MAKO69 186 Posted June 19, 2014 Iraq has formally called on the US to launch air strikes against jihadist militants who have seized several key cities over the past week. "We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power," confirmed top US military commander Gen Martin Dempsey in front of US senators http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27905849 Not good, our presence will only add to this sh!t storm, the Iraqi people need to stand up for themselves and show they are a proud people to fight for what they have. We need to let a Coalition of Muslim forces from the region rain down on these extremists. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+russouk2004 6,959 Posted June 19, 2014 "Allah will save us!" well,im sorry,but he hasnt done so yet,why now?... im afraid you are just... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted June 19, 2014 bbc.co.uk:: But Gen Dempsey told a Senate panel that it was in America's "national interest to counter [iSIS] wherever we find them". Well, yea, except the last few years we were finding them in Syria. That's one reason I find this so interesting to follow. I can see this... Iraq formally asks US for air strikes against rebels. In other news, Rebels formally ask US for airstrikes against Syria. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted June 19, 2014 MAKO:: the Iraqi people need to stand up for themselves and show they are a proud people to fight for what they have. We need to let a Coalition of Muslim forces from the region rain down on these extremists. Coalition of Iran, Hezbollah, against the extremists. well....um... It took time to figure out, but standing up and fighting for what they have is what the Sunnis in the north are doing, using ISIS as a spearhead, and ISIS using Sunni support. Its likely a temporary alliance, the Sunnis having embraced then kicked out ISI in the past. I'm wondering, do they stop when they have gained freedoms in their own areas, or go beyond and attack shia areas and risk losing what they gained? I figure "the north" blew it when ISIS (reportedly) threatened destruction of shia shrines south of Bagdhad. But that's ISIS so...lol... It was just after that when Iran started talking of intervening and Sistani called shia militia to arms. According to Nightwatch 13 June 2014; The last time the Shiite militias went to war, there was a blood-bath of Sunnis. I've seen comments around that so far Obama is playing this very cool, just for this reason, the shia earning a bit of blowback from their treatment of sunnis, who earned blowback for treatment of shia under Saddam. They need their own states maybe... ShiaqSunnaqKurdaq Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Gepard 11,360 Posted June 19, 2014 To be a little bit provocative: Would it be truely a problem if the Iraq would break into 3 parts? This state is artificial. It was built by the british on the green table after the Versailles Treaty in 1919 or 1920 or so. Why not have a Kurdish state, a sunni and a shia state? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capitaine Vengeur 263 Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) As long as Washington will be eager to please Ankara, there will be no Kurdish state allowed in this area... Edited June 19, 2014 by Capitaine Vengeur Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted June 22, 2014 Cap, I was silently agreeing with you for the last day or two, until the night of 20 June 2014. Nightwatch For the night of 20 June 2014:: : : Turkey: Thinking about a Kurdish state. Turkish political analysts and politicians are rethinking their longstanding hostility to the formation of an independent Kurdish state. This is a reaction to the ISIL incursion and the partial Sunni rebellion in northern Iraq. : : ~ http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_14000132.aspx I never would have guessed. Lots more in the link. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
macelena 1,070 Posted June 22, 2014 Honestly, before the ISIL thing, i wondered if Turks wouldn´t be better if there was an independent Iraqi Kurdistan. It would probably claim Turkish soil, but they would be able to contain and overwhelm it more easily than Kurds looking for a nation in the lest hard hitting country they can meet, that being Turkey. It is like having the Indian in your tent pissing outside or having him outside pissing inside Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RUSTYMORLEY 162 Posted June 22, 2014 Maybee we should just keep out of all of this Middle-Eastern conflict and let the Arabs sort it out for themselves, after all it is an Arab problem. Out involvement in their affairs and internal struggles has just made them hate the Western powers and has cost thousands of lives. When the dust has settled then perhaps we can open a dialogue with whoever is in charge. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Interesting... "So, the rebels have field artillery now. They did not bring that into Iraq,..." Col. Pat Lang ~> l'>Iraq Diary - 26 June 2014 Edited June 26, 2014 by Lexx_Luthor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,885 Posted June 26, 2014 hmm.......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302 Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC that he hopes jets from Russia and Belarus will turn the tide against rebels in the coming days. "God willing within one week this force will be effective and will destroy the terrorists' dens," he said. He said that the process of buying US jets had been "long-winded" and that the militants' advance could have been avoided if air cover had been in place. Isis and its Sunni Muslim allies seized large parts of Iraq this month. Mr Maliki was speaking to the BBC's Arabic service in his first interview for an international broadcaster since Isis - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - began its major offensive. "I'll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract [with the US]," Mr Maliki said. "We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened," he went on. He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus "that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thodouras95 25 Posted June 26, 2014 hmm.......... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28042302 Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has told the BBC that he hopes jets from Russia and Belarus will turn the tide against rebels in the coming days. "God willing within one week this force will be effective and will destroy the terrorists' dens," he said. He said that the process of buying US jets had been "long-winded" and that the militants' advance could have been avoided if air cover had been in place. Isis and its Sunni Muslim allies seized large parts of Iraq this month. Mr Maliki was speaking to the BBC's Arabic service in his first interview for an international broadcaster since Isis - the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant - began its major offensive. "I'll be frank and say that we were deluded when we signed the contract [with the US]," Mr Maliki said. "We should have sought to buy other jet fighters like British, French and Russian to secure the air cover for our forces; if we had air cover we would have averted what had happened," he went on. He said Iraq was acquiring second-hand jet fighters from Russia and Belarus "that should arrive in Iraq in two or three days". I've definitely missed a few episodes, but what is he talking about when he speaks of delusion? They made the decision to buy those planes, and I really don't know what he could get at that price point that a Sukhoi can do but a Viper can't. But for now, I look forward to seeing those "second-hand jets" that will arrive "within days" and suddenly do what they have failed to do for the past weeks. I hope I'll be proven wrong here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,885 Posted June 26, 2014 Unless they are piloted and maintained by Russians I'm not entirely sure about the optimistic time scale - unless they are getting the same stuff they had in the 80s Delusion could be the contract terms - whatever they are - or the time to get them in service due to the amount of things they have to learn. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Crab_02 8 Posted June 26, 2014 One word: Arclight Yes, I am back. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557 Posted June 26, 2014 Maybee we should just keep out of all of this Middle-Eastern conflict and let the Arabs sort it out for themselves, after all it is an Arab problem. Out involvement in their affairs and internal struggles has just made them hate the Western powers and has cost thousands of lives. When the dust has settled then perhaps we can open a dialogue with whoever is in charge. Already to late, you can blame the bush administration for this shit happening ... and thats only the youngest history Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted June 27, 2014 Fucken A Crab_02 is here! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted July 3, 2014 Basically he's complaining that a simple thing like getting used jets from the US takes forever while other countries can do it much faster by simply giving him some of theirs. If he didn't know by now that the US is slow to get anything done, I'm not sure what evidence he was missing. If he didn't know that Russia and Belarus will give you the clothes off their own backs in winter if it means getting money NOW... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted July 3, 2014 If he didn't know by now that the US is slow to get anything done, 1973 Arab-Israel war, next day shipping man. Given that we *knew* exactly where alqaida isis, whatever, were basing themselves in Syria for the last few years, and we never bombed them, but publically(!) intended to bomb Syria.gov, we gain insight into the "slow" US response here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RUSTYMORLEY 162 Posted July 3, 2014 I don't know whether to laugh or cry - first ISIS had all the headline news and now Al Qaeda are back in the game!!! It's like a competition with each-other to see who can score the most points!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted July 3, 2014 Well, neither ISIS nor AQ decide headlines. News sources decide headlines. Apparently, AQ and ISIS in Syria are to opposing each other, both are hoping to attack lebanon I've read. There are some examples going on of... Shia vs shia Sunni vs ISIS Shia and Sunni talking outside Maliki.gov Turkey and Israel favoring some kind of independent Kurdistan. Kirkuk oil may be one good reason. Apaches in Bagdad airport, probably for airport defense. Lots of US-sians still there. Obama asking for 500million$ for anti~Assad rebels...haha maybe to match ISIS robbing that bank for 430million$ or whatever currency. More advisors. Can't send advisors without sending more advisors. Youths in surrounding systems protesting in favour of ISIS...this might be the thing to watch. Honestly, can't blame them the systems are so phoney. Pretty neat stuff all round. Like 1973, if we decide to ship, or intervene somehow, it'll start the next day. Recall the afghan setup with the northern alliance, very quiet until it got loud. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jeanba 1,920 Posted July 4, 2014 Basically he's complaining that a simple thing like getting used jets from the US takes forever while other countries can do it much faster by simply giving him some of theirs. If he didn't know by now that the US is slow to get anything done, I'm not sure what evidence he was missing. If he didn't know that Russia and Belarus will give you the clothes off their own backs in winter if it means getting money NOW... It mostly seems that they did not pay, which is surely slowing down the process Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
