(08-13-2014 09:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Sunnis hate Shi'ites and vice versa.
Muslims hate non-Muslims (Christians, Jews), although they coexisted for over a millennium before the West got involved.
Semites (Arabs, Jews) hate non-Semites (Iranians, who are Aryan, Turks, and mixed races like Kurds and Palestinians).
Turks hate Kurds.
Arabs fear Iran's imperial ambitions.
Nobody wants to get nuked, so they all use surrogate organizations (Hamas, Hezbollah) to confront Israel rather than doing so directly.

My brother and I will fight my cousin, my cousin and I will fight the world.

In fairness, that's so simplistic as to be incorrect.

1) Depends on the ethnic group involved. It then depends on the nationality involved. Cross border groups of the same ethnic division have found themselves on opposite sides of the Syrian conflict as just one example.
2) I'll call that fair enough.
3) Same
4) Which group of Turks hates which group of Kurds? There are 3 large groups of Turks and there are 6 large groups of Kurds, not mentioning the 30 smaller groups. The Turks have supported two of these groups and done everything to harm the others. 99.9% of Americans think the Kurds are one group. The Peshmerga isn't even one group. They run along political party lines.

To be fair, it isn't overly complicated once you get down who all is involved. The problem with people in the West is they don't think around these tribal and ethnic lines like this. In the West we separate ourselves by nationality and perhaps by region. There, you are separated by religion, nationality, ethnic group, historical ethnic group, plus the current political climate. There are simply a lot more layers to looking at it.

(08-12-2014 08:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The best course of action is to leave them alone. Anything the US does will simply swell their ranks, especially American brutality. They will burn out in time without our intervention.

The whole reason we have ISIS today is because of American ignorance so let's not double down on it.

I agree with this... But if we're going to go in, we might as well go hard or just stay at home.

I'm always in agreement with anybody that says we shouldn't do anything half-assed.

That said, our presence bolsters ISIS, where else can angry disaffected young Muslims with a religious chip on their shoulder sign up to kill Americans?

They have a message that works and the more we involve ourselves the more powerful that message. Like I said, in time their natural enemies will gain the upper hand and end their murderous spree. We can only delay that end.

The problem HOD is that even if we left them alone, eventually they'll start to mess with the US and/or its interests. At that point I don't care about the nuanced ethnic and political realities that make the region a hotbed of violence. I just need them not to export their terror globally and if overwhelming military force is what allows that to occur, then so be it.

(08-13-2014 10:16 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:31 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 08:27 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The best course of action is to leave them alone. Anything the US does will simply swell their ranks, especially American brutality. They will burn out in time without our intervention.

The whole reason we have ISIS today is because of American ignorance so let's not double down on it.

I agree with this... But if we're going to go in, we might as well go hard or just stay at home.

I'm always in agreement with anybody that says we shouldn't do anything half-assed.

That said, our presence bolsters ISIS, where else can angry disaffected young Muslims with a religious chip on their shoulder sign up to kill Americans?

They have a message that works and the more we involve ourselves the more powerful that message. Like I said, in time their natural enemies will gain the upper hand and end their murderous spree. We can only delay that end.

The problem HOD is that even if we left them alone, eventually they'll start to mess with the US and/or its interests. At that point I don't care about the nuanced ethnic and political realities that make the region a hotbed of violence. I just need them not to export their terror globally and if overwhelming military force is what allows that to occur, then so be it.

If we attack them and put men on the ground it is a certainty that they will export terror and attack America around the world. Now, they are isolated and incapable of that. Besides, they are popular because they claim to be the folks that can confront America. Our involvement is their recruiting tool.

If you leave them alone you have the chance that their natural enemies in the region will overwhelm them and end the threat. To me, that's the clear winner here. Deny them their recruiting tactics and allow their enemies to take them apart.

(08-13-2014 10:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  In fairness, that's so simplistic as to be incorrect.
1) Depends on the ethnic group involved. It then depends on the nationality involved. Cross border groups of the same ethnic division have found themselves on opposite sides of the Syrian conflict as just one example.
2) I'll call that fair enough.
3) Same
4) Which group of Turks hates which group of Kurds? There are 3 large groups of Turks and there are 6 large groups of Kurds, not mentioning the 30 smaller groups. The Turks have supported two of these groups and done everything to harm the others. 99.9% of Americans think the Kurds are one group. The Peshmerga isn't even one group. They run along political party lines.
To be fair, it isn't overly complicated once you get down who all is involved. The problem with people in the West is they don't think around these tribal and ethnic lines like this. In the West we separate ourselves by nationality and perhaps by region. There, you are separated by religion, nationality, ethnic group, historical ethnic group, plus the current political climate. There are simply a lot more layers to looking at it.

I was trying to simplify. If I went into all the permutations, it would take weeks just to write them out. The complications occur when you run into things like Iraq (mostly Shi'a, mostly Semitic) versus Iran (Shi'a and Aryan). Syria is a complete mess, it's where it all comes together.

Suppose the original post-WWI plan had been retained, and Kurdistan had gone to French Mandate Syria instead of Brit Mandate Mesopotamia (Iraq). I wonder how that would have made things different.

Agree with the final analysis paragraph, that was what I was trying to portray in shorthand.

The best reason to let the Kurds take care of it is that they won't worry about collateral damage. If something needs taking out, they will take it out and let the chips fall where they may. Unlike us, they're not trying to make anybody like them. They recognize that they're fighting people who hate them already and are going to go on hating them no matter what. The big problems would be 1) what if we back the Kurds and the Kurds lose, and 2) what if we go getting our panties in a wad because the Kurds aren't fighting it the way we would? If we don't get carried away with 2), I don't think 1) happens.

(08-13-2014 10:19 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If we attack them and put men on the ground it is a certainty that they will export terror and attack America around the world. Now, they are isolated and incapable of that. Besides, they are popular because they claim to be the folks that can confront America. Our involvement is their recruiting tool.

If you leave them alone you have the chance that their natural enemies in the region will overwhelm them and end the threat. To me, that's the clear winner here. Deny them their recruiting tactics and allow their enemies to take them apart.

I'd have no problem waiting to see if ISIS petered itself out. My issue is with your particular stance (and not you personally) is that if/when ISIS does gain the ability to project power and attacks Israel or the US, the narrative will still be that the US somehow deserved it and that we should not retaliate.

(08-13-2014 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The best reason to let the Kurds take care of it is that they won't worry about collateral damage. If something needs taking out, they will take it out and let the chips fall where they may. Unlike us, they're not trying to make anybody like them. They recognize that they're fighting people who hate them already and are going to go on hating them no matter what. The big problems would be 1) what if we back the Kurds and the Kurds lose, and 2) what if we go getting our panties in a wad because the Kurds aren't fighting it the way we would? If we don't get carried away with 2), I don't think 1) happens.

That's the issue that concerns me as much as anything with this mess. If we begin to arm them, you know damn well some DeeCee assshat is going to demand that we dictate their own ROE, and terms and etc. Then we've got an even worse, lose lose lose situation going on.

They are apparently begging us to send them the supplies, and it appears that at least some stuff is beginning to arrive. If we're going to let them have the stuff to fight their own war, then we gotta let them fight their own war. Air support perhaps, but no dictating the way they engage these barbarians.

(08-13-2014 10:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The best reason to let the Kurds take care of it is that they won't worry about collateral damage. If something needs taking out, they will take it out and let the chips fall where they may. Unlike us, they're not trying to make anybody like them. They recognize that they're fighting people who hate them already and are going to go on hating them no matter what. The big problems would be 1) what if we back the Kurds and the Kurds lose, and 2) what if we go getting our panties in a wad because the Kurds aren't fighting it the way we would? If we don't get carried away with 2), I don't think 1) happens.

I would love to arm the Kurds and providing intelligence and air power. They can handle it very well. HOWEVER, there is a certain NATO ally who would be vehemently opposed to that. They know those weapons will be used on them once the Kurds deal with ISIS. I don't have a lot of love for Turkey after they hosed us before invaded Iraq. However, this situation would require leadership and decision making, 2 things this President has shown to be woefully inept at. So he will do next to nothing and blame circumstance on any negative outcome.

(08-12-2014 09:42 PM)maximus Wrote:  It's laughable to think these barbarians are doing what they are doing because of the US or because of us invading Iraq.

These people are barbarians. They are beheading children for Christ sake. They are killing and raping women for fun.

These barbarians were and will do this as long as they are allowed.

You have a 7 yo holding up a severed head. That's not the fault of the US invading Iraq. That's a backward 3rd century religion causing that grotesque behavior.

A regional backhand with our bombs will curtail this. It won't be quick.

I suppose with Hussein still there (hardly optimal either) they wouldn't have been able to establish the control they have, but that's because Hussein was totally brutal. But I agree, this is just something we have to deal with now. These people are complete barbarians and hopefully the fact that they're trying to hold territory rather than hiding in shadows will make it easier for the Kurds (or whomever) to hit them hard. Hopefully some neighboring countries will be able to help since the vast majority do not subscribe to ISIS' view of things.

America no longer has the will to fight. Thanks Bush

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-13-2014 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  America no longer has the will to fight. Thanks Bush

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Leave it to you to say this when there was a great discussion going on.

I have to disagree with arming the Kurds at this point, and I am a Kurdish sympathizer. The Peshmerga is a split organization. It is split among political lines. Arming the Kurds means arming one or the other side ultimately, most likely Barzani's men at the expense of Talibani's men.

You are setting them up for a civil war, like the one that raged throughout the 80s and 90s.

Besides, the Kurds don't trust America one bit, which you can't blame them for since we have screwed them over so many times.

(08-12-2014 07:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  I am not sure if this is true, but I heard somewhere that to date the most successful group at fighting ISIS and protecting civilians has been a kurdish militant group that the US classifies as a terrorist organization because they are turkish rebels.

kinda shows just how f***ed up the situation is.

Is that the PKK?

(08-13-2014 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to disagree with arming the Kurds at this point, and I am a Kurdish sympathizer. The Peshmerga is a split organization. It is split among political lines. Arming the Kurds means arming one or the other side ultimately, most likely Barzani's men at the expense of Talibani's men.

You are setting them up for a civil war, like the one that raged throughout the 80s and 90s.

Besides, the Kurds don't trust America one bit, which you can't blame them for since we have screwed them over so many times.

I would say, they don't have to trust us. And we did institute a no-fly-zone over their area when Hussein was there, to help them. Both sides know the other is doing what they feel is in their own best interest.

(08-13-2014 11:12 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-13-2014 09:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I have to disagree with arming the Kurds at this point, and I am a Kurdish sympathizer. The Peshmerga is a split organization. It is split among political lines. Arming the Kurds means arming one or the other side ultimately, most likely Barzani's men at the expense of Talibani's men.

You are setting them up for a civil war, like the one that raged throughout the 80s and 90s.

Besides, the Kurds don't trust America one bit, which you can't blame them for since we have screwed them over so many times.

I would say, they don't have to trust us. And we did institute a no-fly-zone over their area when Hussein was there, to help them. Both sides know the other is doing what they feel is in their own best interest.

I'm not sure if the Kurds are even capable of stopping ISIS. Regardless there's no need to arm them, they can just take whatever the US left and confiscate whatever the Iraqi gov't isn't using.

Whose bright idea was it for us to leave all that stuff behind?

(08-13-2014 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  America no longer has the will to fight. Thanks Bush

America hasn't had the will to fight since WWII. Truman realized it and shut things down in Korea. GHWB may have realized it when he shut things down in Desert Storm. Otherwise, we have fought a succession of wars designed for people who don't want to fight. As far as useful or happy results, we are currently 0 for the bunch.

Unfortunately the only solution is to wipe out the whole culture and I'm not suggesting we do that.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(08-14-2014 06:24 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Whose bright idea was it for us to leave all that stuff behind?

Well, if you don't bring it back, you of course have to 'rearm' the military at a pretty penny. And of course the nice left behind 4G tech makes for a nice little weapons cache for some future enemy combatant.

(08-13-2014 08:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  America no longer has the will to fight. Thanks Bush

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

If America has lost the will to fight, it can be better traced to Lyndon Johnson, who manipulated the US into the Vietnam quagmire. But that was before you were born, so I understand your lack of knowledge of the period.

Although 911 provided a brief resurgence of American will, it was dampened with the drawn out Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts. Nonetheless, the early successes in Iraq, including finding Saddam in a rat hole, and the surrender of Qadaffi's WMD programs, resulted in high poll ratings for Bush.