Jump to content

Daesh, Part IV


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

Mr Fixit,

The best way to put it is that alliances change. Saddam was our guy against Iran. Then he wasn't and the Shia became our guy. I say lets protect the Kurds and let all the other governments protect themselves. But if we do that not only would we lose influence in the region, but allow Iran to become more influential and possibly end up with anti-American groups at the control of oil and possibly nukes.

Um, are you aware that Saudi have a fleet of 700 warplanes. And a large conventional army.

Sure that its a fight the United States wants to take? And for what exactly, when they can be an ally?

I frankly don't understand this reasoning. "They are our allies because they are our allies". So why are Saudis worthy of being our allies? Why is Iran the boogeyman that we can never have normal relations with? What exactly does Iran do with regards to "regional stability", supporting terrorism, and human rights that Saudis don't do as well, or even "better"?

Can we please step out of this "national interest" prism we seem to be stuck in? Because they are "our allies" is not an answer, at least not one that contributes in a meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is the answer they are giving. Or, rather, they're answering another question than the one you think you're asking.



Why are the US and Saudi Arabia allies? See above. Is it morally wrong to ally with Saudi Arabia? Yes, it most certainly is in my opinion. I'm guessing the other posters think much the same, but you never asked that question.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting assessment of the Kobane situation:


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29650588



This seems to corroborate some earlier stories about the US not really bombing around Kobane until the very end. Kobane is nothing more then a propaganda point for the US. It's not really strategically important.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting assessment of the Kobane situation:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29650588

This seems to corroborate some earlier stories about the US not really bombing around Kobane until the very end. Kobane is nothing more then a propaganda point for the US. It's not really strategically important.

Good article.

5. By distracting IS from the battle in western Iraq, it is in the coalition's interest to keep Kobane going for as long as possible

That kind of answers the questions I'd had regarding why this Kobane situation had been going on for so long (weeks). Like, we know where they are, why not just lay waste to them there? We had that capability, surely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly does Iran do with regards to "regional stability", supporting terrorism, and human rights that Saudis don't do as well, or even "better"?

The answer would be Israel. The Saudis are willing to throw the Sunni Palestinians under the bus to prop up their corrupt royal family and curb Shia power. The Iranians along with the Syrian Shias are actively acting against Israel by funding and sending weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas.

So I would say that both oil and propping up Israel in the middle east plays a major role in US support for Saudi Arabia. It's why Iran and Syria get to be on the axis of evil, but the biggest exporter and creator of Islamic extremism and terrorism, Saudi Arabia, continues to be an US ally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that this Daesh pull back from kobani is a tactical retreat. They will use the men to fight in Iraq or fight off the Syrian Military. If it works it will be brilliant as dark as they may sound. It's not like Kobani has significance any way and these guys probably know what happened in Stalingrad. If a city becomes a symbol and they lose they will lose followers and people will see them as weak.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

from the accounts I've read they've been pushed back and are counterattacking with car bombs and other tactics.

Is that the current news? Still they could be moving men from the area. It's just weird. Maybe the Kuridish fought them off and maybe the US strikes started working. However, the week before this I noticed a lot articles saying the US stirkes were limited and the kurdish fighters were losing ground. Turkey did start to alllow kurds to go throguh. Just that dramatic of a change seems to make very little sense. The Syrian Army is pushing back as well. I remember reading quit a bit about Iraq commanders said they expected the army to see mass desertions or vast retreats if the US armed forces didn't step in. If I was ISIS and I wanted an influx of men and weapons I feel like smashing Iraq now would be an awesome idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the current news? Still they could be moving men from the area. It's just weird. Maybe the Kuridish fought them off and maybe the US strikes started working. However, the week before this I noticed a lot articles saying the US stirkes were limited and the kurdish fighters were losing ground. Turkey did start to alllow kurds to go throguh. Just that dramatic of a change seems to make very little sense. The Syrian Army is pushing back as well. I remember reading quit a bit about Iraq commanders said they expected the army to see mass desertions or vast retreats if the US armed forces didn't step in. If I was ISIS and I wanted an influx of men and weapons I feel like smashing Iraq now would be an awesome idea.

US wasn't doing much of anything in the area as ISIS was pushing towards Kobane. Then, it appears to deny them the propaganda victory and to keep relations good with the Kurds, the US began airstrikes in the area and while ISIS still pushed forward into the city, the combined focus on the area seems to have pushed them back.

The US (and sorta, somewhat Turkey) are also afaik helping the Kurds to reinforce the area now too, to keep ISIS from taking it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the current news?

From today's NY Times.

Kurdish fighters, backed by an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the United States-led military coalition, succeeded last week in pushing the militants back in several places around Kobani, including in the west of the city. The militants counterattacked, sending car bombs to Kobani and harassing their opponents with heavy mortar fire over the last few days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If defeating ISIS is something we must do, then I agree with this guy. Assad and Iran would be more reliable allies against Sunni fanatics than Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/18/there-s-only-one-way-to-beat-isis-work-with-assad-and-iran.html?via=mobile&source=twitter




In the short term the only way to check ISIS, as the self-declared caliphate is widely known, is for the United States to work with Bashar Assad’s Syria, and with Iran. It is a tricky and perilous path, but there are no realistic alternatives.



In short, here’s why: First, air power alone can’t stop, let alone, defeat ISIS. Even those who now demand an escalation of the overly restrained U.S. air campaign don’t argue that it is a solution. Second, neither Iraq nor American-backed Syrian rebels can field viable ground forces, at least for some time. Just look at their performance to date and see if the U.S. can afford to pretend otherwise.




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else watch the "Frontline" on the rise of Daesh? Wow Al-Maliki was a bloody idiot. After Al-Maliki will the Sunni's of Anbar ever trust an Iraqi government enough to set aside the Daesh and work with a Shia led government?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/rise-of-isis/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...