New US airstrikes in Iraq despite jihadists' threat

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Bwanatickey]

Tony Blairs answer to any unrest in the Middle East is to bomb, he wanted bombers into Syria one year ago.

Well sometimes the history of Henri Kissingers carpet bombing in Asia needs to be re studied.

Does it work, or can it make things a lot worse.

[Publicus]

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.

It is an exercise in advanced mythology to repeat the cliché the United States "created" al Qaeda and also the Taliban in Afghanistan to combat the Soviet invasion of the early 1980s.

The people who later formed al Qaeda straggled in to Afghanistan to fight the godless communists, to include the early Taliban. They came in twos and threes and in small groups. It was after the Soviets withdrew that these groups began to metastasize into radical Islamic groups of reactionary compulsions and a fierce militancy against the West in general and the United States in particular.

Yet this shallow and meandering myth continues that the U.S. created al Qaeda and/or the Taliban.

Bush and his Dick Cheney with their neocons are central to the creating of the ISIS however.

Prez Obama, Hegel, U.S. military commanders are committed to air power to defeat this gang of deeply ancient barbarians over a long and sustained term because they know they can do it this way. With no boots on the ground, as in army divisions or the like, the Americans people just won't have this on their radar. And good for both because this will work out satisfactorily in the longer term.

The UN, the EU et al don't get involved in this stuff because they long ago appointed the U.S.A. their cop to do the global work that is down, dirty, dangerous. For us it just comes with the territory.

[Jaybee2]

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...

Simple. Because they have the US to do it for them.

[Jaybee2]

Tony Blairs answer to any unrest in the Middle East is to bomb, he wanted bombers into Syria one year ago.

Well sometimes the history of Henri Kissingers carpet bombing in Asia needs to be re studied.

Does it work, or can it make things a lot worse.

The fact is that any reasonably adequate army, backed by dominant air support, can defeat even a superior force. This was proven when Allied troops swept across France and Germany in WWII, and that was a case where the Allied air force was technologically inferior to the Luftwaffe jets by a large margin, yet sheer numbers of aircraft prevailed. Proven again in Afghanistan when a small Northern Alliance army, on the verge of extinction, suddenly turned the tables, and routed the Taliban, with the aid of US air support. Another example is how easily Saddam's highly touted army was easily dispatched. Twice.

Even in Iraq, the Pershmerga, up against a better-armed ISIS force, has made gains, with US air power behind them (or more accurately above them).

The problem in Iraq is that it doesn't have a fighting force to go up against ISIS. Not yet, at least. Their $100 a day soldiers are not fighters, more like well-paid security guards. When the bullets, shells, and grenades start flying, they will forgo the $100, if need be, as by their calculations, their lives are worth more to them than that.

A real army has soldiers who are motivated by more than their paycheck. They have to be willing to fight, they have to be willing to risk death to achieve their goal, whatever tha may be. Be it fear, patriotism, religious fervor, or patriotism, they must have genuine motivation. So far, the Iraqi army has not shown that it has what it takes to wage war, not even with dominant air support.

[boomerangutang]

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.

An atom bomb is too big and too messy for the job. Plus, it would be a great rallying cry for the Muslim fanatics. Better than 10,000 martyrs. I think it says in the Q'ran: "and verily, those who die from the infidel's giant sword of atomic devastation, shall enter the Garden of Heavenly Delights and be serviced by ten times ten doe-eyed virgins."

[Trouble]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

The USA made a mistake in siding with the rebels against Gaddhafi and we are witness to the mess Libya is in today. Siding with the rebels in Syria will have the same disastrous effect. I am sorry to say that sometimes a good old dictator keeps things under control. We may not like them but they do have a way of keeping a boot on the necks of the people. Saddam Hussein is another example and we can see the mess in Iraq today. These islamic militants would never have had a chance under dictator's had not the US stepped in and tried to give "democracy" to people of a religious order that can't comprehend the meaning of tolerance and all the other things that are taken for granted in a western democracy.

[coma]

I think Obama is finally trying to earn that peace prize he was given for nothing.

[boomerangutang]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

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.

The USA made a mistake in siding with the rebels against Gaddhafi and we are witness to the mess Libya is in today. Siding with the rebels in Syria will have the same disastrous effect. I am sorry to say that sometimes a good old dictator keeps things under control. We may not like them but they do have a way of keeping a boot on the necks of the people. Saddam Hussein is another example and we can see the mess in Iraq today. These islamic militants would never have had a chance under dictator's had not the US stepped in and tried to give "democracy" to people of a religious order that can't comprehend the meaning of tolerance and all the other things that are taken for granted in a western democracy.

I think you're right. As much as we dislike mean dictators like Saddam Hussein, it's an symptom of why things are so troubled in the Middle East: Often, the choices are between several very bad scenarios and a horrible one. Since IS is horrible, then something very bad like Hussein's reign of terror is preferable.