Iraqi Crisis

Do you want an Independent Kurdistan ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 69 69.7%
  • No

    Votes: 30 30.3%

  • Total voters
    99

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
So , this is a disscussion about the trouble in iraq, where ISIS has captured Mosul and is now Marching to baghdad.

Kirkuk has been captured by the kurds as this shows that the iraqi government not only have the ISIS problem but also the kurdish problem.  Kirkuk is known for its oil and is very important for all sides. The kurds are a regional government note its not a country but a regional government.

ISIS is fighting for a sunni caliphate state and has even been kicked from al qaida for its far extremistic opinions they are numerous and most of them are brainwashed therefore they do not fear death.

the only peaceful zones are the kurdish regions. Therefore many refugees from mosul has escaped, to erbil while few has escaped to baghdad.

The iraqi army has just recieved the f-16 from the american government this is a hot topic because many people are afraid that the iraqi president will either use it against the kurds or the sunnis in the country.

The iraqi army is very ill disciplined and lacks tactical training.

this is important for the world aswell because oil price is currently rising because of these crises.
And sorry for my crappy english

This is what i think is happening feel free to comment on what you think
 
Tell ya' what, let them solve their own issues. We have already seen what freedom à la USA means. Foreign involvement means one thing: interests. "Saving" people from terrorism is a bull**** reason and just a pretext for yet again more money milking. Their country - treir problem - their own solution.
 
Weaver said:
We are getting little to no information on Iraq in local news lately.
Waiting for rej to hit this thread with some quality links. :smile:

I actually read an article in Romanian about the situation. The USA considers airstrikes and ****, but that will drag a full train of troubles, like more insurgents and various organizations in the conflict.
 
Kirkuk was not "captured" by the Kurds. This would imply some sort  of uprising against the central government. Kurdish forces moved in to head off the possibility of an attack by ISIS after the central government troops charged with defending tht area abandoned their posts.

Your anti-Kurd bias is showing.
 
First off , No im not anti kurd. Second of all how is it anti-kurdish bias? If the kurds captured kirkuk they could really be benificial in these crises since kirkuk has alot of oil and they have a casus belli which is to protect its people from militants. I mean to be honest i support this decision. So im more pro - Kurdish than anti
 
Mage246 said:
Kirkuk was not "captured" by the Kurds. This would imply some sort  of uprising against the central government. Kurdish forces moved in to head off the possibility of an attack by ISIS after the central government troops charged with defending tht area abandoned their posts.

Your anti-Kurd bias is showing.
We don't know for sure if they are doing it to defend themselves or if they're going against the government.
Capturing is a broad term for the armed taking of a town.
Which is what they did.
 
How did they "take" the town? Take it from whom? The central government? How can that be the case when there are no declared intentions and no aggressive acts towards the central government? In fact, the only comment by a Kurdish politician has been that the Kurdish forces will help support the central government.

The only thing we've seen happen is a change in the composition of garrison forces. There has been no change in status otherwise.
 
The further south they get, the more Shiites and Shiite militias they'll meet. Should slow them down and bring the offensive itself to a stop. Or so some "middle east expert" said in some newspapers over here today.
Heck, maybe Iran starts bombing them as well.  They have no interest in a strong Sunni extremist state in state on their border.

The Bowman said:
Tell ya' what, let them solve their own issues. We have already seen what freedom à la USA means. Foreign involvement means one thing: interests. "Saving" people from terrorism is a bull**** reason and just a pretext for yet again more money milking. Their country - treir problem - their own solution.
Dunno, I feel that stuff like this is one of the few cases where foreign intervention wouldn't be categorically wrong. Mass murdering fanatics controlling large territories of a state, potentially further destabilising an already ****ed up area is in absolutely nobody's interest.
 
what makes me abit angry is that , how the iraqi army who outnumbered them like 3 to 1 could flee and desert against Some militias. Really shows how much they lack discipline and tactical training
 
masterborn12 said:
what makes me abit angry is that , how the iraqi army who outnumbered them like 3 to 1 could flee and desert against Some militias. Really shows how much they lack discipline and tactical training

It could show that they don't care enough about their current Shiite majority government to defend it, or maybe they are just sick of getting bombed and shot at after so many years in a row of it.

For hours and hours of further pointless speculation watch CNN.
 
TIME FOR OPERATION DESERT STORM 3: ISIL-ization OF ISIS
KvshO.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom