Religion is just how we divide up into teams. All wars are economic, in the sense that one group wants to control things for their own benefit. I always contend that it stems from evolutionary genetic domination: me, my family, my tribe, people like me. In this case Arabs are trying wrest control of the land they live on from their non-related (infidel or Shia) oppressors. They attempt to overcome their lack of matching military power with terror tactics and brutality to scare the stronger opponents away from the fight. They rally their own with their declarations of divine purpose and except the paradox of divinity/cruelty as necessary and ordained. It can be manipulated without religion: The Motherland, The Fatherland, The Aryan Race, 'Murica.
Uh, humanity has shown repeatedly that we are perfectly capable of dividing up into groups willing to kill each without religion. See: basically every single war in the entirety of the 19th and 20th centuries with the possible exception of the Taiping Rebellion.
I somewhat agree, but without the US, they won't be defeated. Also - props for stating that Hamas starts the wars. Can you please reign in crazies from your side like glynch who support Hamas.
And once again you jump to conclusions without comprehending. I'm saying is that the Iraqis are getting their act together and might not need the US to come in and occupy their country to save them from a threat such as ISIS. Having the US to step in to solve their problems for them might actually hinder the Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own country.
Except that Grant's forces were larger than Confederate forces. Further Confederate forces had been greatly weakened already by almost four years of war and weren't getting foreign help like the Iraqi government would. While the Iraqi army in the north has been beaten in the South they are strengthened by Shiite militias who are also benefiting from technical aid from Iran. If ISIS can't encircle Baghdad especially to the South there the Iraqi military won't be trapped. On the other hand as ISIS gets away from its power base in the Sunni lands it exposes its own supply lines to counter attack. Why not? The Berlin airlift lasted for nearly a year. ISIS doesn't have the forces and have to think about their own logistics to have a sustained siege against a city the size of Baghdad.
Good god, pretend General Kojirou has just laid down the strategic straight dope. I'm across the street from the Pentagon at present - I'll be sure to walk this over before they dispatch the wagon train convoy.
This is about money for America (or more so the World Bank) and there's not a care in the world about the religious practices over there... For the US government war is business.
Yeah, tell that to the 40,000 Yazidis who were trapped on the mountain and to all the Christians who have been murdered and displaced. "Take responsibility for your own country."
If you have something to say to counter my arguments like judoka has done, say it. Or you can shut the **** up, you arrogant, manichean twat. They don't necessarily need to trap the entire Iraqi military. They need to cut off enough supply lines that the remaining open supply lines are not sufficient to feed those who remain in Baghdad to defend the city. And as for an airlift, Baghdad today is much larger than Berlin. It should be noted that while I don't think it's currently likely that IS takes Baghdad anytime soon with America beginning limited intervention, it's not like any of us predicted that they would already be so successful already. IS is a very, very clever and capable force. They are motivated and their soldiers are man for man, the best in the Middle East outside of Turkey and Israel. They are currently more focused on fighting in Syria and have just finished driving Assad out of Raqqa province. The possiblity of Assad losing all of Syria is much more likely than the conquest of Baghdad. Also, something which should be noted about that journalist's execution: IS wants us to retaliate. They want other Sunnis to think "Oh, so America tolerates Assad and his shenanigans for three years as they slaughter millions of innocent Sunnis. But now one Western journalist gets executed and they go nuts?"
I don't know how you can possibly make that statement. I would consider the Peshmerga better fighters and better trained, simply not equiped with the loot of the routed Iraqi Army, and therefore outgunned. The Jordanian military is definitely superior, and considered by many to be the finest in the region, man for man. I could probably think of some other examples. Heck, the Iraqi Sunni tribal forces currently fighting with ISIS are, in many cases, and in my humble opinion, superior to the ISIS terrorists. When they decide that ISIS is no longer useful and turn on them, you'll see what I mean.
Calling them terrorists is your mistake. These are not terrorists. Terrorists will take car/truck bombs and blow them up in a crowded bazaar, kill a lot of people, and make international headlines for their well, terrorist actions. That is not what IS does. They have used such weapons on army bases, ammo depots, armor depots, targets which won't kill many people or arouse international passions but which possess strategic value from a military perspective. Terrorists don't attempt to really hold and govern territory. Brookings has pointed out some of the problems with the peshmerga ( such as the fact that despite their vaunted reputation, the Kurds haven't actually fought a war since 1996, while the predecessors to IS have been fighting ever since the American invasion. There is real, serious discipline amongst their forces. One example can be shown by how quickly they have changed from wearing masks to not wearing them as IS has grown steadily more confident. I will admit I forgot the Jordanians, though I frankly don't know much about them one way or the other.
Calling them "terrorists' Is my personal opinion of what they amount to. Don't fixate on the word. I stand by my post.
More: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: US officials: Military weighs plan to send a small number of additional troops to Iraq.</p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/statuses/502151316731215872">August 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Pentagon is considering a new <a href="https://twitter.com/StateDept">@StateDept</a> request for ~300 security personnel to protect US facilities in & around Baghdad. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/iraq?src=hash">#iraq</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ISIS?src=hash">#ISIS</a></p>— margaret brennan (@margbrennan) <a href="https://twitter.com/margbrennan/statuses/502162626764603393">August 20, 2014</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> Drip, drip, drip... Pretty soon we'll have a big puddle over there.
Green light: Poll: Majority support airstrikes in Iraq A majority of Americans now support airstrikes in Iraq, up 9 points since June, as President Obama targets an Islamist extremist group, according to a new poll. The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 54 percent support the strikes hitting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), while 39 percent oppose them. Full Story: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/215568-poll-support-for-airstrikes-increases-in-august Poll can be found here: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/obama-and-iraq-post-abc-poll-aug-13-17-2014/1268/ This was taken before Foley's horrific demise. POTUS has an opportunity here to do the right thing - the political cover is there. I hope he takes it.
I don't think I posted this yet... In Retaking of Iraqi Dam, Evidence of American Impact MOSUL DAM, Iraq — The two bodies lay festering in the midday sun on Tuesday, some of the only remnants of the Sunni militant force that until Monday night controlled the strategically important Mosul Dam. Around them was the evidence of not just a fierce battle but also a different sort of fight: buildings reduced to rubble; cars churned into twisted metal; mammoth craters gouged from the road. All bore testament to the deadly effect American airstrikes were having on the militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, who until this month were marauding over northern Iraq with little resistance and who two weeks ago seized control of the dam. It was not until President Obama authorized airstrikes by the United States military on Aug. 7 that the Sunni fighters’ advance was halted. Two days of concerted air assaults starting Sunday around the dam then paved the way for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim the site. Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/world/middleeast/in-retaking-of-iraqi-dam-evidence-of-american-impact.html?_r=1 It's a good read. With our support - robust support - the locals can do this. But that support can't be half-a$$ed. I guarantee that we had some of our SOF guys on the ground with the Iraqi SF and pesh for this battle. We don't let foreigners call in CAS, and these strikes were CAS - not drones or hits on convoys. American eyes on the ground are necessary to do that. And I am totally cool with it. We need more ops like this.
Insider footage of strategory master koijrou-san: Spoiler <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Jt4giBRQZAM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> That shows me not to argue with a highly placed insider like Kojirou!
