Mosul Falls (attempt 2)

[andmark]

The current situation in Iraq is worrying. With the rise of extremist Islamist group ISIS- or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria/the Levant) in the southern part of Iraq there are major concerns for human rights as the following UN article reflects: United Nations News Centre - Iraq: UN envoy demands Islamist forces end ?horrific terrorist acts? . However this doesn't appear to be a simple thing of sending US troops back into the streets of Iraq (for the moment at least). This thread will be for discussion on Iraq, the effects on its neighbours and effects on its western allies (should we call them that). Seeings as a major city in Iraq has been taken by these people, it's clearly important enough to bear in mind.

Agent Nationaux correctly alluded to how this situation is similar to post- Soviet invasion Afghanistan. This is a fair comparison seeings how it was created by a foreign invasion which only created a power vacuum. Furthermore the US and its western allies have by no means gone out of their way to give resounding support for the people who we should be helping (Ahmad Shah Massoud comes to mind in Afghanistan and the Baghdad government which has received only limited help with no obvious military results). Thus Iraq should be the lesson the US should've learned in the 1990s that if you intervene in a country, you should try to stay until the job is properly done. Furthermore this comparison reflects the predictable nature of this sequence of events and thus should have been avoided.

Lastly I want to reflect the complex situation. With so many group vying for control and/or autonomy the situation is complex and not easy to solve. The following article reflects this: BBC News - Struggle for Iraq: In maps

I hope it goes without saying that we should avoid discussing the intricacies of Islam and whether it's good or bad.

 

[cover drive man]

Edit, argh, image didn't upload well.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

Or the lesson from the 70s, don't intervene at all.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Is ISIS made up of Saddam's old guard or is it made up of groups that Saddam was suppressing?

Have to say that Saddam did a lot better job at controlling the snakes in his country because ever since he has gone, they have all come out to play.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

From what i understand some of the old guard have been with ISIS from the start, but a lot more have jumped on the band wagon right now.

 

[watson]

From what i understand some of the old guard have been with ISIS from the start, but a lot more have jumped on the band wagon right now.

Yes that appears to be the case;

The British newspaper Daily Mail revealed information confirming that IS is making around $1 million daily by selling Iraqi oil, while other data indicates that the organization is selling 150,000 barrels per day from Syrian oil fields.

IS is considered the richest armed organization in the world, and it has also taken over around $425 million from Iraqi banks in Mosul. All these funds are used to restructure IS from within. It thus started to act as a state, using the expertise of the former state figures who had ruled under the previous regime — including technicians, administrators and military men — while importing experts from abroad to highlight its new state and make it appear different than expected.

Why Islamic State is no al-Qaeda clone - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East

 

[andmark]

Or the lesson from the 70s, don't intervene at all.

I suppose the problem with total non-intervention ever is that it allows things like the Rwanda Genocide to happen.

 

[Dan]

Who the **** is actually buying ISIS oil?

I mean, 150k barrels per day is barely a dent in the overall world oil supply, but even still, surely there isn't much of a market for crude oil when you know the profits are being funnelled into a ludicrously extreme religious organisation.

 

[silentstriker]

Who the **** is actually buying ISIS oil?

I mean, 150k barrels per day is barely a dent in the overall world oil supply, but even still, surely there isn't much of a market for crude oil when you know the profits are being funnelled into a ludicrously extreme religious organisation.

It's oil. You'd be surprised.

Sell it half a cent cheaper and there'd be a line around the block even if it came with a DVD with your all time greatest gruesome atrocities.

 

[sledger]

a DVD with your all time greatest gruesome atrocities.

Sachin's greatest innings?

 

[silentstriker]

As long as you're not supporting India

 

[sledger]

As long as you're not supporting India

You should always be highly suspicious of people who are, imo.

 

[sledger]

Agent Nationaux correctly alluded to...

I am literally unsure of how to react to a sentence that begins this way.

 

[cover drive man]

I am literally unsure of how to react to a sentence that begins this way.

Haha, I love this guy

 

[cover drive man]

On a serious note, the ironic thing here is that an intervention now would be much more justified than than the (in my opinion criminal) intervention in 2003. But of course the first (or second rather ) one is so unpopular that another seems impossible.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I suppose the problem with total non-intervention ever is that it allows things like the Rwanda Genocide to happen.

The rwanda genocide was completely do to western intervention in the first place though; if it wasn't for the europeans imposing their way in the first place it would of never have happened. Its not so much intervention i'm opposed to, just the bogus excuses (realpolitik) behind nearly every intervention ever.

Iraq right now is probably one of the few cases where intervention is justified, its just that when 95% of the population hates Americans, there is a good chance intervention will just strengthen Isis further. Then we have to look at the fact that only a year ago the west was looking to intervene in Syria, against the government who was fighting ISIS.

Any interventional would have to be a long term occupation and i just don't think the US wants that, they own most of Iraqs Oil supply now and have military bases everywhere they want, so its probably going to be left to Iran to shut down ISIS

 

[Prince EWS]

It's not the role of overseas states to prevent things like the Rwanda genocide anyway IMO.

 

[Dan]

It's not the role of overseas states to prevent things like the Rwanda genocide anyway IMO.

What, Cribb doesn't believe something is the role of the state?Quelle surprise.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

It's not the role of overseas states to prevent things like the Rwanda genocide anyway IMO.

But seeing its their mess in the first place, shouldn't they be obligated to help clean it up, assuming any action they take will improve the situation?

 

[Prince EWS]

What, Cribb doesn't believe something is the role of the state?Quelle surprise.

Haha, this even more so than most state functions I oppose, though.

At least you can argue that the state has a "democratic mandate" to perform the overzealous role it engages in domestically -- I largely disagree with the collectivist principle that idea espouses, but I can see the point. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a nation whose people haven't elected you when they pose no threat to the nation you purport to represent or its people is just completely unjustifiable though, regardless of how noble you find the greater good. If its elected government asks for your help, or if its government poses a threat to your nation, then these are of course different matters, but the Rwandan genocide fit neither of those exceptions (unless I'm much mistaken - and I may be as I don't know all that much about it).

I oppose a lot of state functions on the basis of those functions requiring misappropriated taxpayer funds. Paid parental leave for example is a noble idea that I'd support if it didn't mean the state stealing other people's money to pay for it. Intervening in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations without their consent is something I'd oppose even if it cost the taxpayer nothing.