ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.

Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.

I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.


Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Deng Xiaoping a liberal...? He was anything but.

Deng Xiaoping was the kind of man who accepted no opinion but his own, and eradicated all dissent. I still like him, but that's purely because I'm not one of the dissenting voices.

I am amazed at how quickly American conservatives become apologists for communist hardliners.


Still, Deng had little to do with unification, nationalism and the end of the fractionalism. That was Mao and the revolution, I'm afraid. You would have to look very hard to find sectarian interests in 1971. Credit Deng with calming the majority, but silencing the minority was all Mao.

---

Deng Xiaoping was liberal by Chinese standards. I challenge you to find a Chinese ruler/government more liberal than his since Kang Xi that was also successful. That's 300 years of Chinese government for you to look at to find one that was more liberal.

And when I talked about chaos, I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor. The very top of the elite remaining in place is not stability when you have millions being purged. As far as internal repression goes, Deng's biggest purge was the several thousand (upper limit) who were offed in the Tiananmen affair, either during the initial massacre or afterwards. That's small fry by Chinese standards.

"I was referring to the Cultural Revolution, which was as bad as any of Stalin's crackdowns, with the possible exception of the Holodomor." Excepted of course there is no evidence that the "holodomor" was political and not a bad political decision based on political/economical prejudices/pre-conceptions (as in the Indian and Irish Famines where "the free market economy" should have auto-regulated. Well, technically, it did in killing millions).
However, the Cultural Revolution was clearly a political crack-down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If they are, the middle east christians would have been wiped out 1500 years ago.

Mao is actually relevant(for once). A hundred years ago, who would've thought China would be this unified?

---

The Uyghurs don't think China is that terribly united.

I am sure dictator powers can help a country become de-facto united, but once the dictatorship ends, it may all come apart (think Soviet Union).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Redrawing borders isn't always going to cut it. Centuries, or even just decades under centralizing states has meant that populations that were once geographically divided are now relatively intermixed. Without resorting to ethnic cleansing, people are going to have to learn to live with each other.

---

The creation of separate states can encourage a (relatively) peaceful disentanglement. Typically, there are border areas where the mixing is fairly even, but beyond those there is typically one group that dominates.

I am not sure how viable Sunni-Iraq and Shia-Iraq are as separate states, but I think any attempt at a united Iraq runs the risk of becoming another Somalia. In the recent decade, Iraq has at times not been too terribly far away from this scenario, anyway - the status quo is just a new record.

My prediction at this moment, is that without foreign ground-intervention, IS will not be defeated. It may gradually warp into something else (which would be a pretty natural development, should it survive for a longer period of time), or split into smaller groups; but it will not be defeated. Neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian state is strong enough.

IS and the areas under its control will probably turn into some sort of miniature Taliban-Afghanistan, and once there are no minorities left - either because they're fled or dead - the world will stop caring as much as it does now. In this scenario, the de facto, if not de jure, Shia-Iraq may be relatively stable, depending on how much split there is among the Shiites in this part of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How many years have those minorities lived there without any of that happening?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that the current state of affairs is the natural state of affairs.

---

There is no natural state of affairs for any place. As time passes, the mechanisms and order of things constantly change.

And when I look at history, I sure see a lot of slaughter - modern history or old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

The creation of separate states can encourage a (relatively) peaceful disentanglement. Typically, there are border areas where the mixing is fairly even, but beyond those there is typically one group that dominates.

I am not sure how viable Sunni-Iraq and Shia-Iraq are as separate states, but I think any attempt at a united Iraq runs the risk of becoming another Somalia. In the recent decade, Iraq has at times not been too terribly far away from this scenario, anyway - the status quo is just a new record.

My prediction at this moment, is that without foreign ground-intervention, IS will not be defeated. It may gradually warp into something else (which would be a pretty natural development, should it survive for a longer period of time), or split into smaller groups; but it will not be defeated. Neither the Iraqi nor the Syrian state is strong enough.

IS and the areas under its control will probably turn into some sort of miniature Taliban-Afghanistan, and once there are no minorities left - either because they're fled or dead - the world will stop caring as much as it does now. In this scenario, the de facto, if not de jure, Shia-Iraq may be relatively stable, depending on how much split there is among the Shiites in this part of Iraq.

---

While Iraq and Syria might not be strong enough to take out IS, Iran probably could help them enough to eventually kick them out. That and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistans. And if they ever did take out Syria, they would border Israel which probably wouldn't suffer that sort of state to sit on their borders for very long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noncommunist

While Iraq and Syria might not be strong enough to take out IS, Iran probably could help them enough to eventually kick them out. That and the Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistans. And if they ever did take out Syria, they would border Israel which probably wouldn't suffer that sort of state to sit on their borders for very long.

---

There is a problem with motivation. AFAIK, the Iraqi forces could have held their ground in Mosul if they had wanted to.

The Shias want to protect their turf, and the Kurds their - but to go beyond those areas? It's not their land, after all; and they may even meet fierce local resistance some places if they do.

Well they better not mess with Texas!:

http://wonkette.com/560381/crazy-fox...hemselves-ayup

Looks like even Al Quaida has kinda had it with the bloodlust of these guys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...p-9734598.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Looks like even Al Quaida has kinda had it with the bloodlust of these guys.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...p-9734598.html

---

Seems to me that they were more concerned with making a point about Sharia then about Hennings per se or the violence of ISIS. Much as John Adams defended the Brit soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre -- there was a principle involved that superseded the individual.

Still, glad the chap is alright -- others have been less fortunate.

Don't know if it is true but this sounds a bit bad. Kobane? Drag me to hell, must be a pretty cozy place as all evil is already here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Don't know if it is true but this sounds a bit bad. Kobane? Drag me to hell, must be a pretty cozy place as all evil is already here.

---

It's not a coincidence that the Kobane faction of the Syrian Kurds is threatened the most.
They managed to ruin any diplomatic relations they had, by actively fighting Assad and the Islamists, while Turkey and the West (at least, on papaer) they consider them terrorists, as a part of the PKK, and therefore unacceptable for military aid.
Their only "ally" was the Free Syrian Army and now, with the fall of the Syrian airbase, they are an easy target for ISIS.

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

---

Dunno if it's news to you, but Tony Blair is a gobshite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

No updates in 4 days? I should probably stop getting my news about the situation from this thread.

---

I don't think much has really happened. A few bombs dropped here and a few bombs dropped there is called tickling in my vocabulary.

I keep having this stray thought that ISIS is a Kurdish plot.

I know this is NOT the case....such things are the silly plots of barely plausible novels.

But ISIS must be met by boots on the ground and the only force, so far, that seems to be willing, positioned, and disciplined enough to do so are the peshmurgah chaps.

All of which earns the Kurds hero points....exactly at a time when Iraq seems too fragmented to work anyway.

It almost seems like ISIS was tailor-made as a way for Kurds to "prove" themselves on an international stage and beget greater autonomy, or even independence if this latest Iraqi coalition government degenerates.

Or maybe those that said that the arab spring would be an islamist winter were right from the go.

Can't say we weren't warned

Strategic bombings are like Christmas morning. I hope that we do it right and target Assad, al-Nusra, and IS. There is no reason that a moderate islamist or secular front feels that it is a good idea to align with any of those three. The only reason that it has gotten this bad is because we had refused to act for so long. We can make up for it, but we need boots on the ground to help with discernment and really get things moving back into the direction that we need it to move in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Strategic bombings are like Christmas morning. I hope that we do it right and target Assad, al-Nusra, and IS. There is no reason that a moderate islamist or secular front feels that it is a good idea to align with any of those three. The only reason that it has gotten this bad is because we had refused to act for so long. We can make up for it, but we need boots on the ground to help with discernment and really get things moving back into the direction that we need it to move in.

---

Not sure that I am happy with your choice of metaphors. I tend to be more of a sit around and sing carols sort, at least for Christmas....

Its like presents in a way. A whole cascade of them.

We should have become involved earlier - when the "red line" was crossed, we would have a much stronger secular resistance than we have today and we would have had clearance to attack Assad as well.

Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are refugees. Countless others are casualties. This is as bad as it is because people didn't listen and needed to ensure that the price tag was higher before they became involved.

The world needs war. It seems to need huge amounts of killing. Its like a fever that we need in order to break the backs of tyrants. Tyrants on the medium scale like Assad, on the small scale like leaders in the IS and al-nusra movements, and maybe even on the large scale like Putin. We are humans, we are meant for freedom and war. We should harness this need to attack anyone anywhere who uses force to curtail choice or expression. Maybe one day we will get tired of it. Nobody is tired of it yet.

Giovanni Gentile approves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

We should have become involved earlier - when the "red line" was crossed, we would have a much stronger secular resistance than we have today and we would have had clearance to attack Assad as well.

Hundreds of thousands are dead, millions are refugees. Countless others are casualties. This is as bad as it is because people didn't listen and needed to ensure that the price tag was higher before they became involved.

The world needs war. It seems to need huge amounts of killing. Its like a fever that we need in order to break the backs of tyrants. Tyrants on the medium scale like Assad, on the small scale like leaders in the IS and al-nusra movements, and maybe even on the large scale like Putin. We are humans, we are meant for freedom and war. We should harness this need to attack anyone anywhere who uses force to curtail choice or expression. Maybe one day we will get tired of it. Nobody is tired of it yet.

---

Who is tired of what, just asking. Our enemies are allready here, by the grace and handshake of leftist immigration policy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who is tired of what, just asking. Our enemies are allready here, by the grace and handshake of leftist immigration policy

---

Yes, and because of this we are living in a warzone with daily bomb attacks on every corner.

No, wait. We don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Interesting position. Please, do elaborate, dawg. Why does the world need war? Why is your interpretation of social Darwinism any less repugnant than some better known ones I'll refrain from mentioning (not because I don't want to, but because you seem to be paraphrasing liberally on your own...) ...? Why do you think if we'd intervened earlier it would have been better? Surely if we had the political means to intervene meaningfully then, we also have the means to do so now, and did in 2003, and 2001. Its a square peg in a round hole, man. All the intervention is going to do is kill some bad guys and stir up the hornets' nest some more. I'd like to be wrong, though.

:2thumbsup:

---

I don't know why we love it so much. Why do squirrels collect nuts? We love conflict and competition. I think this love, combined with the fact that war solves problems like nothing else can (even though it creates new ones on a massive scale)

We have dueling desires. On the one hand, collateral damage deeply disturbs us. On the other hand, there is really no end to how many innocent people might die in order for us to eviscerate our enemies.

Anyway, I am in favor of an endless series of wars that uses the treasure of western economies to destabilize and destroy the worst offenders around the globe. I view these situations as "our business" and people everywhere as my people. I would support war against Assad if he was a republican warlord in the midwestern US and I support it in Syria, where my fellow human beings live. We share a culture, history, genes, and a future. Their lives are being destroyed and I would like to spend my tax dollars fighting along side them. Of course, structural global charity and economic openness is a bigger part of the solution, but nothing satisfies like lobbing ordinance into a small room of fascists and picking off the ones who escape, right? If we can join them for the long slog, we might as well join them for the party and fireworks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I don't know why we love it so much. Why do squirrels collect nuts? We love conflict and competition. I think this love, combined with the fact that war solves problems like nothing else can (even though it creates new ones on a massive scale)

We have dueling desires. On the one hand, collateral damage deeply disturbs us. On the other hand, there is really no end to how many innocent people might die in order for us to eviscerate our enemies.

Anyway, I am in favor of an endless series of wars that uses the treasure of western economies to destabilize and destroy the worst offenders around the globe. I view these situations as "our business" and people everywhere as my people. I would support war against Assad if he was a republican warlord in the midwestern US and I support it in Syria, where my fellow human beings live. We share a culture, history, genes, and a future. Their lives are being destroyed and I would like to spend my tax dollars fighting along side them. Of course, structural global charity and economic openness is a bigger part of the solution, but nothing satisfies like lobbing ordinance into a small room of fascists and picking off the ones who escape, right? If we can join them for the long slog, we might as well join them for the party and fireworks.

---

You favour destabilising your allies as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

You favour destabilising your allies as well.

---

I do, however we can do it with kid gloves on. I am happy that Mubarak's regime collapsed, if that's what you're asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I keep having this stray thought that ISIS is a Kurdish plot.

I know this is NOT the case....such things are the silly plots of barely plausible novels.

But ISIS must be met by boots on the ground and the only force, so far, that seems to be willing, positioned, and disciplined enough to do so are the peshmurgah chaps.

All of which earns the Kurds hero points....exactly at a time when Iraq seems too fragmented to work anyway.

It almost seems like ISIS was tailor-made as a way for Kurds to "prove" themselves on an international stage and beget greater autonomy, or even independence if this latest Iraqi coalition government degenerates.

---

And the mastermind behind is all is our own resident Kurd who will become the leader of the new Kurdistan.
Now that would be one awesome novel. Let's come up with a good title for it. Something involving, Kurds, Total War, Europa Barbarorum and Conspiracies.
:hide:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

And the mastermind behind is all is our own resident Kurd who will become the leader of the new Kurdistan.
Now that would be one awesome novel. Let's come up with a good title for it. Something involving, Kurds, Total War, Europa Barbarorum and Conspiracies.
:hide:

---

TotalEurope KurdishBarbarianWarConspiracy Invasion.

Has a nice ring to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I keep having this stray thought that ISIS is a Kurdish plot.

I know this is NOT the case....such things are the silly plots of barely plausible novels.

But ISIS must be met by boots on the ground and the only force, so far, that seems to be willing, positioned, and disciplined enough to do so are the peshmurgah chaps.

All of which earns the Kurds hero points....exactly at a time when Iraq seems too fragmented to work anyway.

It almost seems like ISIS was tailor-made as a way for Kurds to "prove" themselves on an international stage and beget greater autonomy, or even independence if this latest Iraqi coalition government degenerates.

---

The Kurds have been willing and organized for pretty much all time. However, it's only now that the surrounding environment has elad to them actually having a chance to fight back successfully. Fight Saddam and the Iraq army? No chance.

Fight ISIS on your home turf... Now we start to talk about actual liberation chance. One of the guys from my platoon went straight from the army to fight for Kurdistan, this was already back in 2001. They have skilled personnel and willing fighters, and now they have the chance to use them on more fair terms.

I would be surprised had the Kurds NOT risen. I also of course think there is no need for the tinfoil at this stage :stare:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

I do, however we can do it with kid gloves on. I am happy that Mubarak's regime collapsed, if that's what you're asking.

---

You'd have been even happier had the UK fallen apart as well.