ISIS on the offensive in Iraq

[Viking]

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).

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.

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.

[Noncommunist]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well they better not mess with Texas!:

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

[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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[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.