ISIS: The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

[Ulysses G.]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

Not even close.

Obama is in power NOW. He is responsible for foreign policy NOW and the last 51/2 years,.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[boomerangutang]

Today in both Iraq and Syria the people of these two desperate nations are caught between a sectarian despot on the one hand and sectarian extremists on the other...neither option is either attractive or without significant cost.

put another way: 'caught between a rock and a hard place.' All options in those dune regions are crappy.

I like the map drawn by Ralph Peters, showing his spin on how things could be more sensibly divvied up. No matter how reasonably the border lines are hypothetically drawn, there will be ceaseless conflict.

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

US administrations have some effect there, but the overwhelming influence of how things manifest in M.East is the resident people themselves. Re; Afghanistan, for example. The US wanted to just go in there and bomb Taliban and Al Qaeda (primarily) in retaliation for 9-11. But once in there, they couldn't leave (with a good conscience) without trying to establish a semblance of democracy, otherwise the Taliban would have been back a week later (after US withdrawal), and continued to persecute women with renewed fervor.

Similar in Iraq. US is interested in so-called 'nation-building' to a fault. US makes mistakes and spends obscene amounts of money, but it's ultimately the locals who make or break it, and all they've been able to do is make a worse mess of things. They need a mean-spirited dictator like Saddam, because that's what M.Easterners are used to.

[rgs2001uk]

Now that the Kurds have retaken Kirkuk, their ancestral Capital and the Iraqi Army have "bolted" and nowhere to be seen, then I don't see there being any other way of the Iraqi Government, which owes Kurdistan Billions of dollars in oil revenue, in which they can get Kirkuk back from the Peshmerga.

Iraqi PM: "can we have Kirkuk back please" ?

Peshhmerga:"Are you <deleted> serious? your Army left it, and all its inhabitants at the mercy of the ISIS"

Iraqi PM:"but please, pretty please, well not do it again"

Peshmerga:"<deleted> off!!"

Iraqi PM: "That's a bit steep"

Peshmerga: " You and your Army deserted the citizens and responsibilities, you don't deserve to have it"

Iraqi PM : " We'll take it from you!! "

Peshmeraga: " hahahahahahahahaahhahaha you and whose army!!!!"

Kurdistan will no doubt get the autonomy they want, to give them anything less is a slap to the face, especially as the Iraqi Army were bolting out of there faster than Carl Lewis!!!

The Kurds making the most of this shambles is a classic pay back for centuries of repression with the most shocking, recent example being the Anfal Campaign of 1986-89. Unfortunately the Kurds are not a monolithic group and have a long history of infighting, and this may again cause them to miss out on the opportunity to create their own independent state as promised to them in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.

The other interesting angle will be Iran's role having long supported Shia elements in southern Iraq. There are reports that Iranian forces have already moved into Iraq to prop up Maliki's regime. There is a strong likelihood that this recent upsurge in Iraq is part of the Saudi-Iran battle for regional supremacy being fought through their respective proxies.

It's all fascinating geopolitical stuff, but presents a nightmarish choice re options (especially given prevailing public opinion in western nations and their poor quality political leadership) for outside powers and could create a new Afghanistan of training camps, logistic support and funding for global terror acts by radicalized, experienced and motivated insurgents who have been recruited from all over.

"The other interesting angle will be Iran's role having long supported Shia elements in southern Iraq."

Well thats way more than GB senior did in 1991 after telling the Marsh Arab Shia in the south to rise up, Saddam moved in and slaughtered them.

Just the same as Bahrain, a Sunni minority overruling the Shia minority.

Some how Uncle Sam stays quiet on the treatment of the Shia in KSA .

No wonder the Al Sauds told Uncle Sam they didnt want Saddam taken out in GW1, got to keep them Sunni in control.

Correct me if I am wrong, wasnt in the Saudis that asked for and end to be put to the "turkey shoot" that was the road to Basra?

[Jay Sata]

Ulysses

Like the weirdos on Fox News you are trying to blame Obama for the mess created by the crazy neoconservatives in the Bush administration. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, etc sowed the seeds of the mess we see now in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Jay Sata

[rgs2001uk]

Today in both Iraq and Syria the people of these two desperate nations are caught between a sectarian despot on the one hand and sectarian extremists on the other...neither option is either attractive or without significant cost.

put another way: 'caught between a rock and a hard place.' All options in those dune regions are crappy.

I like the map drawn by Ralph Peters, showing his spin on how things could be more sensibly divvied up. No matter how reasonably the border lines are hypothetically drawn, there will be ceaseless conflict.

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

US administrations have some effect there, but the overwhelming influence of how things manifest in M.East is the resident people themselves. Re; Afghanistan, for example. The US wanted to just go in there and bomb Taliban and Al Qaeda (primarily) in retaliation for 9-11. But once in there, they couldn't leave (with a good conscience) without trying to establish a semblance of democracy, otherwise the Taliban would have been back a week later (after US withdrawal), and continued to persecute women with renewed fervor.

Similar in Iraq. US is interested in so-called 'nation-building' to a fault. US makes mistakes and spends obscene amounts of money, but it's ultimately the locals who make or break it, and all they've been able to do is make a worse mess of things. They need a mean-spirited dictator like Saddam, because that's what M.Easterners are used to.

What Uncle Sam and all the other western leaders havent yet tumbled to, these people arent nationalists, they are tribalists. Their loyalty lies with their tribe.

Saddam and the other dictators understand this and knew how to keep the lid on things. Democracy, we don't need your stinking democracy, jeez its unfolding in Afghanistan as we speak right now.

[folium]

I guess you just like to play with symantics. All of those countries supported and involved their troops in the Iraq War. The point was that there should be no singular finger pointing at the US. Get it?

The rest of your post is blabber. If you don't get it that the allies began attacking Iraq during the Clinton administration, and don't buy the link I posted that Clinton did more bombing of Iraq than Bush (who I can't stand) did, I can't help you.

Sounds like Viet Nam all over again doesn't it? Afghanistan will soon be next. Another sorry legacy of US interventionism that will continue as long as the oligarchy can profit from it.

Get out much? We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq.

Now we have to discuss how involved the Brits ARE in Afghanistan? The Brits ARE flying US made stealth drones over Afghanistan and shooting the place up with high tech missiles.

But don't let the truth stop you from hating.

Shame that you can neither spell nor apparently understand the meaning (pun intended) of the word semantics....

Claiming that 40 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is incorrect. The invasion was an almost entirely US/British affair. 36 other nations kicked in small to insignificant sized formations, many of which were earmarked for logistic or humanitarian functions rather than war-fighting, after the invasion as part of MNF-I. These smaller players stayed for a short time, most achieved very little and left as soon as the security situation collapsed.

The fiasco of Iraq 2003-11 was a largely US/UK instigated and conducted operation. Initial tactical success was followed by strategic failure due to the inability to create a proper alliance prior to the invasion, the failure to commit sufficient troops on the ground, the failure to have even rudimentary plans for how to conduct an occupation of Iraq, and the disaster of de-Baathification and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. Hubris indeed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/bush-and-blairs-hubris-in-iraq-means-the-west-is-now-powerless-to-act-against-a-genuine-threat-9532391.html

The responsibility for Iraq falls largely on the shoulders of Bush and Blair, with supporting disastrous roles played by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The US surge in 2007 plus the skilful creation of the Sunni (Awakening) militia largely cleansed Iraq of AQ and other extremists and gave a brief glimmer of hope. Tragically the undue haste exhibited by the US and UK to exit Iraq in 2010-11 led to the shameful situation of leaving a deeply damaged Iraq to fall under another autocrat (Maliki) and a resurgence of the extremists.

Today in both Iraq and Syria the people of these two desperate nations are caught between a sectarian despot on the one hand and sectarian extremists on the other...neither option is either attractive or without significant cost.

Being the spelling police doesn't win you a debate. Just because I struck the name of a famous software company instead of the word I wanted doesn't preclude you from knowing what I meant.

I will no longer debate you until you learn to read and stop misquoting me and therefore go off into irrelevant tangents. I said:

"We just discussed how up to their eyeballs Tony Blair and the Brits, and 40 other countries were in Iraq."

And you said:

"Claiming that 40 nations took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is incorrect."

Go back to school and learn the difference between "Took part in the invasion" and "Were in Iraq." I was correct.

You are not going to win debates with a lack of reading comprehension nor by nitpicking spelling.

Hey we all make mistakes...

from your 2105hrs on 12 Jun 2014 post:

"You couldn,t make this stuff up.

Apparently you can. There were more than 40 countries participating in the invasion of Iraq." (your use of bold, just to make the point clear).

You did indeed in a subsequent post state that "40 other countries were in Iraq". If I was going to be real nitpicky it was actually 38 other countries plus the US/UK, but who needs to be that nitpicky!!

If you are going to make claims that are factually inaccurate, they might well be picked up on. That's the nature of intelligent debate.

PS the name of the "famous software company" is Symantec.

Meanwhile Sykes-Pichot looks like it is falling apart in the Middle East...there is both opportunity and threat aplenty and unfortunately it is a situation that calls for decisive leadership at the political level. Something that seems to be in short supply at the moment.

[Jay Sata]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

Not even close.

Taking out Saddam started all this. It was always going to destabilise Iraq.

Just that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld trousered millions through their Halliburton, KBR and Carlyle connections then dumped it in the next administration's lap.

Try as hard as you like, you can't pin this on the black man.

Added: And now you've seen how easily the Iraqi military has been overcome, you have an idea of just how quickly the Taleban will resume business as usual once America pulls out.

All a titanic waste of time and money - but not for Bush and his posse of freaks.

I could not have put it better myself. Meanwhile Cheney and Rumsfeld have disappeared back under their stones. I see that fruitcake Bolton being wheeled out now and again by Fox News and ask myself who ever let him loose on the world stage needs locking up for a long time.

[Ulysses G.]

you are trying to blame Obama for the mess created by the crazy neoconservatives in the Bush administration.

Did Bush leave Iraq without leaving any American forces there?

Did Bush draw a red line in Syria and then ignore it repeatedly?

Did Bush tell the Taliban the date our forces would be leaving and then trade FIVE major war criminals for one deserter?

Did Bush spend months resisting requests from the Iraqi government for US air strikes against the insurgents and then act like the ISIS takeover was a big surprise?

Did Bush bomb Libya and turn it into another failed state dominated by insurgents?

Obama has plenty of stupid policies to answer for that he implemented with no help from Bush or anyone else.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

There have been armed conflicts in that region since the once-pristine wetlands along the Tigris and Euphrates were destroyed. From the time humans began overpopulating that region, and destroying natural habitat, it's been on and off conflict and misery. I say, let the militias take property, let the Sunni regions join with equally screwed up Syria - or let them create their own Sharia Law miserable little land-locked fiefdom. Re-draw the lines in the desert, I don't give a flying fig, as long as they don't spread their environment-destroying, female-prosecuting culture further afield.

Well, seems like a substantial part of ISIS isn't exactly homegrown, and quite obvious they do not care much for borders as such. I would guess that if successful they would just change the IS to I+First initial of next country. Not like the local population in necessarily in-love with them. So looks like they're already busy spreading their views further afield.

Indeed you are correct, this does however highlight a far bigger folly than U.S foreign policy, namely western nations immigration policies which have allowed the virus that is political Islam to spread to it's shores.

[Chicog]

Obama might as well have pulled the US out of Iraq and Afghanistan the day he took office. He would have saved thousands of American lives.

The rest was destined to happen from the minute Bush stuck his oar in.

[Johpa]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

All those lives and a hell of a lot of money wasted for what?

As we saw with Vietnam US foreign policy never works and Afghanistan is just as bad now as when America tried to achieve what Russia had failed.

I don't understand why these butchers could not have been taken out by drones days ago.

Where is all the high tech military stuff and why is it not being used? I thought those spy satellites could seen a pin on the ground.

We don't need spy satellites to find the neo-con butchers who initiated this fiasco, those whose sole raison d'etre was to gain access to oil reserves. These were the fools who sent young Republicans to negotiate with wizened Iraqi tribal leaders as told by Rory Stewart in his book. Obama, the great disappointment, never really had a chance. He was far too naive, and hired similarly naive advisors, to notice he was given an unwinnable hand. He was set up for the fall and now he will take that fall. And in 2016 the US will hand back the keys to the chicken coop back to the wolves, be it a Clinton or a Republican candidate.

And as for the retreating Iraqi National Army, I must say I find striking similarities between the few US military "advisors" I have met and Thai Visa members as both groups seem to hold the citizens of their host country in absolute contempt.

[Jay Sata]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

All those lives and a hell of a lot of money wasted for what?

As we saw with Vietnam US foreign policy never works and Afghanistan is just as bad now as when America tried to achieve what Russia had failed.

I don't understand why these butchers could not have been taken out by drones days ago.

Where is all the high tech military stuff and why is it not being used? I thought those spy satellites could seen a pin on the ground.

We don't need spy satellites to find the neo-con butchers who initiated this fiasco, those whose sole raison d'etre was to gain access to oil reserves. These were the fools who sent young Republicans to negotiate with wizened Iraqi tribal leaders as told by Rory Stewart in his book. Obama, the great disappointment, never really had a chance. He was far too naive, and hired similarly naive advisors, to notice he was given an unwinnable hand. He was set up for the fall and now he will take that fall. And in 2016 the US will hand back the keys to the chicken coop back to the wolves, be it a Clinton or a Republican candidate.

And as for the retreating Iraqi National Army, I must say I find striking similarities between the few US military "advisors" I have met and Thai Visa members as both groups seem to hold the citizens of their host country in absolute contempt.

There is an excellent article in the Los Angeles Times.

Well, gee, $1 trillion or so just doesnt buy what it used to. Take Iraq, for example.

Or, should I say: Take Iraq, please, someone and fix it. Fend off the nasty Islamic fighters of ISIS (shall we call Wonder Woman, perhaps?) and keep that miserable sinkhole for American lives and money from coming back to bite us again.

Put another way: Do you understand now, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Bolton and all you neocon nutjobs, why the invasion of Iraq in 2003 wasnt a very good idea?

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-iraq-islamist-insurgents-isis-obama-20140612-story.html

[folium]

Looks like Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/obama-urgent-air-assault-isis-syria-iraq?view=desktop

Things could get interesting....

[Morch]

you are trying to blame Obama for the mess created by the crazy neoconservatives in the Bush administration.

Did Bush leave Iraq without leaving any American forces there?

Did Bush draw a red line in Syria and then ignore it repeatedly?

Did Bush tell the Taliban the date our forces would be leaving and then trade FIVE major war criminals for one deserter?

Did Bush spend months resisting requests from the Iraqi government for US air strikes against the insurgents and then act like the ISIS takeover was a big surprise?

Did Bush bomb Libya and turn it into another failed state dominated by insurgents?

Obama has plenty of stupid policies to answer for that he implemented with no help from Bush or anyone else.

Can't we all agree that both will not be named amongst the USA greatest presidents?

[rgs2001uk]

Looks like Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/obama-urgent-air-assault-isis-syria-iraq?view=desktop

Things could get interesting....

Is this guy for real, when oh when will these guys realise you can bomb people all you want, you will never bomb an ideal or a mindset.

Yemen descends into a sectarian civil war (of independence), dont worry Obama will be along in a minute to bomb the bad guys, those nasty Al Quaeda types, yet again doing the dirty work on behalf of the Al Sauds.

The very same people who refer to him as a "house boy"

[Jay Sata]

I believe Obama will come up with something. He managed to oversee the Bin Laden demise, something Bush had vowed to do before he left office.

Where are. Blair and Bush now? They should be out there rectifying the mess they fomented.

[simple1]

Looks like Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/obama-urgent-air-assault-isis-syria-iraq?view=desktop

Things could get interesting....

Is this guy for real, when oh when will these guys realise you can bomb people all you want, you will never bomb an ideal or a mindset.

Yemen descends into a sectarian civil war (of independence), dont worry Obama will be along in a minute to bomb the bad guys, those nasty Al Quaeda types, yet again doing the dirty work on behalf of the Al Sauds.

The very same people who refer to him as a "house boy"

Apparently one of the reasons for the 500k plus refugees from Mosul and other areas is the concern any counterstrike by the military will cause large loss of life within the civilian population. For the moment it seems the likely action will be to distrupt / stop continuing ground advances by ISIS forces.

Given you reside in Iraq, what's your thoughts on the policy to put in place to address Sunni / Shia extremism in the region?

[slipperylobster]

All that death and destruction and this is how it ends - Afghanistan will fare no better and the locals knew it. We need to start learning from history.

History is only a long list of Conquest, War and Destruction. We already know how to do that.

What we need is a new philosophy, outside of the box of "History".

Empires and Conquests do not last.....that is your second lesson in history.

As world population increases, and the poor get poorer.... I can only see two choices.

1. Stop fighting...and let chaos rule... (dumber than dumb and dumber) as you will only have pirates and barbarians implementing a feudal society once again....

2.Implement a new philosophy (perhaps the New World Order)

The only Empire that had peace for a hundred years was the Roman Empire (PAX Romana)

If history is being studied at all, that would be the lesson. Who will run that Empire??? Hitler, Stalin, ISIS, Western Nations????

Up for grabs..............It is called...Initiative.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[simple1]

Tony Blair: West must take sides against growing threat of radical Islam

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/23/tony-blair-west-take-sides-growing-threat-radical-islam

Who would want to trust Scotsman Tony Blair, he's helped to destroy two countries Iraq and England.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I thought his views were 'different' in that I interpret he talks to realpolitik which as far as I know is rarely promolgated in the public domain in today's political environment. An example quote:

"With support for intervention ebbing fast, especially in Britain, Blair urged a wilfully blind west to realise it must take sides and if necessary make common cause with Russia and China in the G20 to counter the Islamic extremism that lies at the root of all failures of western intervention"

[capcc76]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

Not even close.

Taking out Saddam started all this. It was always going to destabilise Iraq.

Just that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld trousered millions through their Halliburton, KBR and Carlyle connections then dumped it in the next administration's lap.

Try as hard as you like, you can't pin this on the black man.

Added: And now you've seen how easily the Iraqi military has been overcome, you have an idea of just how quickly the Taleban will resume business as usual once America pulls out.

All a titanic waste of time and money - but not for Bush and his posse of freaks.

Yep, taking Sadam out permanently destabilized Iraq. What's they say about the people in this region that they act like maniacs and savages without a someone like Sadam in power.

Mass executions and mass beheadings being reported. Broke several hundred of the worst out of several jails. What a nightmare.

Yep, Bush got his panties in a wad because he was caught asleep at the wheel. Cheney et al. used this to talk his weak ignorant butt into going after Sadam. They knew Iraq would destabilize after Sadam was removed. They just didn't care.

Obama was damned if he did and damned if he didn't pull troop out. Gotta love the lunatic brigade that whined when he didn't pull troops out and are now whinning because he pulled troops out and let this happen. Some people just like to whine and be angry.

[cloudhopper]

The culprits for stirring this hornets nest are Bush and his neocon mates such as Cheney and.Rumsfeld.

You can moan about them all you want, but they have been out of office for almost 6 years. The buck stops with Obama and his feckless foreign policy these days.

Not even close.

Taking out Saddam started all this. It was always going to destabilise Iraq.

Just that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld trousered millions through their Halliburton, KBR and Carlyle connections then dumped it in the next administration's lap.

Try as hard as you like, you can't pin this on the black man.

Added: And now you've seen how easily the Iraqi military has been overcome, you have an idea of just how quickly the Taleban will resume business as usual once America pulls out.

All a titanic waste of time and money - but not for Bush and his posse of freaks.

It started long before Bush/Cheney. It was Bill Clinton who signed the Iraq Liberation Act and was CIC during the military operation Desert Fox. Then there was Bush 1 before him in the Gulf war. The Halliburtons et al have driven US foreign policy regardless of the party in power.

[Steely Dan]

Looks like Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/obama-urgent-air-assault-isis-syria-iraq?view=desktop

Things could get interesting....

I hope someone gives the all seeing one a proper briefing or he might order airstrikes on the Oxford university rowing team boat house.

[stander]

US spends $50bn a year on spying, Snowden says they can monitor all we do -- yet caught napping when ISIS takes Mosul etc. Remarkable

[Pakboong]

Looks like Obama is considering air strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/13/obama-urgent-air-assault-isis-syria-iraq?view=desktop

Things could get interesting....

I hope someone gives the all seeing one a proper briefing or he might order airstrikes on the Oxford university rowing team boat house.

Proof that the executive summary simply does not provide enough information. We still need the big boys to do some reading and understand a bit of history before they get the job.

[Chicog]

US spends $50bn a year on spying, Snowden says they can monitor all we do -- yet caught napping when ISIS takes Mosul etc. Remarkable

If you look at all the major politicial events in the last few decades, they've been caught cold by most of them.

[thailiketoo]

US spends $50bn a year on spying, Snowden says they can monitor all we do -- yet caught napping when ISIS takes Mosul etc. Remarkable

If you look at all the major politicial events in the last few decades, they've been caught cold by most of them.

And they are still insisting they didn't know about Pearl Harbor. And people still believe it!

[slipperylobster]

US spends $50bn a year on spying, Snowden says they can monitor all we do -- yet caught napping when ISIS takes Mosul etc. Remarkable

If you look at all the major politicial events in the last few decades, they've been caught cold by most of them.

Apples and oranges. Of course they knew...they just chose not to do anything about it...up to now.

Diplomatic links and military links were always open. You don't neet spy satellites to figure out what is going on.

Snowden is an idiot, by the way.

[slipperylobster]

US spends $50bn a year on spying, Snowden says they can monitor all we do -- yet caught napping when ISIS takes Mosul etc. Remarkable

Snowden is an idiot. He may have had access, but the idea of protecting sources is what he is misinformed about. Putting lives at stake to get headlines. Capital Traitor....

[slipperylobster]

Here we go again with the retarded tin foil hatmen.

Having information is one thing......implementing action and politics are two different animals.

It is the tinfoil hatmen that criticize no matter which path is chosen. Intervention or nonintervention.

There was no surprise in all this. ISIS did it in broad daylight. Probably dozens of complaints were filed, and several calls made for assistance. No need spys and technology...just read the &lt;deleted&gt; news.