Iraq.

[Pickles2]

This is NOT to be construed as a "Political" thread.
Anyway, what is happening in Iraq is not good.
If ya're in favour of the "extremists", and AL Queada (have I spelt it right), your opinion is as good as mine, I mightn't agree, but it's just our opinions, which is what I'd like this thread to be all about.
Anyway, IMHO, if the U.S. decides to interevene, & stop the, for want of a better word "extremists", who have qute plainly stated that it is their aim to create an Islamic State, across not only Iraq, but Jordan, Syria, Palestine, AND ISRAEL, AND, Northern Africa?. Turkey has also been mentioned.
I think that extreme force has to be applied against what is happening in Iraq. BUT this is only, IMHO.
What do you guys think?
Pickles.

[ramblingboy42]

who do you think should apply the extreme force?

there is a way to stop this extreme Islam action.

considering what there ideals currently are I have no objection to genocide.

it could be covertly done.

[Pickles2]

Mate, I do not know,...I do not know.
I only know, that (IMHO), it has to be stopped.
Pickles.

[snowbound]

I really don't care as long as they keep it in Iraq and they don't send the refugees here where they will undoubtedly bring their problems with them!:wasntme:

[incisor]

personally i think it is high time islamic nations put themselves forward to put an end to the extremists seeing most say they don't support it, yet rarely seem to do a lot about it...

the saudi regime need to step up bigtime imho....

[Disco Muppet]

personally i think it is high time islamic nations put themselves forward to put an end to the extremists seeing most say they don't support it, yet rarely seem to do a lot about it...

the saudi regime need to step up bigtime imho....

^ This.
Any change to modern Islamic nations needs to come from within those nations though, no point us admonishing them like naughty school children, I mean that worked sooooooo well previously didn't it?
We don't need ANOTHER middle eastern theatre of war. We need to let them sort their own **** out, without going in guns blazing.
It doesn't work, ask the Russians ;)

[incisor]

i dont much give a toss how they come to the conclusion...

[korg20000bc]

This is NOT to be construed as a "Political" thread.
Anyway, what is happening in Iraq is not good.
If ya're in favour of the "extremists", and AL Queada (have I spelt it right), your opinion is as good as mine, I mightn't agree, but it's just our opinions, which is what I'd like this thread to be all about.
Anyway, IMHO, if the U.S. decides to interevene, & stop the, for want of a better word "extremists", who have qute plainly stated that it is their aim to create an Islamic State, across not only Iraq, but Jordan, Syria, Palestine, AND ISRAEL, AND, Northern Africa?. Turkey has also been mentioned.
I think that extreme force has to be applied against what is happening in Iraq. BUT this is only, IMHO.
What do you guys think?
Pickles.
I don't think that the US has the might or moral high ground to "stop" what is happenning any more.
Hard line Islamism want conflict to bring about the coming of Imaam Mahdi:
Imaam Mahdi and the Signs that will precede him. (http://www.inter-islam.org/faith/mahdi1.htm)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi

[snowbound]

i dont much give a toss how they come to the conclusion...

Ditto mate.

[mikehzz]

who do you think should apply the extreme force?

there is a way to stop this extreme Islam action.

considering what there ideals currently are I have no objection to genocide.

it could be covertly done.

You have no objection to genocide? Either do they...hey, do you realise you are sharing one of their ideals?

It could be covertly done? You mean like terrorists do it? We are aspiring to be like terrorists? Awesome! Train some of our young fellas to do it, they won't be affected in the slightest.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing for over a thousand years and expect a different result. That makes both sides insane in my book. Good luck with your way of stopping extreme Islam action. And remember, God is on both sides and he has cranked the "mysterious ways" dial up to the max.

[manic]

Keep out of it... constant meddling, killing, arming, puppeteering. Who cares if there are Islamic countries in the middle east? Is it fear of Islam or fear of a governing body that might choose to nationalise its assets? Petroleum wars.

Sent from my PadFone 2 using AULRO mobile app

[THE BOOGER]

Keep out of it... constant meddling, killing, arming, puppeteering. Who cares if there are Islamic countries in the middle east? Is it fear of Islam or fear of a governing body that might choose to nationalise its assets? Petroleum wars.

Sent from my PadFone 2 using AULRO mobile app

Ask the same question 6 months after the mid east oil stops flowing and you can no longer drive private vehicles do you remember the oil embargo during the 70,s people fighting in servo drive ways in other countries there were shootings over fuel :( The reality is oil wars may not be the realm of Mad Max:(

OPEC Oil Embargo, 40 Years Later: Has Anything Changed? (http://www.livescience.com/44282-opec-oil-embargo-40-years-later.html)

As the article says we stopped looking seriously at energy independence after it was over so are we better off now would our society and economy survive 6 to 12 months with no mid east oil?



If we do nothing during the crisis oil prices tripled in the first month what if they did that again factories will shut, you think its bad holden closing if you cant drive a car why buy any new ones at all. Everybody w9ill be saying the govt should have done "some thing":(

So do we try and do" some thing '' now or wait 12 months or so;)

Edit I don't think it has any thing to do with Islam but the type of people who are taking over they want the world to regress 6 or 7 hundred years

[2stroke]

Reminds me what Colin Powell said when he took a stance against the second Iraq war. "Remember if you break it you own it". Am I the only one who thinks everyone would have been better off if Saddam was still there?

[amtravic1]

Unfortunately, this is a very complex situation. It can't be easily explained with a few lines in a forum.
It looks like the Iranians, who are hard line islamists are now backing the American installed Iraq government and are sending in troops to Iraq. Who knows what their motives are.
The world would appear to need the oil coming out of the middle east so the west can't allow the hardliners to take over and dictate how much oil will be supplied and at what cost.

Personally, I dont trust any Muslim. I know there are many normal ones out there who just want to live their lives as normally as possible but how do weed out the normal ones from the ones who can be radicalised. Having said that I don't trust any other highly religious person either.

http://www.examiner.com/article/iranian-troops-cross-border-join-iraqis-islamic-civil-war

[gofish]

I found this interesting : Muslims Are Taking Over The World at an ALARMING Rate - MUSLIM IMMIGRATION - YouTube (http://youtu.be/_kKkY5EpVpY)
Please note, I am not anti ANY religion. Just found it quite amazing.

[mikehzz]

People used to worry about the "threat" of communism. We were made to believe it was an evil cancer spreading around the world. The US were intent on stopping it in Vietnam....many people died. Vietnam is communist now and we go there on holidays. China is communist and we can't buy enough of whatever they make. The Saudis are pretty hard line Islamic...business is business. If countries have something to sell, they'll sell it because they have to buy what they don't have. Surely we have learned that you cannot dictate to other groups of people, how they have to run their own countries? If all the poor, uneducated people in the world want to be Islamic hard liners, then that's what they will be, with or without the body bags.

[Ausfree]

Reminds me what Colin Powell said when he took a stance against the second Iraq war. "Remember if you break it you own it". Am I the only one who thinks everyone would have been better off if Saddam was still there?

Yep, he was a tyrant, but he kept all sides in line in Iraq.

[ramblingboy42]

god????

do you mean dog?

lets keep it non religious too.please.

[manic]

Ask the same question 6 months after the mid east oil stops flowing and you can no longer drive private vehicles do you remember the oil embargo during the 70,s people fighting in servo drive ways in other countries there were shootings over fuel :( The reality is oil wars may not be the realm of Mad Max:(

OPEC Oil Embargo, 40 Years Later: Has Anything Changed? (http://www.livescience.com/44282-opec-oil-embargo-40-years-later.html)

As the article says we stopped looking seriously at energy independence after it was over so are we better off now would our society and economy survive 6 to 12 months with no mid east oil?



If we do nothing during the crisis oil prices tripled in the first month what if they did that again factories will shut, you think its bad holden closing if you cant drive a car why buy any new ones at all. Everybody w9ill be saying the govt should have done "some thing":(

So do we try and do" some thing '' now or wait 12 months or so;)

Edit I don't think it has any thing to do with Islam but the type of people who are taking over they want the world to regress 6 or 7 hundred years

Suppose its a tough one ey. Suffer economic hardship or allow our governments to send in the war machine to ruin other countries for the sake of 'our economy'.

Morally shouldn't we be prepared to suffer a recession rather than finance wars that ruin millions of lives in the middle east?

High fuel prices would be tough but look at the positives: more electric cars on the road, bicycles, walks to the local grocers, less demand for fuel at the pumps, a surge in biofuel research and production for planes, trucks and other important long range vehicles like.. landrovers :D!

And then you have to ask yourself, if middle eastern countries did gain control of their oil, would they not want to export it to the world? What if they brought prices down? What are sanctions good for? Without our use of military for suppression and control of their resources would these countries be so militant and extreme?

[bob10]

It's a crazy world. Who would have thought The USA & Iran may be allies in a war again ISIS.[ the Islamic State of Iraq & Levant] . Strange bed fellows. Sunnis Vs Shi'ites , the time may indeed come, when the West has Muslims for allies, in the conflict that seems inevitable. It's a mad, mad world. Bob

[korg20000bc]

god????

do you mean dog?

lets keep it non religious too.please.

When discussing the Middle East religion is unavoidable.

[bob10]

Iran's in it already, Bob


Iran just sent an elite military unit to fight in Iraq - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5804184/iran-deployed-troops-iran-isis)

[Sirocco]

The US wont go back to Iraq, they have a habit of going in, **** it up and leaving again.

Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.

As someone said earlier, it would be a different place if they left Sadddam and Gadaffi alone. yes they were dictators but they kept their religious groups and the population in-line and their countries were not poverty stricken holes like some of the dictators in Africa. They trained and developed brilliant minds, contributed to the scientific community and developed their countries.

What about all the other dictators? ow yeah, they don't care about those because there is no oil involved! We didn't go to war with Islam to fight terror, for democracy or for the people.

Leave Islam to sort itself out, defend your own country, leave others to it.

G

[bob10]

Why the Iraq Army ran. Bob


The one sentence that explains why Iraq is falling apart - Vox (http://www.vox.com/2014/6/12/5803416/isis-one-sentence-iraqi-army/in/5568955)

[THE BOOGER]

Suppose its a tough one ey. Suffer economic hardship or allow our governments to send in the war machine to ruin other countries for the sake of 'our economy'.

Morally shouldn't we be prepared to suffer a recession rather than finance wars that ruin millions of lives in the middle east?

High fuel prices would be tough but look at the positives: more electric cars on the road, bicycles, walks to the local grocers, less demand for fuel at the pumps, a surge in biofuel research and production for planes, trucks and other important long range vehicles like.. landrovers :D!

And then you have to ask yourself, if middle eastern countries did gain control of their oil, would they not want to export it to the world? What if they brought prices down? What are sanctions good for? Without our use of military for suppression and control of their resources would these countries be so militant and extreme?

Morally you are right, but when did morals enter political decision making. High fuel prices in the order of 3 or 4 times what they are now is more than tough, no corner shops any more so walking is not the answer it was 20 or 30 years ago. All for more research into fuel efficiency but that will still take years so are we willing to have some thing like 15 to 20% unemployment for years or will the people force the govt to do some thing now by the way troops on the ground is not the only solution ISIS is get supplied from some where lets target them not the troops on the ground there are other options:)

[bob10]

Very interesting interview on the Iraq financial markets, & oil price rise. Two videos, one after the other, Bob



"June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Bartle Bull, fund manager at Iraq Investment Partners, discusses the state of Iraq’s economy, governments and markets in light of Islamic militants taking over three major cities and offers his outlook for investments in the nation and the safety of Iraq’s oil fields and pipeline. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “Market Makers.”"




Iraq Crisis Not as Bad as You Think: Bartle Bull: Video - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/can-iraq-s-economy-markets-survive-violent-unrest-9NgdZ9hLRhWF72Yh7CzcfA.html)

[bob10]

Iran & the USA fighting together? curiouser & curiouser, Bob


Iraq Shiites Issue Call to Arms as U.S. Carrier Moved



By Caroline Alexander, Mariam Fam and Tony Capaccio Jun 15, 2014 3:23 AM GMT+1000



The U.S. ordered an aircraft carrier (http://topics.bloomberg.com/aircraft-carrier/) to head into the Persian Gulf (http://topics.bloomberg.com/persian-gulf/) as President Barack Obama (http://topics.bloomberg.com/barack-obama/) weighs options on how to aid Iraq’s Shiite-led government in its fight against Sunni militants threatening to re-ignite sectarian conflict in OPEC’s second-largest oil producer.
The Pentagon in dispatching today the USS George H.W. Bush, which has been in the North Arabian Sea (http://topics.bloomberg.com/arabian-sea/), said its new location “will provide the commander-in-chief additional flexibility should military options be required to protect American lives, citizens and interests in Iraq.”

The carrier, which will be accompanied by the guided-missile cruiser USS Philippine Sea and the guided-missile destroyer USS Truxtun, the Pentagon’s press secretary, Rear Admiral John Kirby, said. The ships are expected to arrive later today, he said.
The movements provide the U.S. with a floating base within short flying distance of Iraq (http://topics.bloomberg.com/iraq/), in case U.S. aircraft based at fields in Qatar (http://topics.bloomberg.com/qatar/), Kuwait (http://topics.bloomberg.com/kuwait/) and other locations aren’t allowed to fly missions for political reasons.

In Iraq, Ammar al-Hakim, head of the country’s Shiite Islamic Supreme Council, volunteered to fight the insurgents, as a spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the top Shiite religious leader, said Iraqis should combat “terror.” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called on citizens to be ready to “shoulder the burden” and join the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
Iran Help

Iran (http://topics.bloomberg.com/iran/), a Shiite ally, stands ready to help should the Iraqi government ask for assistance, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said today at a televised news conference. At the same time, a key Sunni Muslim tribal leader said his forces are helping the government battle the militants, the first indication that Maliki retains some support among the minority Sunni population.
ISIL, which has also been fighting Bashar al-Assad’s forces in Syria (http://topics.bloomberg.com/syria/)’s civil war, captured the northern Iraqi towns of Mosul and Tikrit earlier this week as the army abandoned its bases. Its advance through the country, abetted by Sunni factions of Saddam Hussein (http://topics.bloomberg.com/saddam-hussein/)’s former Baathist regime and tribal groups disillusioned with the Shiite-led government, highlights the breakdown of central authority and raises the prospect of the country disintegrating.
Symbolic Visit

In a symbolic move, Maliki yesterday traveled to Samarra, 120 kilometers (75 miles) northwest of Baghdad (http://topics.bloomberg.com/baghdad/), where Iraqi government forces were battling to repel ISIL fighters. The destruction of a Shiite mosque by Sunni insurgents in the city in 2006 sparked a sectarian war that peaked a year later.

Dozens of Iraqis were seen gathering at centers in Baghdad today to volunteer in the fight against ISIL, in footage aired by Sky News Arabia. The recruits will face militants whose firepower may be strengthened by the equipment they have access to after seizing army bases in Mosul, cash from the city’s banks, and the release of 2,500 fighters from local jails, Eurasia Group, a New York-based political risk consultancy, said by e-mail on June 11.

Sheikh Ahmed Abu Risha, the Sunni tribal leader who’s backing the government, said the country urgently needs the U.S. to intervene in the conflict.
‘American Support’

“We’ve been fighting al-Qaeda in Anbar for the past six months and we’re ready to fight for another six months, but we need American support,” he said in a phone interview today from Ramadi in western Iraq. “The United States (http://topics.bloomberg.com/united-states/) must take the decision to stage air strikes against the militants or send troops again to Iraq, even if it’s for a limited time.”

Abu Risha leads the Awakening Council in Anbar province. Also known as The Sahwa or the Sons of Iraq, the councils were organized by the American military to fight al-Qaeda during the civil war and their decision to turn against the terror network was hailed by the U.S. as key to a decline in violence.
Sunnis are a majority in Anbar province and in areas to the north of Baghdad, while Shiites account for the majority in the south, where 60 percent of the country’s oil wealth resides. Iraq is OPEC’s second-biggest crude producer.

Abu Risha’s support of Maliki may not be matched by other Sunni groups, according to Theodore Karasik (http://topics.bloomberg.com/theodore-karasik/), director of research and consultancy at the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai.
‘Powerful Triangulation’

“The discourse that is running in Iraq right now seems to be favoring the Sunnis who are against al-Maliki because of the powerful triangulation between Sunni tribes, ISIL and disgruntled members of the old Saddam regime,” he said. That would prevent the majority of Sunnis from supporting al-Maliki in “a violent struggle.”

Many awakening councils are siding with ISIL because it represents to them “a force that can be used to garner greater Sunni rights,” Karasik said.
Explaining the U.S. position yesterday, Obama said the country’s problems aren’t “solely, or even primarily, a military challenge,” and called on Iraq’s leaders to unite.
“This should be a wakeup call; Iraq’s leaders have to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the Iraqi people in order to bring the country together,” Obama said. “We can’t do it for them.”

At today’s news conference, Iran’s Rouhani said he and Obama have official and unofficial channels of communication that they use, though they haven’t done so in relation to the current crisis in Iraq.
“America hasn’t acted on this situation yet,” Rouhani said. Whenever the U.S. makes a move, “then we can think about cooperation with them in Iraq.”

[wardy1]

Yep, he was a tyrant, but he kept all sides in line in Iraq.

Yes he did that. By a conscious attempt at genocide of the Kurds, using all sorts of chemical and bio weapons along with the arrest/torture/assassination of anyone who he even THOUGHT may be a threat to omnipotence.

Yeah..... he was a GOOD GUY!

I hope he shares a cell somewhere in Hell with that other good guy.... Adolf Hitler.

[Pickles2]

Yes he did that. By a conscious attempt at genocide of the Kurds, using all sorts of chemical and bio weapons along with the arrest/torture/assassination of anyone who he even THOUGHT may be a threat to omnipotence.

Yeah..... he was a GOOD GUY!

I hope he shares a cell somewhere in Hell with that other good guy.... Adolf Hitler.
You are ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT.
However these "Dictator" types seem to be the only type of people that can maintain any sort of order.
And, in case you think I like that sort of "rule/order", I don't, but in Iraq,..what is the alternative?
Pickles.

[Ausfree]

Yes he did that. By a conscious attempt at genocide of the Kurds, using all sorts of chemical and bio weapons along with the arrest/torture/assassination of anyone who he even THOUGHT may be a threat to omnipotence.

Yeah..... he was a GOOD GUY!

I hope he shares a cell somewhere in Hell with that other good guy.... Adolf Hitler.
Absolutely not. The guy was a maniac!!! He kept all sides in line through sheer terror as you have mentioned.

[2stroke]

Yes he did that. By a conscious attempt at genocide of the Kurds, using all sorts of chemical and bio weapons along with the arrest/torture/assassination of anyone who he even THOUGHT may be a threat to omnipotence.

Yeah..... he was a GOOD GUY!

I hope he shares a cell somewhere in Hell with that other good guy.... Adolf Hitler.
Nobody could say he was a good guy but there'd probably be a million more Iraqis if he was still in power and the "coalition of the willing" had just kept their noses out. The irony of looking for weapons of mass destruction that it's been said were never there then killing masses of civillians with weapons of mass destruction, executing a deposed dictator for killing Kurds with gas and knowhow supplied by the USA just can't be overlooked. Sad how the rich and powerful can stage a war and the poor and vulnerable (on both sides) are duped into giving their lives for no real personal gain.
The country no longer even has a proper electrical system, if what you see on TV is true they have diesel gensets on the streets.

[wardy1]

Nobody could say he was a good guy but there'd probably be a million more Iraqis if he was still in power and the "coalition of the willing" had just kept their noses out. The irony of looking for weapons of mass destruction that it's been said were never there then killing masses of civillians with weapons of mass destruction, executing a deposed dictator for killing Kurds with gas and knowhow supplied by the USA just can't be overlooked. Sad how the rich and powerful can stage a war and the poor and vulnerable (on both sides) are duped into giving their lives for no real personal gain.
The country no longer even has a proper electrical system, if what you see on TV is true they have diesel gensets on the streets.

Sorry 2stroke but on this I just couldn't resist!

I don't know you personally and so have no idea of the age group in which you belong. In some ways that may be relevant.

If you check history, you'll find that dictators and the like have come and gone over the centuries. Most have been deposed violently either by their own 'subjects' or by others who see them as a threat either in a military sense, or a financial one.

We have fought wars with each other for millennia. the only difference is that now a war is fought with what I call 'full exposure' meaning that the world sees in real time what is actually happening. Yet even this is now manipulated to show 'excessive civilian casualties' by one side or the other.

Before we had laser guided bombs with 'real time video' nose cones, we, as the general public saw nothing of the destruction until after the war was over. Now we see it live. Perhaps that is why you make the comment of 'killing masses of civilians with weapons of mass destruction'.

Look up the London Blitz of wwII and see how war used to be fought. Millions of tons of bombs dropped randomly across a city. In fact many cities with CIVILIAN casualties in the tens of thousands every week along with the creation of millions of homeless civilians.

It was no better when we (the good guys) bombed the crap out of Germany in response. The result was exactly the same.

My point I guess is that to coin a phrase from Colin Powell in Gulf War I. " We haven't found a nice way of killing people yet", (he was being questioned at the time about the US using tanks with dozer blades to bury Iraqi soldiers in their trenches), war is a nasty business and we have become used to the idea that a few civilian deaths is horrific. And it is. But the fact is that in our modern wars, these deaths are minimal compared to what has occurred in the past.

Who supplies the weapons is irrelevant. If the US didn't, someone else would. The arms trade has no morality. It's all about money, nothing else.

Compared to the damage the Jihadist are doing in their own countries right now? Killing women and children in schools and market places? Be very careful to whom you point your finger about who is the good or the bad!

And these people are not fighting a war against oppression, they are fighting to say that their interpretation of THE SAME BOOK is the right one!

The Christians have done plenty of the same over the years, just most of it happened before 'history' was so immediately evident.

[2stroke]

Oh no, I wasn't trying to say that the west were the only bad guys in this sad middle east scenario. The islamists kill many times more muslims than they do christians. And I do know my history fairly well, well enough to know that dictatorships and violent overthrow of same have been the norm in the middle east for not just centuries but millenia. Not too many Iraqis would say they're better off post "regime change" though in this case.

[olbod]

[QUOTE=2stroke;2165520] The islamists kill many times more muslims than they do christians.

So who is complaining.
Let them get on with it.
Encourage them even.

[lebanon]

And I am with my family in the middle of all this !!!:o:o:o

Here's Why The Middle East Will Be 'On Fire' For The Foreseeable Future | Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/the-middle-east-will-be-on-fire-for-a-while-2014-6)

[DiscoMick]

Its not about the artificial national boundaries in the Middle East, which were largely drawn by the British in 1932 (thanks for that mess, guys), its about Shias vs. Sunnis.
The US-backed Sunni Government in Iraq under Maliki has kept the Shias down. The ISIS radicals among the Shias want a tribal state which would straddle the Iraqi and Syrian borders. The civil war in Syria has made that possible because Damascus has lost control of much of the country. In Iraq, the government in Baghdad has now lost the north to ISIS and also the area near Turkey to the Kurds.
The national boundaries drawn by outsiders are breaking down into tribal areas. There's no way American air strikes can stop this, and the US certainly won't send troops back in to fight. Plus, it would be futile anyway.
Iran and the Saudis are reportedly both involved, funding various parties.
We should just stay out of it IMHO. It was the West which caused this mess back in the colonial days. The more recent western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been massive disasters, just as past invasions dating back centuries have also failed. Only the locals can fix it.
Incidentally, this has NO relevance to the debate about border security here as terrorists don't travel as refugees - why would they when they can afford to fly in on visas (valid or forged)?

[Pickles2]

Disco,...Excellent post.
I do hope these guys can resolve it themselves, but I don't think it will be that easy. I feel there will be broader ramifications, and I refer to Israel, Jordon & Turkey, but more specifically Israel, which Isis have stated their desire to obliterate?
So, if Isis do eventuallyi have a "win" in Iraq, I don't think they'll stop there.
Pickles.

[korg20000bc]

The US is supporting ISIS in Syria and now ISIS is the enemy in Iraq.
SNAFU

[bob10]

A can of worms, indeed. What's the bet that if the Americans went in, the numerous militias would unite & turn on them? Bob


BBC News - Iraq crisis: Where next in the struggle for the country? (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27979095)

[2stroke]

Its not about the artificial national boundaries in the Middle East, which were largely drawn by the British in 1932 (thanks for that mess, guys), its about Shias vs. Sunnis.
The US-backed Sunni Government in Iraq under Maliki has kept the Shias down. The ISIS radicals among the Shias want a tribal state which would straddle the Iraqi and Syrian borders. The civil war in Syria has made that possible because Damascus has lost control of much of the country. In Iraq, the government in Baghdad has now lost the north to ISIS and also the area near Turkey to the Kurds.
The national boundaries drawn by outsiders are breaking down into tribal areas. There's no way American air strikes can stop this, and the US certainly won't send troops back in to fight. Plus, it would be futile anyway.
Iran and the Saudis are reportedly both involved, funding various parties.
We should just stay out of it IMHO. It was the West which caused this mess back in the colonial days. The more recent western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been massive disasters, just as past invasions dating back centuries have also failed. Only the locals can fix it.
Incidentally, this has NO relevance to the debate about border security here as terrorists don't travel as refugees - why would they when they can afford to fly in on visas (valid or forged)?
I was under the impression that the ISIS were a Sunni group and the Iraqi govt. were Shiite?
I agree we should let it play out, pity the poor ordinary folk dodging the bullets and bombs though.

[boa]

Its not about the artificial national boundaries in the Middle East, which were largely drawn by the British in 1932 (thanks for that mess, guys), its about Shias vs. Sunnis.
The US-backed Sunni Government in Iraq under Maliki has kept the Shias down. The ISIS radicals among the Shias want a tribal state which would straddle the Iraqi and Syrian borders. The civil war in Syria has made that possible because Damascus has lost control of much of the country. In Iraq, the government in Baghdad has now lost the north to ISIS and also the area near Turkey to the Kurds.
The national boundaries drawn by outsiders are breaking down into tribal areas. There's no way American air strikes can stop this, and the US certainly won't send troops back in to fight. Plus, it would be futile anyway.
Iran and the Saudis are reportedly both involved, funding various parties.
We should just stay out of it IMHO. It was the West which caused this mess back in the colonial days. The more recent western invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been massive disasters, just as past invasions dating back centuries have also failed. Only the locals can fix it.
Incidentally, this has NO relevance to the debate about border security here as terrorists don't travel as refugees - why would they when they can afford to fly in on visas (valid or forged)?
These idiots have been fighting for years long before the infidels tried to help them. Turn it into a giant glass bowl or ignore the situation at least it will be over quickly if we do the first if we don't they will still be killing each other for years to come. People have tried to help these people for years.

[DiscoMick]

Invading isn't 'helping'. Numerous outside powers have invaded these countries in the past, way back beyond Ghengis in the 12th century and back to Biblical times. More recently the British, Russians and the US-led coalition. None of them did it to help the locals, it was all about geo-political control and exploitation of resources to benefit the invaders. Nothing new there - that's human history all over the world.
My opinion is the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan just repeated the mistakes of the past. Sadly, I think our Aussies who died or were injured were sent into futile wars without lasting benefits. Bush's whole idea of a grand crusade to turn the Middle East into democratic regimes similar to ours was never going to succeed because it went against thousands of years of local history, which couldn't be reversed overnight. Look how many centuries it took the English to become democratic.
There's a reason there are now some 50 million refugees in the world, you know. Its not just local dictators screwing their people, there's a bigger picture of outsiders, including the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians, trying to conquer their neighbours. Saddam did it to the Iranians.
I think our national interests are best served by staying out of it all and doing what we can to help the victims. Taking sides has helped to generate a generation of young Arab Australians who think it is their patriotic duty to go over there and fight for causes such as the liberation of Syria, just as young Aussies once thought it was their duty to go over and fight to defend England from Hitler. Our interfering foreign policy has helped to cause some idealistic young people to put other causes above their duty as Aussies. We are reaping the fruits of what we have sowed.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[boa]

Invading isn't 'helping'. Numerous outside powers have invaded these countries in the past, way back beyond Ghengis in the 12th century and back to Biblical times. More recently the British, Russians and the US-led coalition. None of them did it to help the locals, it was all about geo-political control and exploitation of resources to benefit the invaders. Nothing new there - that's human history all over the world.
My opinion is the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan just repeated the mistakes of the past. Sadly, I think our Aussies who died or were injured were sent into futile wars without lasting benefits. Bush's whole idea of a grand crusade to turn the Middle East into democratic regimes similar to ours was never going to succeed because it went against thousands of years of local history, which couldn't be reversed overnight. Look how many centuries it took the English to become democratic.
There's a reason there are now some 50 million refugees in the world, you know. Its not just local dictators screwing their people, there's a bigger picture of outsiders, including the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians, trying to conquer their neighbours. Saddam did it to the Iranians.
I think our national interests are best served by staying out of it all and doing what we can to help the victims. Taking sides has helped to generate a generation of young Arab Australians who think it is their patriotic duty to go over there and fight for causes such as the liberation of Syria, just as young Aussies once thought it was their duty to go over and fight to defend England from Hitler. Our interfering foreign policy has helped to cause some idealistic young people to put other causes above their duty as Aussies. We are reaping the fruits of what we have sowed.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

I agree up to the point of people going overseas to fight, when in the past they went to support there own country not another. Which is what these people appear to be doing.

[DiscoMick]

I was under the impression that the ISIS were a Sunni group and the Iraqi govt. were Shiite?
I agree we should let it play out, pity the poor ordinary folk dodging the bullets and bombs though.

Oops, you're correct, my bad. Got them the wrong way around. Its a very complex situation. My points remain though. And yes, it's terrible for the poor ordinary people caught in the middle, which is why we should be more sympathetic when they seek sanctuary here.

This is a good attempt to explain the complicated situation, I think.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380946/iraq-beyond-shia-vs-sunni-tom-rogan

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[boa]

Oops, you're correct, my bad. Got them the wrong way around. Its a very complex situation. My points remain though. And yes, it's terrible for the poor ordinary people caught in the middle, which is why we should be more sympathetic when they seek sanctuary here.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

Who are they when we greet them they need to let go. do we take one or the other . they will never live in peace even when they come to this country. They should belong and believe in this place? it is there new home They choose to leave. We did not ask them to come. If I leave a place it is always to improve myself if I move to change things back home it is not a good outcome for the new country I am in.

[DiscoMick]

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[boa]

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

From what I have read both here and in England that is not the case. I wish it was as I have experienced in the past. No body started a business in the past without having English that is what we speak here is it not. But no we only tailor our business to our people's needs that is not Mingling or joining the community that you have moved to.

[Chucaro]

I am confused, how people can criticize those that go back to their mother country to defend a cause when countries send soldiers to fight and died in foreign soils for international political reasons.

[Saitch]

People with dual citizenship naturally still have strong feelings about their country of origin. For example, there are plenty of people from England who are now Australians, but if England was attacked again, I wouldn't condemn them for wanting to fly back over and defend England. Same goes for people from other countries, I think. You can't abolish peoples' pasts.
Of course, it would be different for their children as the second generation naturally would put being Australian first.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.
I don't understand your reasoning.
If England was attacked by whom??? Themselves????
This is what these "Group Mentality" people are doing!
Steve

[DiscoMick]

From what I have read both here and in England that is not the case. I wish it was as I have experienced in the past. No body started a business in the past without having English that is what we speak here is it not. But no we only tailor our business to our people's needs that is not Mingling or joining the community that you have moved to.

English may be our official language, but actually more than 160 languages are spoken in Australia. For example, in my school alone the information from enrolment documents reveals that more than 40 languages are spoken by our students, whose families come from more than 60 countries. Some of our students speak five languages.
In the future, Aussies who only speak one language will be at a big disadvantage in business because in much of the world multilingualism is an essential qualification for getting a job because you have to deal with customers from numerous countries with various languages. I wish I'd learnt another language from birth, because I can tell you from experience its damm hard to try to learn another language in your 50s.

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/d67b7c95e0e8a733ca2570ec001117a2!OpenDocument

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[DiscoMick]

I don't understand your reasoning.
If England was attacked by whom??? Themselves????
This is what these "Group Mentality" people are doing!
Steve

Not sure I follow you.

Let me give another example, not from the Middle East, but from Burma. Burma has more than 100 ethnic groups. The dominant Burmans have been murdering, robbing, raping, torturing, enslaving and driving out the other ethnic groups for about a thousand years, and other groups have done the same thing at times. National borders were meaningless and kept changing - ethnic loyalties were everything.
Quite a few of their victims (Shans, Chins, Karens, Karennis etc) are now Australians, and very happy to be Aussies. But I know some who would go back to fight to defend their families and villages back there, if it became necessary. Others are training to become nurses, doctors etc so they can help their people. They see themselves as very loyal Aussies, but that doesn't take away their ethnic loyalties - its part of who they are. No way would they come back here and continue the fight though - no reason for them to even think about doing that. They love Australia, but they also have other links.

Same is true for people from other parts of ther world. For example, I have several Aussie friends from a Brazilian background. They love and support the Socceroos, but they also support Brazil. Not a problem. But if someone attacked Brazil, I could imagine some people going back there to defend it.

The problem with ISIS is that its ideology is so extreme and vicious that its a terrible threat to most Muslims, let alone everyone else. ISIS are total terrorists, no doubt about that. I quite agree that people who put their ISIS loyalties ahead of everything else are not acceptable to remain Australians. There's a big difference between going off to defend your ethnic communities and going off to join terrorists who want to run rampant and commit terrible atrocities.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[Saitch]

Not sure I follow you.

Let me give another example, not from the Middle East, but from Burma. Burma has more than 100 ethnic groups. The dominant Burmans have been murdering, robbing, raping, torturing, enslaving and driving out the other ethnic groups for about a thousand years, and other groups have done the same thing at times. National borders were meaningless and kept changing - ethnic loyalties were everything.
Quite a few of their victims (Shans, Chins, Karens, Karennis etc) are now Australians, and very happy to be Aussies. But I know some who would go back to fight to defend their families and villages back there, if it became necessary. Others are training to become nurses, doctors etc so they can help their people. They see themselves as very loyal Aussies, but that doesn't take away their ethnic loyalties - its part of who they are. No way would they come back here and continue the fight though - no reason for them to even think about doing that. They love Australia, but they also have other links.

Same is true for people from other parts of ther world. For example, I have several Aussie friends from a Brazilian background. They love and support the Socceroos, but they also support Brazil. Not a problem. But if someone attacked Brazil, I could imagine some people going back there to defend it.


Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.
No argument with you about a Brazilian returning to fight for his country but, this is not country v country! This is people from the same country & the same faith killing each other about differences of opinion of a book!!!
Come on!
Steve

[DiscoMick]

Yeah, its tribal extremism at its worst.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

[manic]

No argument with you about a Brazilian returning to fight for his country but, this is not country v country! This is people from the same country & the same faith killing each other about differences of opinion of a book!!!
Come on!
Steve

A bit naive Steve.

This is a country with a US approved government in place. The US shipped out and moved attention onto Syria regime change. ISIS has opened up a second front in iraq. US inc. are meeting stiff resistance. This a play where various international parties with vested interests are picking up fighters where ever and however they can. Historical divisions facilitate effective propaganda campaigns, throw in a ton of weapons, cash and promises and you have armies of mercenaries fighting for control. They spread death, destruction, hatred, poverty and injustice. This brings in new waves of fighters with a cause.... book to blame?

Sent from my PadFone 2 using AULRO mobile app

[bob10]

Tell 'em their dreamin'. Bob


BBC News - Isis rebels declare 'Islamic state' in Iraq and Syria (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28082962)

[BMKal]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2014/07/1206.jpg

So what's new.

People in that part of the world have been running around with tea towels on their heads and big long knives chopping each others heads off for thousands of years.

All that's changed is that now they've got guns, and have traded in the camels and magic carpets for Hi-lux's. :p

Will never change .............. let 'em go for it. ;)


And if anyone from Australia wants to go over there and join in - they're not welcome back here.

[bob10]

They are fairly modern, apparently, Bob


BBC News - A Point of View: Isis and what it means to be modern (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28246732)

[ramblingboy42]

Yes manic....there is a book.....they call it the Koran....it is allowed to be interpreted by whatever mufti or clerical leader chooses to advance his cause

very much like one lots of westerners use called bible , also interpreted to suit agenda