• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kurdish Forces Reverse Militant Gains as U.S. Continues Airstrikes

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Alright!
Our friends, the Peshmerga, have taken back two areas from ISIS.
As always, the Kurds just need a little help to overcome. Overcome the heavy weaponry ISIS had taken from the Iraqi Army further South.
Keep the strikes up, but none for Maliki's mini-Iran in the South unless Baghdad is truly endanger of falling.

Kurdish Forces Reverse Militant Gains as U.S. Continues Airstrikes
U.S. Warplanes Hit Targets for a Third Day
By DION NISSENBAUM/MICHELLE HACKMAN
WSJ - Updated Aug. 10, 2014 4:01 p.m. ET
Kurdish Forces Reverse Militant Gains as U.S. Continues Airstrikes in Iraq - WSJ
BAGHDAD—Kurdish forces said they retook two important parts of northern Iraq on Sunday, reversing gains by Islamist militants while U.S. warplanes conducted a third day of airstrikes on the insurgents. The advance of the radical Sunni group Islamic State into the semiautonomous region last week sparked a humanitarian disaster and prompted the first U.S. military intervention in Iraq in 3 years.

Kurdish fighters overtook Islamic State positions in Makhmur District, a region north of the city of Kirkuk, and the nearby town of Gwair. The fighters, who until recently had called themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, also known as ISIS or ISIL, had taken over the two towns last week as part of a broader push toward Erbil, the capital of the Kurdish region.

The U.S. State Department on Sunday relocated "a limited number" of staff from the American embassy in Baghdad and the U.S. consulate in Erbil. They will be transferred to the U.S. consulate in Basra, Iraq and to Amman, Jordan.

The Kurdish advance has restored hope that at least One fighting force in the region is still capable of confronting an Islamist juggernaut that cowed Iraq's U.S.-trained military and quickly snatched more than a quarter of the country during its blitz toward Baghdad in June. Since then, Iraqi forces have been unable to reclaim even modest tracts of land. Sunday's victories demonstrate how important America's military re-engagement in Iraq will be toward restoring the country's fragile cohesiveness.

"We cleared up Makhmour and Gwair of Islamic State militants and 25 villages around it," said a security official for the Peshmerga, the Kurdish soldiers who make up a somewhat independent contingent within Iraq's army. "We have flown the Kurdistan flag again in the center of Makhmour."

The Peshmerga fought for several days to retake the two towns, said Kurdish security officers. Though Kurdish soldiers are known to be Better trained and equipped than other Iraqi troops,[b[ they were at first overwhelmed by the Islamic States' superior weapons, many of which had been pilfered from retreating Iraqi troops in June.[/b] [.......]
Click to expand...
I remain in favor of not just a Kurdish autonomus region but a Kurdish state. The latter, admittedly, a much more difficult proposition.

The Yazidis and other minorities, incl Christians, remain in Deep trouble in the area, although the Sinjar Mountain seige has loosened somewhat.
Also reports that Hundreds of Yazidi women have been taken as 'war wives'; an untold amount of casualties on that front.

Iraqi Christian families forced to flee their homes shelter in
the St. Joseph Church in Erbil, northern Iraq, Saturday. EPA

BN-EA771_0809ir_G_20140809125522.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I say to Obama..stop the air strikes and mind your own business.

Stopping major genocide is one thing - but choosing sides in civil war's is quite another.

Let Iraqi's fight their own battles...no matter how much you hate the potential winning side.

I have said it before, Neocons (like the one's that call for these strikes) do more harm to America then ANY terrorist group ever could.
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
I say to Obama..stop the air strikes and mind your own business.

Let Iraqi's fight their own battles...no matter how much you hate the potential winning side.

I have said it before, Neocons do more harm to America then ANY terrorist group ever could.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we wouldn't want to rudely interrupt the wanton slaughter of civilians. Take your hippie **** elsewhere :peace:
 
DA60 said:
I say to Obama..stop the air strikes and mind your own business.

Stopping major genocide is one thing - but choosing sides in civil what's are quite another.

Let Iraqi's fight their own battles...no matter how much you hate the potential winning side.

I have said it before, Neocons do more harm to America then ANY terrorist group ever could.
Click to expand...
Obama is a Neocon? Plus you would have to incredibly ignorant not to recognize the risk to US interests that a terrorist state in the heart of the Mid East would be.
 
U.S. Involvement in Iraq: ‘It’s Time to Come Home’

August 8, 2014 – The president has ordered airstrikes in ISIS in Iraq. The more things change, the more they stay the same, except when things get worse.

The U.S. has been involved in Iraq since 1990. Following our routing of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, our air force was involved in bombing Iraq for 12 years. This effort was one of the three reasons Bin Laden gave for the 9/11 attacks.

In March of 2003, we invaded, and over the past 11 years, suffered severe casualties and costs. An incomplete effort to leave Iraq was met with chaos, far surpassing anything seen under Saddam Hussein. And now, after 24 years, it’s back to square one: aerial bombardments of ISIS forces that have taken over nearly a third of Iraq.

The hawks are delighted with the switch to militarism as the solution for the chaos that our policies have created. Many, though, are not satisfied that Obama is using enough force to subdue the ongoing civil war.

John Boehner, speaking for the Republican leadership, claims that more force is needed since our vital national interests are at stake. Boehner is demanding a long-term strategy that defines success as completing our mission. Of course, we all recall the Republican description of of “mission accomplished” back in 2003.

How in the world can we expect continuing the same policy of the last 24 years to all of a sudden work? It’s time to come home.'

U.S. Involvement in Iraq: ‘It’s Time to Come Home’ | Voices of Liberty, Powered by Ron Paul
 
DA60 said:
I say to Obama..stop the air strikes and mind your own business.
Stopping major genocide is one thing - but choosing sides in civil war's are quite another.
Let Iraqi's fight their own battles...no matter how much you hate the potential winning side.
I have said it before, Neocons (like the one's that call for these strikes) do more harm to America then ANY terrorist group ever could.
Click to expand...
And you profer ISIS is part of a "Civil War"?
My OP advocated nothing but helping the Kurds/minorities in the North against ISIS, Not Shia.
I also specifically limited my area of support, "unless".
and of Course, ISIS taking anything but a Sunni area WOULD mean 'Genocide' for everyone else.
 
Last edited:
If the Kurds were put in charge of the country things would get a lot better.
 
a351 said:
Yeah, we wouldn't want to rudely interrupt the wanton slaughter of civilians. Take your hippie **** elsewhere :peace:
Click to expand...

'Hippie ****'...lol...mature as ever, I see.

Btw, I said that stopping mass genocide was okay.

And don't be ridiculous...Obama is not just talking about genocide prevention.

The president repeated his insistence that his administration would not send ground troops back to Iraq after ending an unpopular, decade-long war and withdrawing the last troops in 2011. But two days after emphasizing the limited scope of the mission in a White House address, he pledged that the United States would stand with Iraq if it could form a unified and inclusive government to counter the Sunni militants who threaten its future.

'“Changing that environment so that the millions of Sunnis who live in these areas feel connected to and well-served by a national government, that’s a long-term process,” he said in a lengthy departure statement on the White House lawn, during which he took several questions from reporters.'

Iraq airstrikes could go on for months, Obama warns | Toronto Star

This is clearly a long term, major involvement in trying to dictate the course of a foreign country that is NONE of America's business.


I realize that your mind is completely closed on this - so my answer is strictly for the benefit of others who might read this.

You and I are done on this.


Good day.
 
mbig said:
And you profer ISIS is part of a "Civil War"?
My OP advocated nothing but helping the Kurds/minorities in the North against ISIS, Not Shia.
I also specifically limited my area of support, "unless".
and of Course, ISIS taking anything but a Sunni area WOULD mean 'Genocide' for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I was not referring to your post per se, but Neocons in general...that is why I did not quote you.

And I liked the part where you stated to leave the south to their own fate.

But Obama is clearly not just looking at humanitarian aid and genovide-stopping airstrikes...as he stated before he left on his golfing trip, he is talking about a long term involvement.

I believe the humanitarian/genocide part was purely justification for getting back into Iraq.
 
Last edited:
reinoe said:
If the Kurds were put in charge of the country things would get a lot better.
Click to expand...

I think America (and other nations) making those kinds of judgements is what created this mess in the first place.
 
a351 said:
Yeah, we wouldn't want to rudely interrupt the wanton slaughter of civilians. Take your hippie **** elsewhere :peace:
Click to expand...

Not interrupting it in Gaza.
 
Montecresto said:
Not interrupting it in Gaza.
Click to expand...

Really.

Killing Muslim children by the hundreds (partly by firing into active schools) is okay with Obama...just a slight warning is all that is required.

Or U.S. drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians...that is fine with Obama as well. Heck, he ordered the strikes.

But start killing/starving a few Christians in Northern Iraq and Obama starts bombing ISIS back to the Stone Age.

Double standard?

Naaaaaa.
 
reinoe said:
If the Kurds were put in charge of the country things would get a lot better.
Click to expand...

LOL no it would not. The only thing that is keeping the kurds from ripping each others heads off, is their mutual "enemies" in the Turks and Arabs in Iraq.
 
DA60 said:
U.S. Involvement in Iraq: ‘It’s Time to Come Home’
Click to expand...

Ron Paul misses a number of issues:

1. The U.S. is dealing with an issue in 2014, not 1990 or 2003. Context matters. One cannot automatically assume that every event is identical.
2. The Kurdish Regional Government has been a longtime ally of the United States. Of course, for a political leader who wanted the U.S. to abandon NATO and America's European allies, the concept of an ally is irrelevant.
3. The Islamic State has ambitions that threaten other regional U.S. allies including Jordan and Israel.
4. The Islamic State was in the early stages of threatening genocide against the Yazidi people. Moreover, it has carried out a significant number of atrocities as it has expanded its hold on parts of Syria and Iraq.

Perhaps for Ron Paul, it wouldn't matter if the entire Middle East fell to the Islamic State. However, that's a fringe position that no serious practitioner of foreign policy accepts.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
I think America (and other nations) making those kinds of judgements is what created this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure that the Middle East would be completely peaceful and stable were it not for the magically destructive touch of American imperialism. :roll:
 
Deuce said:
I think America (and other nations) making those kinds of judgements is what created this mess in the first place.
Click to expand...

... what created this mess was a bunch of tribes that couldn't regard each other as equally deserving of life and the pursuit of happiness.

American policy is to minimize and manage the tensions that result from those disagreements. In the Middle East that generally takes the form of allying with authoritarian regimes, because those tribes that won't respect life and the pursuit of happiness will respect power.

There's a tendency to forget that America is maybe 2% responsible for the atrocities that occurred in a conflict like the Iran-Iraq War. The communities that hated and fought against each other are 98% responsible for the results of their hatred.
 
DA60 said:
Btw, I said that stopping mass genocide was okay.
Click to expand...

How are we supposed to do that if you've also suggested we stay clear of the situation militarily and write it off as none of our business?
 
donsutherland1 said:
Ron Paul misses a number of issues:

1. The U.S. is dealing with an issue in 2014, not 1990 or 2003. Context matters. One cannot automatically assume that every event is identical.
2. The Kurdish Regional Government has been a longtime ally of the United States. Of course, for a political leader who wanted the U.S. to abandon NATO and America's European allies, the concept of an ally is irrelevant.
3. The Islamic State has ambitions that threaten other regional U.S. allies including Jordan and Israel.
4. The Islamic State was in the early stages of threatening genocide against the Yazidi people. Moreover, it has carried out a significant number of atrocities as it has expanded its hold on parts of Syria and Iraq.

Perhaps for Ron Paul, it wouldn't matter if the entire Middle East fell to the Islamic State. However, that's a fringe position that no serious practitioner of foreign policy accepts.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ron Paul wouldn't prefer that, and I doubt you can quote him saying such. But if anything has pushed the ME towards an Islamic state, its US policy in the region for decades. And most recently, the breaking out of Syria by IS (ISIS), is just what Russia and China warned three years ago that US interference in Syria would produce.
 
MadLib said:
Yes, I'm sure that the Middle East would be completely peaceful and stable were it not for the magically destructive touch of American imperialism. :roll:
Click to expand...

Well, a century of western interference in the region hasn't helped. And certainly more recent, last few decades of US policy has brought increased destabilisation.
 
Morality Games said:
... what created this mess was a bunch of tribes that couldn't regard each other as equally deserving of life and the pursuit of happiness.

American policy is to minimize and manage the tensions that result from those disagreements. In the Middle East that generally takes the form of allying with authoritarian regimes, because those tribes that won't respect life and the pursuit of happiness will respect power.

There's a tendency to forget that America is maybe 2% responsible for the atrocities that occurred in a conflict like the Iran-Iraq War. The communities that hated and fought against each other are 98% responsible for the results of their hatred.
Click to expand...

Those that are responsible for US foreign policy in the ME for the last few decades love you.
 
Montecresto said:
Not interrupting it in Gaza.
Click to expand...

DA60 said:
Really.

Killing Muslim children by the hundreds (partly by firing into active schools) is okay with Obama...just a slight warning is all that is required.

Or U.S. drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocent Muslim civilians...that is fine with Obama as well. Heck, he ordered the strikes.

But start killing/starving a few Christians in Northern Iraq and Obama starts bombing ISIS back to the Stone Age.

Double standard?

Naaaaaa.
Click to expand...

Great, now we've entered everything-is-the-same land! Obviously, liberal democracies causing collateral damage in self-defense against terrorists is equivalent to a theocracy rampaging with the intent to wipe out an entire religious group.

I do agree, though, that there is a double standard in regards to the victims being Christian. ISIS imposes absolute religious rule and executes POWs, dissidents, and Shia, but only when Christians suffer do many people start saying enough is enough.
 
MadLib said:
Great, now we've entered everything-is-the-same land! Obviously, liberal democracies causing collateral damage in self-defense against terrorists is equivalent to a theocracy rampaging with the intent to wipe out an entire religious group.

I do agree, though, that there is a double standard in regards to the victims being Christian. ISIS imposes absolute religious rule and executes POWs, dissidents, and Shia, but only when Christians suffer do many people start saying enough is enough.
Click to expand...

For myself, life is life. It doesn't matter the reason behind the killing, other than that, we simply disagree that Israel's response to a problem it is responsible for equates to self defense. And reasonable people find what Israel is doing to be reprehensible, as you would note by the recent DFM from Briton resigning in protest, the number of Latin American countries pulling ambassadors in protest, our own former presidents condemnation, the condemnation of the UN, and of course I won't stress you with an exhaustive list but certainly there's far far more condemnation around the world for Israel than praise and support. That's primarily an American position led by white male christians over the age of 50.
 
Amazing what a little air supremacy will do for a ****ed up situation.
 
Montecresto said:
Actually, Ron Paul wouldn't prefer that, and I doubt you can quote him saying such. But if anything has pushed the ME towards an Islamic state, its US policy in the region for decades. And most recently, the breaking out of Syria by IS (ISIS), is just what Russia and China warned three years ago that US interference in Syria would produce.
Click to expand...

I said "perhaps." No one can say for sure whether Paul wants or does not want such an outcome. He clearly is indifferent to the events in that area.

On the Syria issue, I have long opposed U.S. military intervention or support for any of the warring factions. The Kurdish situation is a different matter given a combination of interests and the real risk of genocide. Hence, I support U.S. air strikes on the Islamic State terrorist organization and weapons shipments to the Kurdish Regional Government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom