Slashdot Mirror


New US Airstrikes In Iraq Intended to Protect Important Dam

U.S. military involvement in Iraq is heating up again; the sudden rise of the organization known as the Islamic State has put a kink in the gradual, ongoing winding down of U.S. military presence in that country, and today that kink has gotten a little sharper. From The New York Times: The United States launched a fresh series of airstrikes against Sunni fighters in Iraq late Saturday in what Defense Department officials described as a mission to stop militants from seizing an important dam on the Euphrates River and prevent the possibility of floodwaters being unleashed toward the capital, Baghdad. The attacks were aimed at militant fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as they were moving toward the Haditha Dam, officials said. The operation represented another expansion of the limited goals that President Obama set out when he announced last month that he had authorized airstrikes in Iraq.

15 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:news for nerds? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Celebrating diversity!

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  2. US policy: first arm them then bomb by ltorvalds11 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    all the money and weapon ISIS has all came from American govt.
      its US tactic to create instability in Middle-East to gain control over oil there.

    1. Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US did not "provide arms to the Iraqi government". The US disbanded the Iraqi government and then failed to establish law and order for quite some time. As a result, a lot of looting occurred, which allowed almost everybody to arm themselves, with the consequences you're now observing.

    2. Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Bullshit all around. You're totally ignorant, or just a lying PNAC idiot, or both.

      The situation on the ground in Iraq in 2010 was roughly the same as in 2003. It began to improve only after that, when the famous Bush 'surge' of 2007 finally managed to produce some results, not much mind you.

      The "democratically elected" government, instituted by the occupation coalition, has been mainly in charge of the petrol contracts and lining their pockets, while the troops on the ground were under US command, more or less. The "Iraqi army" wasn't "rebuilt" in any sense of the word -- had it been, we would not be seeing the shitstorm we are seeing now. The people who effectively hold power in Northern Iraq managed to keep their hold exactly because of the way the Iraqi war of 2003 was fought by the US -- that is with gross incompetence bordering on idiocy.

      As for "mainly coming from Syria", yeah. Which party started funding the "freedom fighters" there? Certainly not Putin, as he is supplying arms to Assad.

  3. Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Strange, when we gave them all those weapons in Syria they were "freedom fighters"!

  4. Eurasia vs. oceania by should_be_linear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Saddam was still in power, he would be major american ally in "fighting terrorists". Orwell would laugh his ass out if he lived to this day.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by gtall · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really, toward's the end of Saddam's career in government, his officer corps was being infiltrated by Islamists. He wouldn't have lasted much longer regardless of what the Americans did.

    2. Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Saddam, Assad, Ceausescu, Mubarak, all various shades of "bad guy" but good at something in particular: keeping warring factions in their own country out of each other's hair. And when the dictator leaves, old enemies have at it again.

      What recent history has demonstrated is that stable democracy isn't a natural state of affairs that will come to pass if given the chance. One of our biggest mistakes in the Middle East was thinking that the folks over there would embrace democracy once freedom and free elections were established. And we can see the same thing here at home in Europe: people from more or less oppressive states in Africa or the Middle East emigrating to Europe do not wholeheartedly embrace our notion of democracy and freedom as we expected they would.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Re:news for nerds? by SilenceBE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe because news in those countries regarding the Palestian-Israeli war is not one sided ? Even as a non muslim I sometimes have questions how that state operates. Like this week annexing >400km of land for settlers as a form of punishment or a documentary that I saw about a 6 years old boy that needed to go to a military court because a settler saying he threw a rock to him. The story about a brave Israeli that escort palestian children on certain routes so they don't get attacked by settlers.

    And the reality is that there are hundred of those kind of stories and it is just completely nuts and a good breeding ground for terrorists... .

    I have the feeling that 80% of the hatred for the "west' is targeted to the US and the UK. For the US that has a lot to do with the fact that is some kind of lapdog for Israel. The Uk's problem is that it is the lapdop of the US.

    You can believe all the fluffy stories that is because of the "hatred for freedom" or that we in Europe are all anti-semitic, but the reality is that for 9/10 homegrown terrorist the US position is the enemy because it is mainly driven because of a wealthy influential lobby from the us.

  6. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    No, I mean the "struggle" in the failed state of Iraq. The rest of your frothy babble has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is Iraq.

  7. Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It looks like you need an adult to explain things to you.

    Who armed Saddam? - Some reality checks

    Saddam's weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, "During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.") The figure for the US is 1%.

    (The link above is a good bit of background that covers much more than that short extract.)

    There are still a lot of Soviet Bloc weapons being used in Iraq. The Interior ministry stuck with AKs, and the armed forces were only partly rearmed with American and Western weapons.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  8. Re:news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hello, when you refer to Americans please don't conflate a meddling, incompetent President with Americans in general. Most Americans did not actually vote for that guy, he's lost most credibility in the US and among allies and other countries around the world. Thanks.

  9. Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Dear Leader Obama sure is struggling now. Deja vu? He's announced another Coalition of the Willing in Iraq&Syria. It's getting harder and harder to spin that "No boots on the ground" statement he made. It's just another lie in his pathological lying ways.

  10. Re:news for nerds? by troll+-1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can.

    I respectfully disagree. The US naturally supports its own interests wherever it can. United States support of authoritarian regimes. No matter how bad Sharia law might be the Islamic State guys are tired of foreign interference. They've had enough of everything that's happened after Sykes-Picot and they want the right to self determination. It's no wonder they have so much internal support.

  11. Re:news for nerds? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hello, when you refer to Americans please don't conflate a meddling, incompetent President with Americans in general. Most Americans did not actually vote for that guy, he's lost most credibility in the US and among allies and other countries around the world. Thanks.

    Technically, no American president has been voted for by "most Americans" since large swaths of the people have been excluded from voting for various reasons (age, gender, race, or ethnicity, depending on the time period). But your attempts to reference the current president fall short since he got the overall majority of the vote in both elections (52% in 2008 and 51% in 2012).

    2012 General Election Turnout Rates, Voting-Age Population, 240,926,957, The final popular vote totals were 65,899,660 for Obama-Biden;
    65,899,660 / 240,926,957 = 27.3%, pretty blantant that most Americans didn't vote for Obama. In fact with Obama's margin of only 4,967,508,that's close to expected voter fraud rates, it's hard to say how many votes he actually won by.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds