News ISIS takes Mosul

[Second Summer]

As many as 500,000 people have been forced to flee the Iraqi city of Mosul after Islamist militants effectively took control of it, the International Organization for Migration says.

More: Iraqis attempt river crossing as militants take Mosul (BBC News, 11. June 2014)

ERBIL, Kurdistan Region – Fighting between the Islamic militants and the Iraqi army has spilled into small towns and villages of Kirkuk, Kurdish military leaders confirmed, as they vowed to defend the province’s Kurdish areas “with the last drop of our blood.”

After the blitzkrieg capture of Mosul, Iraq’s second city in Nineveh province, the al-Qaeda splinter Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has pressed on with attacks against Iraqi troops, seizing control of more areas northwest of the country.

More: As Islamic Militants Continue Advance, Kurds Vow to Defend Kirkuk (Rudaw, 11. June 2014)

That is a pretty serious blow to the Iraqi state.

I wonder if the rise of ISIS could have been possible if it weren't for the support of anti-Assad forces by so many of that regime's (state) enemies.

 

[beancounter]

Perpetual instability in the Middle Est is the enduring legacy of the Bush administration.

 

[Second Summer]

Perpetual instability in the Middle Est is the enduring legacy of the Bush administration.

Well, president Bush jr. and his conservative Christian friends had no option but to invade, occupy and change the regime in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was evil because he fired scuds at Israel, that most innocent of nations, and something about weapons of mass destruction, which were hidden ... somewhere, and there was definitely some kind of link to al-qaeda, that most evil of all terrorist organisations, because they hate America and Freedom ... Yes, there was a link, somehow, they just couldn't prove it, at the time.

And now, there was this guy in Syria, Assad, who was evil, too, because his regime had supported terrorists who were terrorizing Israel ... And also because Assad had used chemical weapons on his own population, or so was the conclusion of the White House. But ... there was no link to al-qaeda this time around, in fact Assad's regime was very much opposed to islamism. But nevertheless, now was the time to get some regime change, and there was a wind of change in that whole region, the Arab Spring, where people over there finally wanted democracy and capitalism, that most sacred combination of ideologies.... and so the CIA supplied intel and peaceful weapons to the rebels, except there were worries ... worries that the peaceful weapons would fall into the hands of other rebels, who hated Freedom and America ... and then the plans were abandoned because the Russians were making it impossible, and also the darned islamists again.

Anyway, my point is, I'm not sure the Bush jr. administration should get all the blame for the situation in the Middle East.

 

[beancounter]

Anyway, my point is, I'm not sure the Bush jr. administration should get all the blame for the situation in the Middle East.

The Bush administration started the snowball rolling, and snowballs get bigger as they progress downhill.

 

[beancounter]

Also, you've mentioned Israel twice, but the current issues with Syria, Egypt and Iraq are all the result of Arab on Arab violence, which Israel has no part in.

Instead of pointing fingers at Israel, perhaps the Arab world should focus on getting its own house in order.

 

[rainforests1]

The government is using drones and still struggles to win this war. Is there a reason why terrorists are so much stronger today than they were under Saddam?

 

[ledboots]

Perpetual instability in the Middle Est is the enduring legacy of the Bush administration.

I don't think the middle east has had stability for decades. The US wrongly thinking we could fix everything, and then just packing up and leaving after giving the terrorists our departure date well in advance is ridiculous.

Imo, The US and western Europe need to become energy-independent of the arab states, period. No money, no one buying oil, no power.

 

[rainforests1]

Imo, The US and western Europe need to become energy-independent of the arab states, period. No money, no one buying oil, no power.

What's your plan?

 

[beancounter]

Imo, The US and western Europe need to become energy-independent of the arab states, period. No money, no one buying oil, no power.

I would love to be alive the day that the Middle East runs out of oil, and becomes as economically and politically relavant as a pile of sand.

 

[Second Summer]

The Bush administration started the snowball rolling, and snowballs get bigger as they progress downhill.

The US has been involved, overthrowing governments (e.g. Iran), supporting dictators (e.g. Mubarak in Egypt, and the royals in Saudi Arabia), and Israel long before Bush jr. came along. Bush jr. did take it to a new level though, by sending invasion troops, but in a way the Iraq invasion is only a natural next step after Bush sr.'s intervention in Kuwait.

The Obama administration has not significantly changed the coarse of US policy in the region, either. Granted, they have been reluctant to invade more countries, but at the same time the use of extra-judicial killings of suspected terrorists by use of drones has literally exploded. (A lot of that is in Pakistan and Afghanistan though, which are not considered parts of the Middle East.) Stopping short of direct involvement, the US has also done their utmost to facilitate regime change in Syria, and must take their part of the responsibility for the state of affairs there at the moment. Spreading democracy is one of the core principles of US foreign policy, but often it's applied rather selectively, and it's democracy at gunpoint, much like it was Christianity at gunpoint in the good old colonial times.

Also, you've mentioned Israel twice, but the current issues with Syria, Egypt and Iraq are all the result of Arab on Arab violence, which Israel has no part in.

Instead of pointing fingers at Israel, perhaps the Arab world should focus on getting its own house in order.

Israel and its conflict with Palestine and other neighbours plays an important role because of the sheer injustice in the situation. The racist-chauvinist nature of the Jewish state with never-ending land-grabs and Apartheid-like bantustans rallies protesters and armed violence in the region. This righteous anger is being exploited by islamists for their own purposes. Authoritarian regimes are needed to curb these groups, as in the case of Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. And these regimes are supported by the US, since they serve US interests, such as protecting oil supplies, protecting Israel, and they continue to buy US arms, fighter jets etc.

 

[ledboots]

I don't think Israel is the only racist state in the region.

I wonder what the world would look like today if the US had kept to itself. I wonder what Europe and the middle east would look like. No way to know, I guess.

 

[beancounter]

The US has been involved, overthrowing governments (e.g. Iran), supporting dictators (e.g. Mubarak in Egypt, and the royals in Saudi Arabia), and Israel long before Bush jr. came along. Bush jr. did take it to a new level though, by sending invasion troops, but in a way the Iraq invasion is only a natural next step after Bush sr.'s intervention in Kuwait.

It's is in no way a "natural step". His own father, Bush Sr. ,explicitly stated that invading Iraq would have very negative consequences.

This righteous anger is being exploited by islamists for their own purposes. Authoritarian regimes are needed to curb these groups, as in the case of Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. And these regimes are supported by the US, since they serve US interests, such as protecting oil supplies, protecting Israel, and they continue to buy US arms, fighter jets etc.

How can someone not directly involved in the violence be blamed for the violence? It's just an excuse to deflect blame where it truly lies, with the Arabs themselves. It's like those 12 year old girls blaming that internet monster for their actions.

Remember, these are people willing to kill their neighbor just because they belong to a different clan (Sunni vs. Shiite, for example). Could you seriously blame the hatred of these two groups for each other on Israel?..hatred that existed long before Israel became a state.

 

[yakherder]

Is there a reason why terrorists are so much stronger today than they were under Saddam?

Saddam's forces were poorly trained, unpatriotic, and disloyal. They were not willing to die for their leader or for their country, which made them absolutely useless as soldiers.

As for the rest, rules of engagement. Stick us over there and give us rules that make it impossible to take effective action, and our ability to achieve our goals becomes quite limited.

 

[yakherder]

And we're not dealing with anything that was created by any recent administration. We're dealing with the fallout of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, a power vacuum which has yet to be resolved. The middle east has actually had historical periods of relative stability even back when Europe was still stuck in the dark ages.

War or not, we have been and will be fighting there for a long time. The only thing war changes is the nature of the fight. Whether there is a traditional front line with forward operating bases and supply routs, or training the local population while supplementing their effort with missions from special operations and contractors, otherwise known as mercenaries.

Peace only exists in isolated bubbles, and only temporarily.

 

[yakherder]

Anyone wanna take bets as to whether or not Iraq and Syria end up merging as an ISIS controlled country, with less and less in the area to challenge them and the west unwilling (Iraq requested air support in the most recent attack, and were denied) to help in the face of public disapproval by a world who has BS'd itself into believing that minding your own business will get you anything other than conquered in the long run?

 

[Second Summer]

Anyone wanna take bets as to whether or not Iraq and Syria end up merging as an ISIS controlled country, with less and less in the area to challenge them and the west unwilling (Iraq requested air support in the most recent attack, and were denied) to help in the face of public disapproval by a world who has BS'd itself into believing that minding your own business will get you anything other than conquered in the long run?

ISIS is not as strong in Syria. The al-Nusra front is more popular among islamists there. Maybe if the two islamist groups fought together they would stand a chance. The regime has powerful allies in Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.

The situation is different in Iraq though. They may have more success there.

 

[yakherder]

Mosul is the first major city on one of two major roads coming in from Syria, the second most important city, after Baghdad, in regards to traffic between the two countries. Not some random village. One of the first things they did was to begin removing the border obstacles in place. I can't imagine their choice of targets was completely random, especially given previously stated goals of wanting to see the two nations brought together.

And despite this city's importance, Iraqi forces put up little resistance, many simply dropping their uniforms and fleeing rather than fight. Tikrit is about halfway between Mosul and in a direct path to Baghdad.

With the spoils of Mogul and Tikrit, ISIS is now the most well funded terrorist organization in the world.

Just a hunch.

 

[ledboots]

Mosul is the first major city on one of two major roads coming in from Syria, the second most important city, after Baghdad, in regards to traffic between the two countries. Not some random village. One of the first things they did was to begin removing the border obstacles in place. I can't imagine their choice of targets was completely random, especially given previously stated goals of wanting to see the two nations brought together.

And despite this city's importance, Iraqi forces put up little resistance, many simply dropping their uniforms and fleeing rather than fight. Tikrit is about halfway between Mosul and in a direct path to Baghdad.

With the spoils of Mogul and Tikrit, ISIS is now the most well funded terrorist organization in the world.

Just a hunch.

Yes. Mosul is a very important takeover point, both financial and as a slap in the face to the United States. This is what it's like to lose a war, my fellow Americans. 5000 American soldiers dead, trillions of dollars wasted, countless people dead and injured, the enemy with your weapons left behind.

“Ninety-nine percent of the Christians have left Mosul,” pastor Haitham Jazrawi said today following the takeover of Iraq’s second largest city—and its ancient Christian homeland—by al-Qaeda-linked jihadist militants.

"A mass exodus of Christians and Muslims is underway from the city of 1.8 million after hundreds of gunmen with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) overran the city and forced out the Iraqi army and the police. Reports indicate Iraqi army units abandoned their posts, in the process giving up U.S.-provided weapons and vehicles, including Humvees, in what was a key base of operations for U.S. military forces throughout the Iraq war. Long a city of diverse religious and ethnic makeup—with Arabs and Kurds, and a large population of Assyrian Christians—Mosul was a flashpoint during the eight-year conflict." https://www.worldmag.com/mobile/article.php?id=30453

 

[ledboots]

What's your plan?

1. Invest in sensible alternative energy sources. We could easily have an electric car that is affordable and uses a fraction of the energy that gasoline does. Jimmy Carter started good works in the late 1970s that were scuttled by Reagan.
2. Build good nuclear power plants.
3. Allow the oil pipeline from Canada.
4.Drill for oil, frack, get the natural gas working for us. We have a LOT of energy resources here in the US. If we don't use them because we want to save the environment, countries with far less stringent laws to protect the environment will gladly sell us theirs. It is the same earth, the less-polluters are the lesser evil.
5. Stop being so greedy. Buy smaller cars and less ridiculously huge homes. Stop planting stupid grass on all the lawns. Grow some food or have some wildflowers for the creatures.

"A study released in February by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, prepared by researchers at defense contractor SAIC and nonprofit research house GTI, finds that the U.S. has more than 200 billion barrels of oil and 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that are recoverable with today’s technology. That’s more than most OPEC nations. If fully developed, it would be enough to eliminate our 10-million-barrel daily diet of foreign oil for half a century." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/outfront-oil-gas-obama-drilling-drill-here.html

 

[rainforests1]

1. Invest in sensible alternative energy sources. We could easily have an electric car that is affordable and uses a fraction of the energy that gasoline does. Jimmy Carter started good works in the late 1970s that were scuttled by Reagan.
2. Build good nuclear power plants.
3. Allow the oil pipeline from Canada.
4.Drill for oil, frack, get the natural gas working for us. We have a LOT of energy resources here in the US. If we don't use them because we want to save the environment, countries with far less stringent laws to protect the environment will gladly sell us theirs. It is the same earth, the less-polluters are the lesser evil.
5. Stop being so greedy. Buy smaller cars and less ridiculously huge homes. Stop planting stupid grass on all the lawns. Grow some food or have some wildflowers for the creatures.

"A study released in February by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, prepared by researchers at defense contractor SAIC and nonprofit research house GTI, finds that the U.S. has more than 200 billion barrels of oil and 2,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that are recoverable with today’s technology. That’s more than most OPEC nations. If fully developed, it would be enough to eliminate our 10-million-barrel daily diet of foreign oil for half a century." http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0426/outfront-oil-gas-obama-drilling-drill-here.html

Very optimistic predictions like that link are rarely proven correct. Most experts I've read agree that United States oil production will start dropping sometime this decade. We'll be more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than ever.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702303277704579348332283819314.html
Oil companies are struggling. Apparently they're not finding all of the oil that we allegedly have.