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

[Morch]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Right now appears to be so. However, with increasing demand for oil by China (others) it is forecast at times a barrel of oil will peak at US$200; if M.E. is not stabilised. Various timings by analysts that US will not be self-sufficient for all its oil requirements until roughly 2030, some say earlier. Just saying there is a possibility that M.E. internal conflicts, increased demands, contributing to potentially large increases in the cost of oil and the flow on effect impacting Western domestic politics, policy attitudes could rapidly change

And how do you think this might impact non-Western domestic politics and policy attitudes?

Are China, India and others in a better position for a possible energy crisis compared with the USA and Europe?

[thailiketoo]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Right now appears to be so. However, with increasing demand for oil by China (others) it is forecast at times a barrel of oil will peak at US$200; if M.E. is not stabilised. Various timings by analysts that US will not be self-sufficient for all its oil requirements until roughly 2030, some say earlier. Just saying there is a possibility that M.E. internal conflicts, increased demands, contributing to potentially large increases in the cost of oil and the flow on effect impacting Western domestic politics, policy attitudes could rapidly change

US imports March, thousands of barrels. From Iraq 9006. From Canada 99,358. Are you worried eh?

[simple1]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Right now appears to be so. However, with increasing demand for oil by China (others) it is forecast at times a barrel of oil will peak at US$200; if M.E. is not stabilised. Various timings by analysts that US will not be self-sufficient for all its oil requirements until roughly 2030, some say earlier. Just saying there is a possibility that M.E. internal conflicts, increased demands, contributing to potentially large increases in the cost of oil and the flow on effect impacting Western domestic politics, policy attitudes could rapidly change

US imports March, thousands of barrels. From Iraq 9006. From Canada 99,358. Are you worried eh?

Apologies formatting problems.

Don't believe the US is the sole arbiter for 'Western domestic politics'. Oil prices influence foreign policy decisions and that fact is not going to be transformed in the near future.

[simple1]

Don't know who you define as "we", but the world economy does require oil output from the region. Take a look at the charts and forecasts at the URL below. In the longer term with predicted price increases how long would the major economies stand aside with no interference?

http://www.ibtimes.com/understand-iraqs-impact-global-oil-four-easy-charts-1603546

Well, most of the world doesn't seem all too keen on lifting a finger and actually doing something about it.

Right now appears to be so. However, with increasing demand for oil by China (others) it is forecast at times a barrel of oil will peak at US$200; if M.E. is not stabilised. Various timings by analysts that US will not be self-sufficient for all its oil requirements until roughly 2030, some say earlier. Just saying there is a possibility that M.E. internal conflicts, increased demands, contributing to potentially large increases in the cost of oil and the flow on effect impacting Western domestic politics, policy attitudes could rapidly change

And how do you think this might impact non-Western domestic politics and policy attitudes?

Are China, India and others in a better position for a possible energy crisis compared with the USA and Europe?

Sorry has to delete some comments to post...

True, a huge headache, saw a figure of US$17 trillion required for further infrastucture, supply chain investment just for oil supply

[thailiketoo]

It's not like the total loss of oil from Iraq would be a big problem. Now, Canada another story. (from an American oil worker point of view, bar in Pattaya) Oil is no longer a reason to go to war and use oil. (from a British oil worker point of view, bar in Rayong} Oil is so yesterday. (From a Thai guy said he used to work for PTT in a bar in Maptaphut)

Edited June 19, 2014 by thailiketoo

[iancnx]

Ahhhhh the oil. Not such a surprise we get back to the not so insignificant subject. A little potted history if I may for those who might not be fully aware.

The Brits and others started meddling in the Arabian desert during the First World War and inspired the Arab revolt, which led to the Arab conquering of Damascus and Aleppo. Funnily enough the first Arabian oil was discovered in the early 1900's, but no one really knew how to get the stuff out of the ground. After numerous treaties, led mostly by the Brits and the French the Middle East was carved up in convenient blocks with, no doubt, future oil wealth being of speculative importance. (The Brits even had the audacity to promise Palestine to the family Rothschild in 1916). By 1932 Al Saud and specifically Abdul-Aziz was proclaimed as the King of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 6 short years later the Americans had installed themselves and played an important role in the first discovery of oil in the kingdom. ARAMCO was formed and together with British and French oil company interest elsewhere in the conveniently sliced up region, the foundations for the exploitation of the Arabs, Persians, Kurds, and Turks - (Shia, Sunni, Christian, Jews and a dozen other religious sects) - was thus nicely arranged. And everything in the garden was rosey until events such as the Suez crisis, the Aden crisis, the 6 day war, and numerous other little know events all shaped the Middle East we know today; The Middle East - the region of primary interest to the Americans for the past 90 years. Some in here talk about Sunni v Shia since the year 632. In some part yes they have always been at loggerheads, but, it is the slicing up of a continent by the western powers and the enormous influence of the American insatiable desire for the black gold that leaves millions dead, slaughtered, wounded, homeless, orphaned, raped, tortured, abused, starving and helpless across the continent. It is far more than a few dunes; some recent war fighting (or operations room) veterans I am afraid miss this point as can be seen from a good number of posts above. ISIS is just another disenfranchised group that see American and their Allies interference in the region as intolerable. I don't support their terror methods no more than I support the West's eternal interference and desire (and NEED) to impose democracy on nations that are neither ready or equipped to morph in to Uncle Sam's New World Order.

The US best course of action IMO is to return home; they no longer need the oil - they have more than enough of their own. Let the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa sort themselves out. Non nuclear proliferation can be managed by strategic cruise missile strikes. Surely this is enough?

[simple1]

U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go

Such a new government, U.S., officials say, would include the country's Sunni and Kurdish communities and could help to stem Sunni support for the al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has seized control of Iraqi cities over the past two weeks. That, the officials argue, would help to unify the country and reverse its slide into sectarian division.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-signals-1403137521

[Steely Dan]

I don't think anyone is going to clean up that mess in my lifetime. "The definition of insanity is..."

Unless the allies are willing to fight the way they did in WWII when Germany was bombed indiscriminately with no concern for civilian casualties, and primitive guidance systems caused them to sometimes miss whole cities, these people won't be defeated on their own soil. A couple of nukes slowed Japan down, but again no concern for collateral damage. The wars were fought against the people, and not just the military.

New conventions have stopped that and now it's necessary but hopeless to go after guerrilla armies on their own soil.

The allies seem to think they are fighting a military war which could be won, but they are fighting a religious zealotry which can be knocked back again and again but which will come back again and again.

What a waste of time, lives, and money. And no, we don't need their oil.

Liberals don't win wars, except perhaps for those they are fighting against. The ideology we are up against suffers no post colonial guilt syndrome so is therefore at an advantage when pitted against those that do.

[Johpa]

Liberals don't win wars, except perhaps for those they are fighting against. The ideology we are up against suffers no post colonial guilt syndrome so is therefore at an advantage when pitted against those that do.

Well that is a big part of the conundrm now, isn't it? Liberals don't win wars; heck, they try to avoid them. And clearly, judging from past history during my lifetime, neither do conservatives win wars. So perhaps General Smedley Butler was correct afterall, that war is just a racket designed to profit the few. That other military wimp, President Eisenhower, also warned us about the scam, but we did not listen. And now I hear that war profiteer Dick Cheney barking again.

[Ulysses G.]

Well that is a big part of the conundrm now, isn't it? Liberals don't win wars; heck, they try to avoid them.

Well, they sure did a great job in Vietnam and a conservative got us out of it. Both sides of the political aisle have started wars. Neither one has a better track record on that front.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Bwanatickey]

Invading Iraq after 9/11 would be like invading Finland after Pearl Harbor. Saddam had to go but thats what .50 cal snipers are for. And as noted above the vacuum was caused by dismantling the Iraqi army instead of incorporating them. Afghanistan is another disaster,

The original intent was to get an escaping Bin Laden. But instead of sending in the US Army Rangers the task was contracted to the locals.

So now the US is nation building a 16th century country. Next disaster is Libya: The US supports Ghadaffi's downfall and the thanks is an attack on US diplomatic compound.

Didn't have to wait long for your Libya prediction to ignite .

[Bwanatickey]

@ IANCXZ

What ? That they don't make a shitty situation even worse by going in blind and making even more enemies in the process ? Maybe you can lend your services and go in there and sort it out yourself if you are such an "intellect". You won't get me going back in there again, risking life and limb for no result and another useless US policy. Good luck to you sir.

The first to be sent in front to fight on the ground and sort it out, should be Tony Blair with his two sons.

Lead by example Tony.

[Bwanatickey]

I surprised it has taken this long, the west will never understand the way the middle east works,

Somewhat true. First rule of being a Middle East leader: don't tell the truth. Second rule: shift alliances at a whim, whenever you see any advantage to be gained. Third: distrust and hate your neighbor if he's at all different.

If China needs ME oil, then it's their turn to go in there and screw it up. They can try out all their new military equipment.

China is playing it smart from a businessman perspective: Let the tribal factions blow themselves up - when the smoke clears, go in there with smiles and contracts for raw materials, ready to be signed. Actually, it's raw materials going to China, and cheap copies and plastic stuff going the other way.

China has over a million of its citizens now living in Africa, they are traders and shopkeepers, They have not sent in the Red Army to conquer Africa, they trade.

I think that China has had a look at Germany and Japan, strong economies with a very small military budget.

I am sure they are going to operate with the same stealth in this ME region.

[Bwanatickey]

Two US Navy aircraft have bombed ISIS.

That was ISIS mistake, attacking the other minority religions, in area that had no argument with them, if they had stuck to Moslem areas they could have taken the Capital.

[GentlemanJim]

This has to be one of the saddest indictments on humanity I have ever seen. Way to go ISIS you got him cornered, and all in Gods name!! Sponsored by a Western Country somewhere near you! May God forgive us!

Edited August 9, 2014 by GentlemanJim

[Mosha]

They are even beheading children

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/leader-isis-systematically-beheading-children-christian-genocide

[simple1]

They are even beheading children

http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/leader-isis-systematically-beheading-children-christian-genocide

IS were and are carrying out atrocities against Muslim children, including crucifiction, no one in the Western world lifted a finger against them. Now with the atrocities against Christian Arabs and threatening the Kurds some action is finally being taken. The Kurds have a reputation as tough fighters, let's hope the Iraqi military can quickly rebuild their morale and also take on IS.

[nong38]

I hope they reap a whirlwind, they kill/execute people as if they were lower than animals, youtube is full of their bravery. I hope the US does all that is required to deal with these bullies.

What mess the middle east is, Arab Spring has not turned out the world had hoped, enimies become allies, allies become foes, trust is a word with more than one meaning in this part of the globe, law and order is not something you can count on.

[boomerangutang]

there's a pattern here:

>>> atrocities occur

>>> there's a resounding outcry for US response (what other country has the might?)

>>> US military responds

>>> time goes by

>>> more time goes by

>>> there are demonstrations against the US, for being self-appointed policeman of the world.

>>> public outcry of over-stepping by some US forces. One or more isolated stories of excesses.

>>> the same people who were campaigning for US intervention weeks earlier, are now demonstrating for US withdrawal.

>>> The US reputation as a 'war monger' nation is reinforced.

addendum: Uncle Sam is: "damned if he does, damned if he don't."

[simple1]

there's a pattern here:

>>> atrocities occur

>>> there's a resounding outcry for US response (what other country has the might?)

>>> US military responds

>>> time goes by

>>> more time goes by

>>> there are demonstrations against the US, for being self-appointed policeman of the world.

>>> public outcry of over-stepping by some US forces. One or more isolated stories of excesses.

>>> the same people who were campaigning for US intervention weeks earlier, are now demonstrating for US withdrawal.

>>> The US reputation as a 'war monger' nation is reinforced.

addendum: Uncle Sam is: "damned if he does, damned if he don't."

I would say more often than not US military withdrawals have been predicated by US domestic politics. However, please provide examples of your narative

[Scott]

Please stay on topic.

[Kalebiran]

Another Bosnia and Rwanda on the way. all because the west caused the break up of Iraq.Shameful

[GentlemanJim]

there's a pattern here:

>>> atrocities occur

>>> there's a resounding outcry for US response (what other country has the might?)

>>> US military responds

>>> time goes by

>>> more time goes by

>>> there are demonstrations against the US, for being self-appointed policeman of the world.

>>> public outcry of over-stepping by some US forces. One or more isolated stories of excesses.

>>> the same people who were campaigning for US intervention weeks earlier, are now demonstrating for US withdrawal.

>>> The US reputation as a 'war monger' nation is reinforced.

addendum: Uncle Sam is: "damned if he does, damned if he don't."

But this is 100% the mess created by Bush et al. You make a mess, you clean it up!

[uptheos]

Hopefully one day ISIS will all grouped together singing kumbaya in their nice Islamic state........then we should follow Nike's advice and.....

....Just do it!

[chuckd]

there's a pattern here:

>>> atrocities occur

>>> there's a resounding outcry for US response (what other country has the might?)

>>> US military responds

>>> time goes by

>>> more time goes by

>>> there are demonstrations against the US, for being self-appointed policeman of the world.

>>> public outcry of over-stepping by some US forces. One or more isolated stories of excesses.

>>> the same people who were campaigning for US intervention weeks earlier, are now demonstrating for US withdrawal.

>>> The US reputation as a 'war monger' nation is reinforced.

addendum: Uncle Sam is: "damned if he does, damned if he don't."

But this is 100% the mess created by Bush et al. You make a mess, you clean it up!

ISIS is a spin-off from the Syrian civil war.

But, blame Bush if it makes you feel better.

[englishinsiam]

This was all going to happen one day.

As Churchill once said as he held the Quran aloft there will never be peace in the world as long as this acursed book exists.

Just let all Muslim hell holes destroy themselves and each other. And close the borders to those countries.

[Mosha]

This was all going to happen one day.

As Churchill once said as he held the Quran aloft there will never be peace in the world as long as this acursed book exists.

Just let all Muslim hell holes destroy themselves and each other. And close the borders to those countries.

Actually it was Gladstone.

[ABCer]

The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

It is not my intention to be controversial.

But isn't PLO attempt preceding ISIS?

This is a genuine question and I would appreciate some clarification, thanks.

[ABCer]

there's a pattern here:

>>> atrocities occur

>>> there's a resounding outcry for US response (what other country has the might?)

>>> US military responds

>>> time goes by

>>> more time goes by

>>> there are demonstrations against the US, for being self-appointed policeman of the world.

>>> public outcry of over-stepping by some US forces. One or more isolated stories of excesses.

>>> the same people who were campaigning for US intervention weeks earlier, are now demonstrating for US withdrawal.

>>> The US reputation as a 'war monger' nation is reinforced.

addendum: Uncle Sam is: "damned if he does, damned if he don't."

Just try to replace US for Israel and ISIS for Palestinians. Any changes?

[Ulysses G.]

The first terror group to build an Islamic State?

It is not my intention to be controversial.

But isn't PLO attempt preceding ISIS?

This is a genuine question and I would appreciate some clarification, thanks.

They were not successful though. Is the Islamic State - formerly ISIS - now considered to have succeeded? They do control a lot of money, territory and arms.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ulysses G.