I think the point is that fighting ISIS/ISIL is an extension of the involvement in Iraq. As I recall, the US was not in combat in Syria, but only providing material support to the rebels. ISIS started in Iraq and migrated into Syria. Now the US is extending it's involvement to attacking ISIS in Syria and ostensibly Iraq.mheslep said:The U.S. is currently flying air strikes in Syria. How is this not new?
Pretty much.lisab said:It's whack-a-mole regardless of where the moles pop up, IMO.
That may be, but such is an argument about the wisdom of fighting there, not whether or not the US Constitution permits the President to do so.lisab said:It's whack-a-mole regardless of where the moles pop up, IMO.
Astronuc said:I think the point is that fighting ISIS/ISIL is an extension of the involvement in Iraq.
The second answer informs on the first. The first answer implies that if we crush them enough they will want to stop fighting. Well their military certainly did. But that doesn't eliminate their hatred for each other and that is a totally different reason for the fighting they are doing now that has nothing to do with us. Germany and Japan had no such internal ideological rifts.lisab said:Perhaps that's because Japan and Germany were completely spent by that point. They were in no mood for any sort of fight.
US policy makers did not seem to understand the depth of the rift between Sunni and Shia.
Astronuc said:Video: Islamic State group beheads US aid worker
http://news.yahoo.com/graphic-video-claims-us-aid-worker-beheaded-092630290.html
This is sick beyond comprehension.nsaspook said:I guess this just confirms that ISIS is about brutal murder at the level of drug cartels. At least the drug cartels don't hide behind the facade of religion when they behead people.
I think a drug cartel analogy, i.e. money and business, is a mistake. There's no multi millionaire Pablo Escobar type characters running IS. A cult is a good fit, with a Jim Jones at the helm that worships death, wants everyone and everything to die in pursuit of ego.nsaspook said:I guess this just confirms that ISIS is about brutal murder at the level of drug cartels. At least the drug cartels don't hide behind the facade of religion when they behead people.
mheslep said:I think a drug cartel analogy, i.e. money and business, is a mistake. There's no multi millionaire Pablo Escobar type characters running IS. A cult is a good fit, with a Jim Jones at the helm that worships death, wants everyone and everything to die in pursuit of ego.
mheslep said:To run an army requires money, yes, but that is not what they are about. They don't recruit radicals from Europe on promises of villas, yachts and luxury cars.
nsaspook said:Radicals from Europe have their own rational but the upper operations structure of ISIS has all the underpinnings of a massive criminal conspiracy run by con-men using an imitation of religion for a little extra zest and zeal from the rubes.
Editor's note: Over the last few weeks the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has expanded from its stronghold in northern Syria across large swathes of western Iraq. The speed and scale of the advance has caught most observers by surprise, as have reports that put the jihadist group's wealth as high as $2 billion. But just where does ISIS get the mountains of money that make it such a potent force? Click on the flashing icons above to find out.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/22/world/meast/mme-isis-money/#indexDrugs, kidnapping, money-laundering
ISIS also makes money through techniques more familiar to mafia organizations than jihadist revolutionaries.
Josh Rogin, senior correspondent at The Daily Beast, told CNN that the group excels at "terrorist fundraising activities (like) kidnapping, robbing and thieving. They're (also) involved in the drug trade. They have money laundering schemes."
In the past week, scores of Turkish and Indian citizens have been abducted as ISIS has swept across large areas of northwestern Iraq.
Well yes, they do only have one American prisoner left, but I would guess that the choice to kill the latest hostage was well favored among the Daesh ranks, considering that Kassig used to be an Army Ranger during the Iraq War. Additionally, we don't know the circumstances of his conversion, and we don't know which ideology he adopted (I bet not the principles of the Islamic State). To the op, I agree. This whole situation is very distressing. It's hard to remember a time when Iraq wasn't a mess . . .HossamCFD said:This is sick beyond comprehension.
I can't imagine that the decision to behead a Muslim convert was a popular one among ISIS ranks. Could it be a sign they're running out of hostages?
jollyunclejoe said:... It's hard to remember a time when Iraq wasn't a mess . . .
Good point, by 'mess' I was mostly thinking of the violence.mheslep said:Depends on your definition of mess, but 2008 to 2012? A lot of violence, but stable elections, no civil war, and no invading army from Syria.
Well - the civil war was probably turned down to a simmer or low boil.mheslep said:Depends on your definition of mess, but 2008 to 2012? A lot of violence, but stable elections, no civil war, and no invading army from Syria.
Civil war doesn't seem to fit the situation at that time. The government was in control of all parts of the country, and the Iraqi homicide rate (per wiki) was 8 per 100K in 2012, less than that of Russia, the Philippines, and Brazil.Astronuc said:Well - the civil war was probably turned down to a simmer or low boil.
The Iraq body count index would imply something like 15 per 100 thousand for 2012.mheslep said:Civil war doesn't seem to fit the situation at that time. The government was in control of all parts of the country, and the Iraqi homicide rate (per wiki) was 8 per 100K in 2012, less than that of Russia, the Philippines, and Brazil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
I believe that by that point the civil war wasn't a full blown civil war any more. I would call it an insurgency if it makes any difference at all. Czcibor, as I recall, Saddam wasn't too friendly with America or the West in general, although he did bring stability to his country (albeit through questionable methods). Also, we didn't necessarily invade Iraq to build the nation, we did it because the government was harboring terrorists.Astronuc said:Well - the civil war was probably turned down to a simmer or low boil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Civil_War - may refer to various recent or historical periods.
- Iraqi insurgency (Iraq War) (2003–2011)
It appears that Obama inherited the mess that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld created. And the rest is history as they say.
- Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) (began 2011)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video
jollyunclejoe said:i
... we did it because the government was harboring terrorists.
jollyunclejoe said:i
I believe that by that point the civil war wasn't a full blown civil war any more. I would call it an insurgency if it makes any difference at all. Czcibor, as I recall, Saddam wasn't too friendly with America or the West in general, although he did bring stability to his country (albeit through questionable methods). Also, we didn't necessarily invade Iraq to build the nation, we did it because the government was harboring terrorists.
Not particularly. I would like to describe Iraq as accurately as possible. To say things like another Saddam is needed is to do the opposite.Czcibor said:Anyway, if one want to defend this invasion,
Al-Qaeda. I wasn't trying to suggest that, I'm sorry, I was unclear. A better way to put it would have been to say that we invaded Iraq because the Bush administration merely believed that Saddam was harboring and supporting terrorists, and had been doing so since the early nineties. I still disagree on the WMDs being the principle reason, because I think that it was the supposed fact that Saddam plotted the 9/11 attacks w. Al-Qaeda that gave us reason to worry about the nukes. I think nukes by themselves wouldn't have resulted in our invading Iraq... I hope that's somewhat clearer. To Czibor, good point, I think I agree with you now. Yes, It certainly was a nice favour for Washington, and a nice one for Iraq as well. They got lots of military aid from us, unfortunately.HossamCFD said:What terrorists? Are you suggesting that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda or other islamist terrorist groups?
I thought the main reason for the invasion was the allegations of WMD.
jollyunclejoe said:Al-Qaeda. I wasn't trying to suggest that, I'm sorry, I was unclear. A better way to put it would have been to say that we invaded Iraq because the Bush administration merely believed that Saddam was harboring and supporting terrorists