Is this going to be a threat to the entire Middle East

[esmith]

As some of you may know, the fighting in Syria is spilling over into Iraq or the re-emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq is spilling over into Syria it really doesn't matter. As the re-emergence of al Qaeda, or off-shots of al Qaeda, have basically taken over the major cities in Anbar provenience tensions in this troubled area escalating. The problems in Iraq can be traced to the divide between Sunni and Shia populations and the attitude of the Sunni's in Anbar against the Baghdad government. Which was cause by the government of Prime Minister (and Shia Muslim) Nouri al-Maliki interaction with those in the Anbar area. Now will this continue to escalate throughout the region and eventually spread to Lebanon and possibly Jordan?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/07/opinion/iraq-anbar-crisis-lister/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/06/us-iraq-syria-qaeda-idUSBREA050PM20140106

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yes ...

 

[Michael119]

Yes, I think so....

 

[farouk]

As some of you may know, the fighting in Syria is spilling over into Iraq or the re-emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq is spilling over into Syria it really doesn't matter. As the re-emergence of al Qaeda, or off-shots of al Qaeda, have basically taken over the major cities in Anbar provenience tensions in this troubled area escalating. The problems in Iraq can be traced to the divide between Sunni and Shia populations and the attitude of the Sunni's in Anbar against the Baghdad government. Which was cause by the government of Prime Minister (and Shia Muslim) Nouri al-Maliki interaction with those in the Anbar area. Now will this continue to escalate throughout the region and eventually spread to Lebanon and possibly Jordan?

One move too far: How Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki overreached in Anbar - CNN.com
Insight: Fuelled by Syria war, al Qaeda bursts back to life in Iraq | Reuters

I don't think Jordan but Lebanon yes definately.

 

[LuisDantas]

Now will this continue to escalate throughout the region and eventually spread to Lebanon and possibly Jordan?

One move too far: How Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki overreached in Anbar - CNN.com
Insight: Fuelled by Syria war, al Qaeda bursts back to life in Iraq | Reuters

No one should be surprised if it does, seeing how much incentive they are given by the frequent military interventions.

 

[MD]

I'm surprised this hasn't spilled into Lebanon and Bahrain yet. I'm also surprised that Egypted hasn't descended into a civil war of sorts either.

I think one of those will happen in the next few years. We are seeing the birth of a permanent sunni ****te schism.

 

[Flankerl]

ISIS has taken Tikrit and now basically controls all Sunni areas of Iraq while the Iraqi Government holds all Shia areas. Oh and the Kurds are holding out on their own.


Also ISIS has reached the outskirts of Samarra, home of quite some Shiites and two holy Shia Sites.

If the residents dont flee before ISIS takes Samarra they are going to kill each and every Shiite they can find. And those two Shia sites are going to be flattened.




This is like the fall of Singapore on fast forward. +5.000 ISIS murderers are taking over a whole country.

 

[Revoltingest]

As some of you may know, the fighting in Syria is spilling over into Iraq or the re-emergence of al Qaeda in Iraq is spilling over into Syria it really doesn't matter. As the re-emergence of al Qaeda, or off-shots of al Qaeda, have basically taken over the major cities in Anbar provenience tensions in this troubled area escalating. The problems in Iraq can be traced to the divide between Sunni and Shia populations and the attitude of the Sunni's in Anbar against the Baghdad government. Which was cause by the government of Prime Minister (and Shia Muslim) Nouri al-Maliki interaction with those in the Anbar area. Now will this continue to escalate throughout the region and eventually spread to Lebanon and possibly Jordan?

One move too far: How Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki overreached in Anbar - CNN.com
Insight: Fuelled by Syria war, al Qaeda bursts back to life in Iraq | Reuters

Yup.
Although I don't find it any scarier than it was beforehand.

 

[kashmir]

I understand that this is way over my head, just seen footage on the news.
It seems they have completely taken over what USA has helped the others regrow.
Everything we did, is now in the hands of the the wrong people, plus they have over a half a billion in money they took from the banks of the cities they took over.

Why does everyone just sit back and let them do this?
The army we helped them build just dropped their weapons and ran, billions of dollars down the drain and now the enemies have the weapons too.

I say screw the ground troops and just Tomahawk Cruise Missile the heck out of them, and make it rain fire all over their butts.
Pretty sure the half a million innocents that left, leave not many civilians left throughout the towns, they ones left are dead anyway.

They are just going to keep marching until they run out of earth.
Baghdad is next folks.

So what is everyone going to do?
Let them grow and grow until they have nukes?
These terrorists want the world and I say we need to really give it to them.
Air strike them until there is nothing left.
From the footage, there is nothing but flat ground that they are marching on.
Hello?
like shooting fish in a barrel, so we just sit back and let them continue to march on?
If we are to help them over there, we cant be doing it half baked.
Giving them weapons and saying "good luck" and leaving didn't work out very well.
Air strike them until there is nothing left, seems like the way to go right now.

http://time.com/2859454/iraq-tikrit-isis-baghdad-mosul/
Apparently, USA isn't planning on doing much.
ironic, help them build and in the end, let the terrorists have all the control back and the weapons as well.
USA might as well fly over and drop the ISIS food and water.

The commentators on this seem to be the smartest ones yet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/11/isis-militants-seize-tikrit_n_5484335.html

 

[MD]

It's time Kurdistan was born

 

[icehorse]

kashmir asks some of the same questions I ask...

Does SA - for example - somehow feel so safe that it doesn't need to try to help calm things down?

 

[MD]

I understand that this is way over my head, just seen footage on the news.
It seems they have completely taken over what USA has helped the others regrow.
Everything we did, is now in the hands of the the wrong people, plus they have over a half a billion in money they took from the banks of the cities they took over.

Why does everyone just sit back and let them do this?
The army we helped them build just dropped their weapons and ran, billions of dollars down the drain and now the enemies have the weapons too.

I say screw the ground troops and just Tomahawk Cruise Missile the heck out of them, and make it rain fire all over their butts.
Pretty sure the half a million innocents that left, leave not many civilians left throughout the towns, they ones left are dead anyway.

They are just going to keep marching until they run out of earth.
Baghdad is next folks.

So what is everyone going to do?
Let them grow and grow until they have nukes?
These terrorists want the world and I say we need to really give it to them.
Air strike them until there is nothing left.
From the footage, there is nothing but flat ground that they are marching on.
Hello?
like shooting fish in a barrel, so we just sit back and let them continue to march on?
If we are to help them over there, we cant be doing it half baked.
Giving them weapons and saying "good luck" and leaving didn't work out very well.
Air strike them until there is nothing left, seems like the way to go right now.

Sunni Extremists in Iraq Take Tikrit, Move Toward Baghdad - TIME
Apparently, USA isn't planning on doing much.
ironic, help them build and in the end, let the terrorists have all the control back and the weapons as well.
USA might as well fly over and drop the ISIS food and water.

The commentators on this seem to be the smartest ones yet
ISIS Militants Seize Iraqi City Of Tikrit

Okay I will try to answer your questions. Most of the third world does not function well under true democracy. Most of the third world functions well under dictatorships. Democracies work when a nation has acquired enough wealth to limit corruption. When you 'elect' a lot of 3rd world leaders and then then expect them to be non corrupt because they were 'elected', that is stupidity. The people who were 'elected' in Iraq were horribly incompetent and could not combat the Iranian influence and stop the chaos from syria spilling over. They are also very corrupt.

Saddam was a stablizing force, although he was horrible for the shias and kurds, he kept Iraq (and the middle east) under some semblance of control. He was also a good balance to the Iranians, who are quite possibly becoming the most battle hardened army in the middle east. Even though SA and the other countries have highly technologically advanced armies, they are poorly trained and are green.

Raining down missiles will just attract more fighters to their cause because Al Qaeda does not work like the West. Many extremists want to die for their cause, because they believe in it more than you believe in your own existence. Many will join who were moderate or even liberal. And not to mention there are many innocent people who will die. Raining down missiles will simply make ISIS more powerful and further expand the operations they conduct against the US because sympathy for them will grow. They are fighting in Syria, in Iraq and the Taliban has started a civil war in Pakistan. Al Qaeda will soon start something in Lebanon too.

Finally Obama is horrible at geopolitics. From Ukraine, to Japan/Philippines, to Syria he has been giving those who oppose the US an upperhand and has diminished American militaristic hegemony to some degree. The Taliban exchange was another example of how bad he is with this sort of thing. He does not want to use military force because it will upset his liberal base.

Liberalism does not work in the world. It's existence in Europe has weakened it considerably with regards to Russia, and we are seeing replacing ideologies such as the growth of European Islam and neonationalist parties. Unless America changes it will also weaken it to the point that something drastic will have to replace it. The arabic birth rate is second highest in the world and there are lot of poor, young. hungry, highly idealistic fighters who are willing to die for their ideals. For an aging liberal apathetic west, there's no way to stand up to that really unless it changes its entire ideology.

The smartest option which I think will be done would be to pit ISIS against shia fighters backed by Iran. That way they would eliminate each other, and that's probably what the CIA and other intelligence agencies will try to do. However if that fails, or if the two sides join then we can say goodbye to any sort of peace in the middle east in our lifetimes.

 

[kashmir]

Okay I will try to answer your questions. Most of the third world does not function well under true democracy. Most of the third world functions well under dictatorships. Democracies work when a nation has acquired enough wealth to limit corruption. When you 'elect' a lot of 3rd world leaders and then then expect them to be non corrupt because they were 'elected', that is stupidity. The people who were 'elected' in Iraq were horribly incompetent and could not combat the Iranian influence and stop the chaos from syria spilling over. They are also very corrupt.

Saddam was a stablizing force, although he was horrible for the shias and kurds, he kept Iraq (and the middle east) under some semblance of control. He was also a good balance to the Iranians, who are quite possibly becoming the most battle hardened army in the middle east. Even though SA and the other countries have highly technologically advanced armies, they are poorly trained and are green.

Raining down missiles will just attract more fighters to their cause because Al Qaeda does not work like the West. Many extremists want to die for their cause, because they believe in it more than you believe in your own existence. Many will join who were moderate or even liberal. And not to mention there are many innocent people who will die. Raining down missiles will simply make ISIS more powerful and further expand the operations they conduct against the US because sympathy for them will grow. They are fighting in Syria, in Iraq and the Taliban has started a civil war in Pakistan. Al Qaeda will soon start something in Lebanon too.

Finally Obama is horrible at geopolitics. From Ukraine, to Japan/Philippines, to Syria he has been giving those who oppose the US an upperhand and has diminished American militaristic hegemony to some degree. The Taliban exchange was another example of how bad he is with this sort of thing. He does not want to use military force because it will upset his liberal base.

Liberalism does not work in the world. It's existence in Europe has weakened it considerably with regards to Russia, and we are seeing replacing ideologies such as the growth of European Islam and neonationalist parties. Unless America changes it will also weaken it to the point that something drastic will have to replace it. The arabic birth rate is second highest in the world and there are lot of poor, young. hungry, highly idealistic fighters who are willing to die for their ideals. For an aging liberal apathetic west, there's no way to stand up to that really unless it changes its entire ideology.

The smartest option which I think will be done would be to pit ISIS against shia fighters backed by Iran. That way they would eliminate each other, and that's probably what the CIA and other intelligence agencies will try to do. However if that fails, or if the two sides join then we can say goodbye to any sort of peace in the middle east in our lifetimes.

Thanks for the in depth reply and explanation.
I read a lot of comments on all the article sites, others have said things similar to you and there is a lot of other things too.
Its all white noise to me as you said, they are not like us.

Just from my perspective, we could just airstrike them and pretty much kill them all, they are right out in the open.
Then the others can have their towns back, and do what ever to prevent it from happening again.
I say this because we spent billions helping them in the first place.
We cant just let them continue to get stronger and wealthier, that makes no sense either.

Its damned if you do and damned even more if you don't.
I think someone, not sure who, will airstrike them, it seems like the smartest move, they are not going to stop marching, we cant let them keep taking resources and moneys and growing.
The part about them hating us even more is irrelevant to me.
They want us dead, wanting us dead two times, is still just dead.
We are letting down the innocents who put their trust in us, and they matter too.

I know I am pure layman, I just really feel for the innocents.

 

[LuisDantas]

Excuse me? Are you folks seriously talking about killing those people as if they were cattle?

Mighty lot of good that would do...

 

[kashmir]

Excuse me? Are you folks seriously talking about killing those people as if they were cattle?

Mighty lot of good that would do...

Only thing I am talking about is protecting the innocent.
If that isn't done they die, so either way, we are causing deaths.
So if anyone should die it's the terrorists, not the innocents.

 

[MD]

Excuse me? Are you folks seriously talking about killing those people as if they were cattle?

Mighty lot of good that would do...

We allow the murder of millions of unborn children every year, how is killing fanatics (who would love to kill and torture you for your atheist views) more morally reprehensible?

 

[oldbadger]

I know I am pure layman,..............

Don't you worry about that........! Look where the so-called experts took us..... over the last 70 years! That's how far back that this mess goes..... yes.... much further back than Iraq.

We are in so much trouble..... when and if challengers in various Mid-East countries win through to power, and unite....... let's try and guess what will happen next..... any guesses out there?

 

[LuisDantas]

Only thing I am talking about is protecting the innocent.
If that isn't done they die, so either way, we are causing deaths.
So if anyone should die it's the terrorists, not the innocents.

One of us is tragically mistaken about the basic nature of the situation or at least of the realistic solutions, Kashmir.

From my perspective you are talking nonsense. Can you even recall any time when "killing terrorists" did not amount to creating even more rebellion, mistrust and, yes, even more terrorists?

 

[MD]

Don't you worry about that........! Look where the so-called experts took us..... over the last 70 years! That's how far back that this mess goes..... yes.... much further back than Iraq.

We are in so much trouble..... when and if challengers in various Mid-East countries win through to power, and unite....... let's try and guess what will happen next..... any guesses out there?

They will have a lot of crap to deal with, for one a lot of their natural resources will have been used up by that point. I don't see them uniting for a long time, if at all.

If they did, it would really depend what they united under. An Islamic state? A pan arab confederacy? Economic trade group?

 

[LuisDantas]

We allow the murder of millions of unborn children every year, how is killing fanatics (who would love to kill and torture you for your atheist views) more morally reprehensible?

For one thing, it is a sure-fire way of multiplying their numbers.