lesson has to be don't meddle in things you neither understand or can control in any meaningful way.

Br Cornelius

So long as their bloodlust is confined to their own I think the west basically DID leave them alone. Your prescription is fine except that no one has a right to tell others who they may or may not have commerce with. I assume you believe that UBL had a right to kill 3000 since the US had the audacity to have business relationships in S.A. otherwise your argument falls apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

So they are going to make another mess in there.

Probably, jeem. It's what they do - kill people and break things. It's also why one should not provoke them in the first place :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

So long as their bloodlust is confined to their own I think the west basically DID leave them alone. Your prescription is fine except that no one has a right to tell others who they may or may not have commerce with. I assume you believe that UBL had a right to kill 3000 since the US had the audacity to have business relationships in S.A. otherwise your argument falls apart.

the situation is entirely the same as that which prevailed throughout Europe between the Catholic and the Protestants. Eventually the rise of secularism killed the fires of hatred and Europe transitioned into a different age. the same would have happened in the Muslim world, but there is now no knowing where the hatred will lead.

You cannot solve these problems by bombing and killing people into sanity - it just makes them more insane. And yes most of the killing which has taken place over the last century in the Middle east is at least indirectly and mostly directly connected with the consequences of colonialism and Western Intervention. The current regime in both Iran and Iraq were both caused by botched American meddling, and Saddam himself was supported by the CIA until he went rouge and decided to stop following orders.

As to you comment about SA, any Western business has made itself a target by association with the interventionist activities of the CIA and US military - if they don't want to be victims then they should leave - but what would be the point in that since all the interventions are ultimately about securing access to resources - predominantly oil.

As I said the evil agent here is the West and the Shias and the Sunnis are both our victims. We have beaten a hornets nest for nearly a century and we are reaping our just rewards.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

the situation is entirely the same as that which prevailed throughout Europe between the Catholic and the Protestants. Eventually the rise of secularism killed the fires of hatred and Europe transitioned into a different age. the same would have happened in the Muslim world, but there is now no knowing where the hatred will lead.

You cannot solve these problems by bombing and killing people into sanity - it just makes them more insane. And yes most of the killing which has taken place over the last century in the Middle east is at least indirectly and mostly directly connected with the consequences of colonialism and Western Intervention. The current regime in both Iran and Iraq were both caused by botched American meddling, and Saddam himself was supported by the CIA until he went rouge and decided to stop following orders.

As to you comment about SA, any Western business has made itself a target by association with the interventionist activities of the CIA and US military - if they don't want to be victims then they should leave - but what would be the point in that since all the interventions are ultimately about securing access to resources - predominantly oil.

As I said the evil agent here is the West and the Shias and the Sunnis are both our victims. We have beaten a hornets nest for nearly a century and we are reaping our just rewards.

Br Cornelius

I think you are being a trifle harsh on "The West" here Br Cornelius. Let us not forget that the entire region has been the subject of colonialism and intervention back into the Bronze Ages. Are we going to blame the Romans ? The Islamic Caliphates ? The Ottomans ?

The actions of the USA, and the British Empire, may not have exactly helped , but at least they where a lot more civilized than their Mediterranean and Asian counterparts, if just as Machiavellian.

Notwithstanding that, I'd agree with much of what you've said. I would also add my voice to those saying "STAY OUT" and don't interfere.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

the situation is entirely the same as that which prevailed throughout Europe between the Catholic and the Protestants. Eventually the rise of secularism killed the fires of hatred and Europe transitioned into a different age. the same would have happened in the Muslim world, but there is now no knowing where the hatred will lead.

You cannot solve these problems by bombing and killing people into sanity - it just makes them more insane. And yes most of the killing which has taken place over the last century in the Middle east is at least indirectly and mostly directly connected with the consequences of colonialism and Western Intervention. The current regime in both Iran and Iraq were both caused by botched American meddling, and Saddam himself was supported by the CIA until he went rouge and decided to stop following orders.

As to you comment about SA, any Western business has made itself a target by association with the interventionist activities of the CIA and US military - if they don't want to be victims then they should leave - but what would be the point in that since all the interventions are ultimately about securing access to resources - predominantly oil.

As I said the evil agent here is the West and the Shias and the Sunnis are both our victims. We have beaten a hornets nest for nearly a century and we are reaping our just rewards.

Br Cornelius

Yes Br I'm aware of who you consider to be the evil in the world - some disagree. But I do agree with you that, given enough time, Islam might moderate just as Christianity has. Our problem in this century though, is that weapons technology has made it possible for the crazies to exterminate the planet sooner rather than later. And yes, I believe that these people will gain access eventually to the big fire. The west may have abused them economically for a brief period but saying we somehow instigated or perpetuated long term their hatreds is not accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

What Rebels usually do is help themselves to equipment they've captured from Government forces. Probably fortunately, in this case they probably wouldn't be able to get together a training prgram quickyl enough to operate the Abrams and F-16s the West has generously supplied them with...

Just read today, the ISIS have US Stinger missiles, and have taken entire caches left behind by fleeing soldiers, all supplies given to them by the US. AK-47's and many other weapons. 1/4 of their booty has been sent to Syria to help insurgents there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

So long as their bloodlust is confined to their own I think the west basically DID leave them alone. Your prescription is fine except that no one has a right to tell others who they may or may not have commerce with. I assume you believe that UBL had a right to kill 3000 since the US had the audacity to have business relationships in S.A. otherwise your argument falls apart.

Really? Tell that to Israel, who most assuredly is dictating to Palestinians who they may have commerce with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Really? Tell that to Israel, who most assuredly is dictating to Palestinians who they may have commerce with.

With the way their blood enemies act toward them I wonder that Israel even abides them at all. They should feel lucky. And the Hamas seems to be on the verge of getting a dose of reality after this kidnapping. It's a curious thing to me that the Israelis seem willing for the most part to put up with random rocket fire for years, yet when 3 boys get themselves grabbed while hitch hiking the whole country seems to near come unglued. We may be about to see the Israeli version of an intifada - and the Palestinians best lay low if those boys aren't soon returned.

edited to delete a poor choice of words and to apologize - did not mean to hijack thread.

Edited by and then
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

I think that endgame will see Iran coming across the border though. Maliki is Khamanei's puppet and he isn't going to allow a few thousand (3 to 5) come in and take the country no matter how cowardly the Iraqi troops turn out to be. ISIS will have their hands more than full with a division of IRGC. I read that about 800 took Mosul and there were 12,000 Iraqi troops there that just left - and left all their equipment (and 450 million bucks). But never fear! Obama says all options are in effect!! The Green Zone needs to be defended or evacuated soon or there will be US hostages to be paraded around for our humiliation.

What I find ironic is that we have 5500 people in our Iraqi embassy trying to hold Iraq together while 800 ISIS troops can take Mosul. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2658582/U-S-evacuates-personnel-Embassy-Baghdad-thousands-Islamic-fighters-bear-capital-city.html

Heck the article says there are 12,000 ISIS troops trying to take Bagdad in total. Build another embassy and we can match the terrorists numbers with paper pushers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Just read today, the ISIS have US Stinger missiles, and have taken entire caches left behind by fleeing soldiers, all supplies given to them by the US. AK-47's and many other weapons. 1/4 of their booty has been sent to Syria to help insurgents there.

Stinger missiles ? Hmmm.....

Well, the only source for this appears to be fox news, citing un-named military sources.

Still, if its true, then that puts a damper on the aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. It's going to be very nervous about any possible sorties over Iraq NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

I think you are being a trifle harsh on "The West" here Br Cornelius. Let us not forget that the entire region has been the subject of colonialism and intervention back into the Bronze Ages. Are we going to blame the Romans ? The Islamic Caliphates ? The Ottomans ?

The actions of the USA, and the British Empire, may not have exactly helped , but at least they where a lot more civilized than their Mediterranean and Asian counterparts, if just as Machiavellian.

Notwithstanding that, I'd agree with much of what you've said. I would also add my voice to those saying "STAY OUT" and don't interfere.

Actually, the Romans were very religiously/culturally tolerant. It is with the rise of the monotheistic beliefs that religious intolerance started to assume the mantle of "a prime cause" in disputes/conflicts between peoples.

So, rather than lay the blame of sectarianism at the feet of a specific group of people, such as a nation, how about we look at the real culprit - monotheism.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Stinger missiles ? Hmmm.....

Well, the only source for this appears to be fox news, citing un-named military sources.

Still, if its true, then that puts a damper on the aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean. It's going to be very nervous about any possible sorties over Iraq NOW.

it would hardly be very surprising. they are after all portable hand-held devices about the size of a Bazooka, which you might well expect to find in some quantity in an army base. Since they have a range of only about 3 miles, and use IR or UV sensing, I'm sure they have plenty of practice at countermeasures for them. Besides, If they were really worried about casualties to that extent, this would be an dieal opportunity to use Drones, mightn't it? Or might that show up that they have limitations that the Govt. mightn't wish to be known, I wonder? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.