New US airstrikes in Iraq despite jihadists' threat

[webfact]

New US airstrikes in Iraq despite jihadists' threat

Cairo/Washington - US warplanes Thursday bombarded militant Islamist State targets in northern Iraq despite the terrorist group's threat to kill a captured American journalist.

The US military conducted six airstrikes against the al-Qaeda breakaway group near the Mosul Dam, destroying vehicles and bomb emplacements, the Defence Department said.

The latest hits have brought the total number of airstrikes to 90 since the US started its aerial campaign in Iraq on August 8.

At least 35 Islamic State fighters were killed in a US airstrike in the northern province of Nineveh, a local security official told independent Iraqi site Alsumaria News.

US airstrikes have slowed the Islamic State’s progress in Iraq, but the US exepects them to regroup and stage new offenses, Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said.

US military efforts in Iraq would continue, Hagel said.

"We are pursuing a long-term strategy because ISIL clearly poses a long-term threat," he told reporters at the Pentagon.

Bu the noted US objectives remain clear and limited and that Iraq must address its political issues in order to defeat the extremists.
AFP

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/New-US-airstrikes-in-Iraq-despite-jihadists-threat-30241515.html


-- The Nation 2014-08-22

[mikehock]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

[boomerangutang]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

technically yes, it would be better for the UN to take the drivers seat. However, the UN has repeatedly shown it's very slow to act, and when it does act, it's rarely dynamically. It's like sending a dog catcher to deal with a runaway elephant bull in must. Plus, China and Russia nearly always oppose initiatives by US, France and UK. At the least, they would water down any initiative (under threat of veto) with such provisions as: "Let's ask IS to be more humanitarian" - which translates to 'nothing gets done.'

Imagine if General Patton, when moving his tank corps toward Berlin in WWII was required to get prior UN approval each time he planned to confront the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be among the IS troops being assigned to re-man the trenches around that dam.

[hathairat2711]

Wouldn't be surprised to see more US boots on the ground. IS need to be eradicated, and quickly. Still don't understand why the US took action (air strikes) in Kurdistan/Iraq and not Syria.

Iraq cabinet will be formed shortly. Let's see how the KRG reacts.

[Bkungbank]

Nobody should be killed by his or her religion,colour and sex orientation different from others !

[Seastallion]

Wouldn't be surprised to see more US boots on the ground. IS need to be eradicated, and quickly. Still don't understand why the US took action (air strikes) in Kurdistan/Iraq and not Syria.

Iraq cabinet will be formed shortly. Let's see how the KRG reacts.

Because Syria is different. In theory, the UN (or US) should have sided with the rebels against Assad (as they did against Gaddhafi). But since the rebels were Al Qaeda associated, the US wouldn't have a bar of it.

Can't say I blame them, but there are/were a lot of civilians hurt/killed by Assad. The rebels were actually fighting the good fight.

[chiang mai]

Nobody should be killed by his or her religion,colour and sex orientation different from others !

Tell that to James Foley's family.

Edited August 22, 2014 by chiang mai

[mikehock]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

technically yes, it would be better for the UN to take the drivers seat. However, the UN has repeatedly shown it's very slow to act, and when it does act, it's rarely dynamically. It's like sending a dog catcher to deal with a runaway elephant bull in must. Plus, China and Russia nearly always oppose initiatives by US, France and UK. At the least, they would water down any initiative (under threat of veto) with such provisions as: "Let's ask IS to be more humanitarian" - which translates to 'nothing gets done.'

Imagine if General Patton, when moving his tank corps toward Berlin in WWII was required to get prior UN approval each time he planned to confront the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be among the IS troops being assigned to re-man the trenches around that dam.

I'm not arguing that the USA should wait for the UN to take action. Thank goodness they are taking action. ...I'm asking why the UN has done Nothing ...no debate...no condemnation from Ban ki moon and why have Nato and the European nations also done nothing so far...

[chooka]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

Maybe you haven't noticed or have been wearing American blinkers but Australia has been standing toe to toe with the U.S in the war on terror. Many Australian have given their lives in this war and at the moment RAAF personel and planes are currently supporting the U.S in Irak.

[NeverSure]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

technically yes, it would be better for the UN to take the drivers seat. However, the UN has repeatedly shown it's very slow to act, and when it does act, it's rarely dynamically. It's like sending a dog catcher to deal with a runaway elephant bull in must. Plus, China and Russia nearly always oppose initiatives by US, France and UK. At the least, they would water down any initiative (under threat of veto) with such provisions as: "Let's ask IS to be more humanitarian" - which translates to 'nothing gets done.'

Imagine if General Patton, when moving his tank corps toward Berlin in WWII was required to get prior UN approval each time he planned to confront the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be among the IS troops being assigned to re-man the trenches around that dam.

I'm not arguing that the USA should wait for the UN to take action. Thank goodness they are taking action. ...I'm asking why the UN has done Nothing ...no debate...no condemnation from Ban ki moon and why have Nato and the European nations also done nothing so far...

There are 5 permanent member nations of the UN Security Council and any one of them has unilateral veto power. Two of them are China and Russia so there's never going to be the needed unanimous vote. (The others are the UK, France, and the US.)

The US has always refused to sign any of the major UN declarations or treaties for reasons we are seeing.

NATO has gotten weaker and weaker due to a lot of factors such as Europe's reliance on Russia's oil and gas, and (what I think is) an awkward unification of a diverse group of European countries. Maybe I'm wrong about that.

But Obama felt he needed to act quickly as IS was killing and running to ground a lot of Iraqi people, and he didn't wait for anyone's approval. I'm no Obama fan, and I don't like all of these non-stop wars, but I think this is necessary and I wish they'd get a couple more Nimitz class carrier groups in there and hit hard, fast, and continuously.

[Seastallion]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

Maybe you haven't noticed or have been wearing American blinkers but Australia has been standing toe to toe with the U.S in the war on terror. Many Australian have given their lives in this war and at the moment RAAF personel and planes are currently supporting the U.S in Irak.

Call me nitpicky, but toe to toe means adversaries....Shoulder to shoulder is what you mean. People might get the wrong impression.

[Seastallion]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

technically yes, it would be better for the UN to take the drivers seat. However, the UN has repeatedly shown it's very slow to act, and when it does act, it's rarely dynamically. It's like sending a dog catcher to deal with a runaway elephant bull in must. Plus, China and Russia nearly always oppose initiatives by US, France and UK. At the least, they would water down any initiative (under threat of veto) with such provisions as: "Let's ask IS to be more humanitarian" - which translates to 'nothing gets done.'

Imagine if General Patton, when moving his tank corps toward Berlin in WWII was required to get prior UN approval each time he planned to confront the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be among the IS troops being assigned to re-man the trenches around that dam.

I'm not arguing that the USA should wait for the UN to take action. Thank goodness they are taking action. ...I'm asking why the UN has done Nothing ...no debate...no condemnation from Ban ki moon and why have Nato and the European nations also done nothing so far...

Probably because, despite it's name, IS is not a state or a faction of a state. To whom do they address their displeasure?

[lostman]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

[rethaier]

Undoubtedly, ISIL is a world problem .Why is the US that us taking action here?

Shouldn't this be a decision of the United Nations.

When will other nations start to take responsibility for keeping the world a safer place for us all?

technically yes, it would be better for the UN to take the drivers seat. However, the UN has repeatedly shown it's very slow to act, and when it does act, it's rarely dynamically. It's like sending a dog catcher to deal with a runaway elephant bull in must. Plus, China and Russia nearly always oppose initiatives by US, France and UK. At the least, they would water down any initiative (under threat of veto) with such provisions as: "Let's ask IS to be more humanitarian" - which translates to 'nothing gets done.'

Imagine if General Patton, when moving his tank corps toward Berlin in WWII was required to get prior UN approval each time he planned to confront the enemy.

I wouldn't want to be among the IS troops being assigned to re-man the trenches around that dam.

The UN is just like a committee. Committees never accomplish anything because they can never agree. The UN should be put out to pasture and the world should stop wasting money on it.

[reptile91602]

Who ever listens to the UN. They are a near pointless group , unfortunately. It is better to ignore them.

[mikehock]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

Edited August 22, 2014 by mikehock

[chiang mai]

A squadron of B-2's emptying their lethal cargo over ISIS positions will adress a lot of displeasure alright.

I am not optimistic that America will keep up the pressure though.

Carpet bombing went out of fashion in the the early 1970's.

[rethaier]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

You are referring to individual nations not the EU. The EU government in Brussels does not have an army of its own which I believe is what the OP meant.

[khunken]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

Actually lostman is technically correct. Individual countries have armed forces as you say, but the EU does not have a military wing. This has been a long lasting argument between the US and the EU.

As the ISIS covers mostly Iraq and a part of Syria, it is up to one of those countries to request a UN resolution to authorise force against the ISIS mob. In reality the new Iraqi PM and his government can do just that but I'm not sure that they would want another western military invasion of their country. Kurdish input would be of benefit here.

It's fairly certain that Russia & China would agree with some sort of forceful reply to ISIS, as long as it's not the lying NATO who burned their bridges in Libya.

[Seastallion]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

Actually lostman is technically correct. Individual countries have armed forces as you say, but the EU does not have a military wing. This has been a long lasting argument between the US and the EU.

As the ISIS covers mostly Iraq and a part of Syria, it is up to one of those countries to request a UN resolution to authorise force against the ISIS mob. In reality the new Iraqi PM and his government can do just that but I'm not sure that they would want another western military invasion of their country. Kurdish input would be of benefit here.

It's fairly certain that Russia & China would agree with some sort of forceful reply to ISIS, as long as it's not the lying NATO who burned their bridges in Libya.

You're mainly right, but Russia does not want Assad removed and will veto any action that might spill over into Syria.

[rethaier]

Re the insane conspiracy theory. That is most probably what it is but I would not doubt that both Israel and The US could and would cook up a plan like this so it is not completely out of the realm of reality.

[lostman]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The EU has no power over those armies. Those armies are under full sovereign control of their relative countries.

The EU (European union) is nothing to do with military, and my response was clearly aimed at that particular comment that was calling out the EU.

But you don't seem to know the difference between singular European countries, and the EU parliament located in Brussels.

[lostman]

Anyway.

With the speed that this ISIS is growing and recruiting from many countries globally with one thing in mind. global control under Islam, that will be enough to gather almost all the world together in a mighty coalition... It may or may not be organized by the UN, but nevertheless, a coalition will almost certainly be formed. I can see possibly the UN will end up rubber stamping it.

[Siripin]

Re the insane conspiracy theory. That is most probably what it is but I would not doubt that both Israel and The US could and would cook up a plan like this so it is not completely out of the realm of reality.

ISIS consists of extremely poor people. Give them 100 $ / day and they will fight against whom their master says. And when their master says I want some beheadings then they chop off some heads. Show some beheadings on the news and the sheeple are ready for an all out war. That's how it works.

The Military Industrial Complex has to be fed everyday and if there are no opponents some are created.

[khunken]

Re the insane conspiracy theory. That is most probably what it is but I would not doubt that both Israel and The US could and would cook up a plan like this so it is not completely out of the realm of reality.

ISIS consists of extremely poor people. Give them 100 $ / day and they will fight against whom their master says. And when their master says I want some beheadings then they chop off some heads. Show some beheadings on the news and the sheeple are ready for an all out war. That's how it works.

The Military Industrial Complex has to be fed everyday and if there are no opponents some are created.

Actually I doubt very much that the ISIS militia consist of very poor people. They are fanatics, some even from western countries, who have been brainwashed by fanatical preachers.

They are certainly receiving money and arms from somewhere and IMO they most likely sources are Saudi and Qatar, not necessarily from the rulers.

[boomerangutang]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

The Chinese probably dislike IS, but they dislike agreeing with the US even more. Every initiative, military or in UN security council on something like this, is taken by the US and to a lesser extent, the UK and France. China, and to a lesser degree Russia are world class foot-draggers.

Plus, Beijing is always looking to the biz angle, particularly how it relates to raw materials. If IS can maintain (or expand) its territorial holdings, there will be biz opportunities for Chinese companies.

[sean in udon]

Re the insane conspiracy theory. That is most probably what it is but I would not doubt that both Israel and The US could and would cook up a plan like this so it is not completely out of the realm of reality.

ISIS consists of extremely poor people. Give them 100 $ / day and they will fight against whom their master says. And when their master says I want some beheadings then they chop off some heads. Show some beheadings on the news and the sheeple are ready for an all out war. That's how it works.

The Military Industrial Complex has to be fed everyday and if there are no opponents some are created.

Actually I doubt very much that the ISIS militia consist of very poor people. They are fanatics, some even from western countries, who have been brainwashed by fanatical preachers.

They are certainly receiving money and arms from somewhere and IMO they most likely sources are Saudi and Qatar, not necessarily from the rulers.

Very well paid mercenaries (my interpretation of the $100/day comment) will fight well and happily perform beheadings. Some will love their 'work'.

But the fanatics (and I agree with khunken, ISIS will be predominantly made up of brainwashed fanatics) will live, breath and die for their faith. They will happily abuse and kill infidels because they are taught, and probably believe, that infidels are inferior to them - in fact worthless.

Get a bunch of fanatics together (or in this case, an army of fanatics) and you have a very powerful and dangerous force.

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Mudcrab]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a coa

Agree with what you say. Except it wasn't the Taliban back in the 80's it was the Mujahadeen (excuse the spelling) in the 70's fighting the Russians (with the US backing) who were different group entirely.

[Mudcrab]

In simple terms the west will never win in this conflict. While they stick to the antiquated "rules of war" when the opposition do what they like - then the position is hopeless. The US, and allies, should have learned this 40 years ago.

A journalist was beheaded on social media. What an outrage say the politicians - but then turn to jelly. Many are afraid to say the M word for fear of upsetting the electorate.

In Afghanistan the enemy would fire at the allies and then stand on rooftops with their guns and women and kids taunting them, knowing the allies wouldn't fire back. Sorry - shoot the damn lot.

They understand nothing else.

The atomic bomb has only been used twice in anger. Personally I think it is getting close to the point it could be used again. The technology for small devastation has been around for decades. The question is who wants to condemn many innocents for the greater good.

It seems ISIS or whatever they call them selves this week will for their cause. Why can't we and stop this cancer in its tracks?

[mikehock]

I could respond to many wrong comments on here, but I will keep it in a single nutshell.

To the poster who said 'why didn't the USA back the rebels in Syria against Assad.... The did, they funded, trained and armed them. They also created Al Qaeda and the Taliban back in the 80s to fight the Russians for them.

To the poster/s who think Russia and China may veto UN action, they are probably wrong, as this ISIS problem is being hugely condemned not just by the western powers, but also the entire world and just about EVERY moderate muslim... This IS has NO backing from any muslims other than Sunni, so harsh action would certainly be endorsed by the whole world including the UN Security Council.... mainly because this action is not directed at a nation... It is directed at a massive terrorist army network.

The whole world sees them as possibly the biggest threat to world peace and order since WW2.

To the poster who asked why is the EU not doing anything.... The EU is more of an economic zone, it has no armed forces and you can't really impose sanctions and trade bans on a terrorist movement like you can a country.

To the poster who claims that the EU has no armed forces, may I point out that the United Kingdom, France and Germany have the 5th ,6th and 7th most powerful militaries in the world (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

The UK defense budget was $54 billion for 2013.France's was $43 billion and German's $45 billion.Of course this is smaller than the USA which has a defense budget of over $600 billion , but not insignificant to the 2nd most powerful military nation Russia with an estimated defense budget of $76 billion. (ref Business Insider /Military & Defense. April 23.2014)

Actually lostman is technically correct. Individual countries have armed forces as you say, but the EU does not have a military wing. This has been a long lasting argument between the US and the EU.

As the ISIS covers mostly Iraq and a part of Syria, it is up to one of those countries to request a UN resolution to authorise force against the ISIS mob. In reality the new Iraqi PM and his government can do just that but I'm not sure that they would want another western military invasion of their country. Kurdish input would be of benefit here.

It's fairly certain that Russia & China would agree with some sort of forceful reply to ISIS, as long as it's not the lying NATO who burned their bridges in Libya.

I guess the individual countries of Europe couldn't agree to take action...font know why??