New US Airstrikes In Iraq Intended to Protect Important Dam

Re:news for nerds? by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-09-06 21:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Celebrating diversity!

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Get used to it by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 21:56 · Score: 2

This struggle will be going on for decades (if we're lucky, longer if not), until the extremists get tired of it and want to live in peace. Until then any talk of "ending the war" is as silly as claiming you can tear down a dam because the river stopped flowing. It stopped flowing because of the dam. Tearing down the dam while the water is still there will have the obvious consequence.

--
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

Re:Get used to it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 22:32 · Score: 1

This "struggle" is a direct consequence of the actions of a certain super power in the region. There used to be governments that maintained some semblance of order in the region that are now gone. Predictably, it became a breeding ground for the worst kind of terrorists.
Re:Get used to it by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-09-06 22:33 · Score: 1

The "struggle" has been going on since the early 7th Century AD.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Re:Get used to it by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 22:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

You mean the French in Algeria? The Russians in Afghanistan? Who will you blame for what the PLO did in Lebanon, along with Syria?
Islamic extremism has been on the rise for more than 50 years, and is a problem globally. It is a recurring problem through history.
If you don't understand that you are going to go down the wrong path as you were apparently doing just now.

--
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
Re:Get used to it by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:00 · Score: 1

ISIS formed in Syria and moved into Iraq and controls territory in both. ISIS is only part of the regional struggle of Islamic extremists centered around al Qaida to overthrow the governments in many of the countries. Many extremists from the region came to Syria to overthrow the government there as part of the civil war, and now they are expanding into Iraq. If you don't understand that then you're missing key parts of the issue and will have little useful to add to the discussion.

--
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
Re:Get used to it by khallow · 2014-09-06 23:01 · Score: 1

I wouldn't call a failed state a superpower.

Maybe you could learn to spell out names of things so that we don't decide to interpret it some other, more entertaining way. Assuming we even have a clue what you are trying to insinuate.
Re:Get used to it by siddesu · 2014-09-07 00:14 · Score: 1

It is quite clear what the OP's point is, unless you're very obtuse. Also, the 'failed state' reference is obviously about 'democratic' Iraq, and not the superpower in question.
Re:Get used to it by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:30 · Score: 1

Be careful who you chide for missing key parts when you're missing key parts, too.
ISIS formed in Iraq in 1999 as the group that would become al-Qaeda in Iraq. (They change names every so often, probably for media and PR reasons and because their goals change.) They were driven into Syria where they were able to regroup, rearm, and pull in the support of foreign fighters. Once they amassed enough power and made enough deals with Iraqi Sunni emirs, they crossed back and, using the support of various Sunni militias, drove the Iraqi military out of the region.
This isn't the complete story, either. It's very much worth understanding the socioeconomic and political pictures that have allowed the current situation to arise.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Get used to it by guacamole · 2014-09-07 00:31 · Score: 2

Latent extremists will always be around in all countries. They come to power when there is a power vacuum. This is something we're observing in Iraq right now.
Re:Get used to it by currently_awake · 2014-09-07 02:06 · Score: 1

This struggle will go on until they run out of oil. Then we won't care, and stop meddling in their internal affairs.
Re:Get used to it by Jeremi · 2014-09-07 03:24 · Score: 1

Until then any talk of "ending the war" is as silly as claiming you can tear down a dam because the river stopped flowing. It stopped flowing because of the dam.
Eh, the idea was that once the Iraqis had built up their own dam, slightly downstream from the US-built temporary dam, that we could remove the US dam and let the Iraqi dam take over.
Unfortunately, it looks like the Iraqi dam was made out of paper-mache... :(

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Get used to it by budgenator · 2014-09-07 05:22 · Score: 1

ISIS is only part of the regional struggle of Islamic extremists centered around al Qaida to overthrow the governments in many of the countries.

No they want to eliminate All of the countries, not many of the countries and establish a Caliphate or in other words a Religious Dictatorship, one that would probably make the Iranians look like a bastion of freedom. Of course when the Caliphate doesn't become the "Paradise on Earth" that was promised, it's because the Infadels just over the boarder still exist, justifing yet another Jihad.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:Get used to it by jafac · 2014-09-07 13:49 · Score: 1

A power vacuum can only be filled by anything, when there is power left sitting around. In the case of these "latent extremists" - the question is: who armed and empowered them in the first place? It's not a case of latent extremists filling a power vacuum. It is a proxy-war, and war-profiteering.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Get used to it by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 17:34 · Score: 1

This struggle will go on until they run out of oil. Then we won't care, and stop meddling in their internal affairs.
The struggle will go on for a very long time since the goal of the Islamist extremists is to install Islamist governments and Sharia law in their countries, retake areas formerly ruled by Muslims, such as Spain, and complete the conquest of the world. The conflict will last much longer since Western Europe is settling large numbers of Muslims into Europe where they are becoming radicalized. The conflict will ultimately spread to Europe where it will become a significant problem in the decades to come. This isn't about us, it is about them.

--
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
Re:Get used to it by Xest · 2014-09-07 23:50 · Score: 1

This isn't entirely fair, it's worth noting that African has equally long been plagued by Christian extremism, and in fact, if we're talking about through history it's probably worth considering that it was the Christian crusades that were prominent in upending what were relatively peaceful societies back then, that's before you go back to the likes of Alexander's adventures through there and so forth also.
With all the focus on the middle east it's easy to forget that there are countries like India, where 10% of the world's muslims (170million) live that seem to harbour barely a single one even slightly interested in extremism. Indonesia has some problems, but it's similarly got a population of 270million muslims, and the vast majority similarly live in peace.
Pretending there's some specific aspect here of Islam that's the problem is complete and utter nonsense when you can similarly point to many hundreds of millions of muslims who don't fall into this stereotype, and when you can similarly point to many millions of Christians who fit the exact same stereotype (in fact, in CAR there are Christian militias carrying out the exact same atrocities as IS right now - beheadings, massacres etc.), it's just not as newsworthy because the middle east is where the West has repeatedly focussed it's attention in recent decades.
This isn't to say I'm some fluffy believer in respect everyone and they'll respect you and all that nonsense, on the contrary, I think we probably missed a chance to neuter IS to some degree and to check Putin's increasing boldness by not striking Syria and I think because we didn't and because Syria's moderates saw the only people that were standing by them in the face of a chemical weapons massacre were the Islamists we allowed IS to grow into a monster taking Qatari, Turkish, and US weapons along to IS with them. I think painting a red line and then not backing it up, even if only with a handful of cruise missile strikes on Syrian airfields used for barrel bombings and missile bases capable of launching chemical attacks was stupid and is a major reason IS was able to grow, and possibly even why Putin felt bold enough to not only annex Crimea but not give a shit when his guys shot down a civilian airliner and still invade Eastern Ukraine afterwards to boot. Maybe that's not the case, we'll never know, but if nothing else I can see how IS has grown as a function of our lack of backing up of red lines and promised support for moderates whilst they were still left with enough hope that someone actually cared about them to be moderate- the only upside is we got Assad to disarm some of his worst chemical weapons like Sarin (he's still using others like Chlorine which weren't part of the disarmament process).
There's no doubt the whole thing's a clusterfuck, but doing nothing is as much a bad option as doing something, and blaming an entire group of people that is over a billion in size and the vast majority of whom are as normal as you and I doesn't help anyone as you can similarly cherry pick conflicts of any religion as an equal and opposite counter-argument - in Burma even the Buddhists are carrying out atrocities for example.
Re:Get used to it by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-09-13 09:00 · Score: 1

Who will you blame for what the PLO did in Lebanon, along with Syria?
Why did you leave Israel out of that list?

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

US policy: first arm them then bomb by ltorvalds11 · 2014-09-06 22:01 · 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.

Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 22:37 · 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.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 22:56 · Score: 2

It's not 2003 any more. Iraq has a democratically elected government, and has for about 10 years now. The Iraqi army was rebuilt and rearmed with large amounts of weaponry. ISIS is mainly coming from Syria, not Iraq. You've got this pretty much wrong.

--
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
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Misagon · 2014-09-06 23:50 · Score: 1

I doubt that the US gov would have supported IS directly, but I think that it is very likely that they would have supported other groups fighting the Assad regime - and that those groups' resources have been
conquered by the IS.
It is known that many fighters in Syria who belonged to other groups have been forced into squads belonging to the IS, and that many of these would deflect from IS if they had the chance.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-09-06 23:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's not 2003 any more. Iraq has a democratically elected government, and has for about 10 years now. The Iraqi army was rebuilt and rearmed with large amounts of weaponry. ISIS is mainly coming from Syria, not Iraq. You've got this pretty much wrong.
Bullshit, you can't just reduce this to Weapons. Weapons are only as good as the people who operate them and they are only as good as those who lead them. Everything that has happened in Iraq since 2003 has been influenced by American meddling. Ibrahim al-Jaafari was replaced as Prime Minister of Iraq after the Bush White House became displeased with him due to his inability to curb the insurgency (which was not surprising in view of the fact that the army had been disbanded and some of the best troops had joined the insurgency). Iraq may have had democratic elections but the selection of parties and candidates available for election was carefully engineered by the USA and the same goes when it came to choosing which people occupied key government posts. Eye witness accounts of the search for a successor to al-Jaafari reminded me of the Praetorian's hunt for a new Roman emperor after the demise of Caligula. Having no idea who to replace Caligula with they finally found Claudius hiding behind a curtain and made him emperor and the US had given no more thought to who would replace al-Jaafari than the Pretorians had done when they disposed of Caligula. Finally the White House just chose Nouri al-Maliki, next best guy they could find without having any idea of how capable he was or whether he'd be an inclusive leader or a divisive one. The White House knew so little about al-Maliki that they mispronounced his name until he personally corrected them. Al-Maliki was so inexperienced he had to get weekly tutorial sessions from George W Bush Jr over video link (talk about dub leading dumber). It is this choice that is now coming back to bite the Obama administration along with it's own lack of interest in what is happening in Iraq. Yes the army was trained, yes the Sons of Iraq effort created a chance at reconciliation and yes It was al-Maliki, America's chosen man who de-Sunnified the government and civil service, it was he who fired all the US trained officers and replaced them with militarily inept cronies to coup-proof the army and it was his sectarian policies who sparked the campaign of repression that eventually led to the 'ISIS invasion' which in reality is a full blown Sunni revolt. Iraq today is very much America's mess and that is why the Europeans may be willing to join in the fight against ISIS by helping the Iraqi Kurds and possibly the YPG in Syria but they will remain unwilling to touch Iraq proper with a 16 foot pike. That's America's mess and it will have to be America who deals with it along with (irony abounds) Iran.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Tailhook · 2014-09-07 00:16 · Score: 1, Informative

That is nonsense. The US government provided arms to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government lost control
The US began arming Syrian rebels with small arms and other supplies almost a year ago.
Back then your MSM still had you cheering for the "Arab Spring" and Assad was the bad guy. Remember that? The narrative then was the noble and oppressed peoples of the Middle East rising up to topple puppet dictators and NPR et. al. were thrilled. So we gave these noble fighters weapons.
Yay!
Predictably, however, the Islamists started filling trenches with the bodies of infidels. The "Arab Spring" meme had to be quietly abandoned and now you're taught to fear the terrors of ISIS.
ISIS, IS, or whatever, are the exact same violent atavists we were arming twelve months ago; they move freely across the Iraq – Syria border, pursuing their Caliphate using both weapons we've supplied directly to them and weapons they've managed to capture.
It's also going pear shaped in Libya, the place we "liberated" from the Qaddafi regime with airstrikes. Soon those Islamists will start filling trenches with infidels and photos of Hillary posing with them will vanish when we start dropping bombs.
Watch for it.
Many of us understood all of this back when the "Arab Spring" started. The elites took a little longer to figure it out.

There are no recent examples of extended power-sharing or peaceful transitions to democracy in the Arab world. When dictatorships crack, budding democracies are more than likely to be greeted by violence and paralysis. Sectarian divisions — the bane of many Middle Eastern societies — will then emerge
These are cultures that can not govern themselves peacefully. They indulge Islamic extremism and they're not slaughtering infidels only when a dictatorial strongman wields enough power to keep the imams and muftis under control.
The rulers that prevailed during the Cold War understood this and worked to keep a lid on this mess. Those policies are now believed to be "imperialist" and so we've become schizophrenic; we indulge Islamists as the nobel oppressed right up until their nature is exposed by their atrocities and then we start dropping bombs.
Personally, I hope for change. Real change. Like ISIS, IS whatever overrunning Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, etc. etc. until they reach the sea in all directions. Then, at least, there will be no more nasty little low-intensity squabbles as we try to referee this crap and all doubt about the threat Islam poses to the species will be gone.
One can dream.

--
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by jbolden · 2014-09-07 00:34 · Score: 2

Iraq had a majoritarian government not a democratic government. Democratic governments represent the public interest. Iraq's government represented a sects interests. And not shockingly another sect is now rejecting that government.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:36 · Score: 1

While you and others are mostly correct, portions of Iraq's army folded, mostly those who joined for a paycheck (which was a lot of them). Those in the field now are from a more dedicated core and are fighting much more effectively. When they face up against Islamic State forces, they tend to hold the upper hand, especially when air power is available.
One of the things that needs to happen--and is a key demand of certain Sunni tribes--is the reinstatement of a number of former officers who were purged from the military in the de-Ba'athification. Many of them were at least competent and some even very good, far better than the current crop of officers largely hand-picked because they kissed the boots of Nouri al-Maliki.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by guacamole · 2014-09-07 00:36 · Score: 2

It's absolutely not true that all money and weapons came from USA. ISIS simply seized the weapons of the regular Iraqi military. While there were some American weapons in that cache, which the western TV networks love to display, most of the weapons they got were Soviet or Russian. And in fact, the Soviet/Russian weapons are the deadliest weapons that ISIS has. The American weapons are very high tech and very expensive to maintain (think about toys like M1 Abrams tank), while the Soviet weapons were designed to be rugged, easy to fix, and easy to operate.
Next onto the money, the Islamic State has always received covertly support from conservatives circles in the Gulf Sunni states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc). This is where they got most of their money and import fighters initially. And now ISIS gets a whole lot of money simply by selling oil or crudely refined oil products on the black market. So neither one of your claims is true. Sorry.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by aliquis · 2014-09-07 03:26 · Score: 1

That is nonsense. The US government provided arms to the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government lost control over them due to the attacks that they weren't able to stand up to. They probably would have made it if the US still have a meaningful presence there. The US left Iraq in no small part due to the stupid claims detached from reality that the US was there for the oil when it is European and Chinese companies getting the oil contracts.
It's Europe that is hurting for oil, not the US.
But.. but.. but.. zionists!
The Jews are behind everything!!
I've seen it mentioned "Proof: IS haven't attacked Israel!"
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by TubeSteak · 2014-09-07 03:57 · Score: 1

Then, at least, there will be no more nasty little low-intensity squabbles as we try to referee this crap and all doubt about the threat Islam poses to the species will be gone.
one can dream

You were doing fairly well until the very end.
Bigotry aside, it's extremely naive to assume this is fundamentally motivated by religion.
The Islamists are not doing anything essentially different than what can be seen in Africa,
where you have warlords controlling large swaths of territory with no religious motivations.
Bigotry is blinding you to realpolitik.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by HornWumpus · 2014-09-07 04:37 · Score: 1

Maintaining the stalemate is a much better tactic for the 'western world'.
Your scenario might finally force the Arab world to grow the fuck up, but I doubt it. They need a WWI all their own, pump oil like crazy, use the money to buy guns from us. All good, even dare I say it...Excellent. /Burns

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by HornWumpus · 2014-09-07 04:48 · Score: 1

Europe gets it gas mostly from the ruskies, oil mostly from the middle east.
The only part of that that can even change is the gas, which would require the euros to pull their heads out of their asses and allow fracking. Even that would take a couple of years. I think the Polish have already started. Which has to factor in the Russians cutting a long term contract with the Chinese.
Gas liquefaction could also reduce the price disparity/Russias pricing power. But I'm skeptical it will be more then a drop in the bucket.
What really needs to happen is a big gas and oil pipeline from the middle east that bypasses the russians _and_ european fracking. There are potential rent chargers all along the way. Who do you trust no to extort you after you're done building the pipeline? The Turks are a given, have to go over their land. The Greeks? Not just no, hell no. No good choices. Best bet is to always have more than one 'supplier'. Universal rule, even applies to pussy.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by __aanbvm4272 · 2014-09-07 08:30 · Score: 1

All this talk of "dams' is really about the other energy, OIL. Notice there is NO mention of the oil supply being threatened? The crude supply "we" discovered? That brought about the "Sunni Awakening" When we let them know the tribal leaders could receive profits (or not) That is what got them on "our side" initially. Not the "surge" as the right wingers claimed. Watch how little is mentioned of the Oil supply we fought the war for (our beloved oil execs) The news will be filled with attacks defending just all the other energy sources. SAD SAD SAD and obvious as hell.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by fnj · 2014-09-07 12:02 · Score: 1

due to the attacks that they weren't able^W motivated to stand up to
FTFY.
Why the christ doesn't slashdot handle the <strike> or <del> tags?
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by jafac · 2014-09-07 13:53 · Score: 1

The Iraqi government lost control over those arms, because they were never a legitimate government in the first place. The US propped up the best puppet they could find (Maliki); and in fact, they originally tried to install Chalabi - who was so obviously corrupt that it failed; but they could at least get enough support for Maliki to get him elected - but the fact is, the entire government, and army apparatus that was erected to support it, was simply a way to channel bribes to the most-connected people.
When you have a government and administration that's composed of incompetent, but well-connected people, it falls over as soon as it is tested. They were only interested in their cushy positions, and covering their own asses. They didn't give a flying fuck about "Iraq".

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:US policy: first arm them then bomb by LienRag · 2014-09-08 07:09 · Score: 1

"Al-Maliki was so inexperienced he had to get weekly tutorial sessions from George W Bush Jr over video link "
Would you have a reference for that?

Re:news for nerds? by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 22:11 · Score: 1, Troll

Whew! For a minute I was worried that nobody would make a facile nonsense comment to distract from the real issues. Thankfully you came through.

--
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

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 22:20 · Score: 2, Funny

You're right. Like the Democrats they tend to lean more towards using bombs.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 22:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

Eurasia vs. oceania by should_be_linear · 2014-09-06 22:22 · 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

Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Jack+Griffin · 2014-09-06 22:35 · Score: 2

Who would've thought, history has demonstrated the Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all...
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 22:48 · Score: 1

Actually it hasn't. Saddam was a murderous butcher that had a body toll well beyond that of ISIS.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by gtall · 2014-09-06 22:48 · 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.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by drinkypoo · 2014-09-06 22:50 · Score: 2

If Saddam was still in power, he would be major american ally in "fighting terrorists".

Do you remember when Saddam was our ally in fighting what we found inconvenient? But you're way off the mark. We are the global terrorists.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 22:50 · Score: 1

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.
No, he wouldn't. Saddam was funding and assisting terrorist, not fighting them.
The present democratically elected Iraqi government is the one fighting terrorists. That government wouldn't exist if Saddam was still in power. It is worth noting that the present government is hampered by widespread corruption, a problem that Saddam made far worse in Iraq than it was.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by JaredOfEuropa · 2014-09-06 23:06 · 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...
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:10 · Score: 2

I'm beginning to think you're never going to get much of this right.
Maybe you can start with this: Who armed Saddam? - Some reality checks
And no, the US is not "the global terrorists." If you believe that you are SERIOUSLY misguided.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:13 · Score: 1

No, Saddam wasn't involved with funding al Qaida as far as we know. He was funding other terrorists, including paying money to the families of suicide bombers, and providing refuge for various terrorists.
Saddam did have an advanced nuclear program, and built and used large amounts of chemical weapons. He also built biological 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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Misagon · 2014-09-06 23:37 · Score: 1

No, he wouldn't. Saddam was funding and assisting terrorist, not fighting them.
So has the US government, when it has served its interests ...
Saddam Hussein and his regime was actually quite proficient and ruthless in clashing down on terrorists activities within the borders of Iraq.
The notion that his regime would have supported the terrorist organisation Al-Qaeda is well known to be a lie by the GWB administration to gain support for their invasion of Iraq for its oil reserves, as part of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) group's agenda.
The PNAC did first lobby for an invasion during the Clinton administration, but their top men became the government when the non-member they had chosen as front-man/scapegoat "won" the election as US president in 2000.
The PNAC's agenda, list of leaders and lobbying have always been public, even on their web site when they had it, so this is hardly any conspiracy theory that people have made up, yet many Americans are so misdirected by the fnords.

--
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 00:36 · Score: 1

If Saddam was still in power, he would be major american ally in "fighting terrorists".

Saddam was sending money to the families of suicide bombers encouraging terrorism prior to his death. No he did not help the USA in fighting terrorism.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 00:39 · Score: 1

What they are doing is over the long term embracing democracy. Those countries have insane borders designed by the French and British as part of the Sykes–Picot Agreement. What's happening now is genuine nation-states are forming where the borders are likely to be people who view themselves as share a common interest. That is forming nation-states. That makes good government possible and thus democracy possible. It is the same process Europe went through.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:44 · Score: 2

I've got a better match for you. Here are just some of the entities that the Islamic State has made enemies of:
- Iraq
- Syria
- Jordan
- Hezbollah
- Free Syria Army
- United States
- Britain
- Iran
- Saudi Arabia
- Russia (maybe)
- al-Qaeda
They're not exactly all on the same side, but they do all oppose the IS. I can't think of a time when a group was more universally opposed.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:51 · Score: 1

Saddam Hussein funded terrorists where he found it appropriate (mostly in other countries) and fought terrorists where he found it appropriate (mostly in Iraq).
Corruption in the government isn't the problem, at least not as we usually think of it. The attempt by previous Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to sideline the Sunnis and Kurds as second-class citizens is the problem. The man basically tried to become a dictator, and it wasn't until the rise of the Islamic State that Iran finally stopped backing him. Maybe the new PM, Haider al-Abadi, a man who Sunni politicians found acceptable, can repair some of the damage. Already, some of the Sunni emirs have switched sides and ordered their militias to fight the IS.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Jack+Griffin · 2014-09-07 00:56 · Score: 1

If we're talking body tolls, then George W Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam. But it's all relative, the current state is set to drag on for another couple of decades primarily because the ruthless fist of Saddam is not there to keep it in check. Sometimes we have to learn that there is no good option, only bad or really bad. I believe we would've been better containing Saddam than the current mess we have.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by ScentCone · 2014-09-07 01:15 · Score: 2

If we're talking body tolls, then George W Bush is responsible for the deaths of more Iraqis than Saddam.
No, not really. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis. Getting even more of his people killed while spending that last of force's energies to try to keep him in power was also his fault. Starving even more of them while stealing aid money to buy more weapons and prop up his regime by force was his fault.

I believe we would've been better containing Saddam than the current mess we have.
We do indeed have to put up with lots of bad people in power. But holding our noses while contending with him ceased to be an option. He invaded Kuwait, and we allowed to stay in power as long as he agreed to stand down and abide by many specific requirements. He chose not to, at every turn. He never stopped trying to kill ethnic minorities (like the Kurds), never stopped shooting at allied forces enforcing the no-fly zone, never stopped importing weapons (including long-range SCUDs), never came clean about where he put all of his VX gas, and more. The larger conflict that finally took him down was the climax of an uninterrupted fight that he started when he tried to forcibly take over a neighboring country. He'd probably still be there, along with his incomprehensibly cruel and murderous sons, if he'd not invaded Kuwait - and possibly he'd still be there if he'd actually done what he promised when he was kicked back out.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2014-09-07 01:17 · Score: 1

The significance of your list assumes that Country = Country's Government. That might be more or less the case for most Western countries with a democratically government. But what about the Arab states. We have no way of knowing if the masses of those countries are actually sympathetic to IS cause (sympathetic until they actually have the chance to live other it). So while a certain Arab government might condemn IS, their support for any US military action might be just that, fighting words without any bite. Who knows if this will turn out to be a coalition of one backed up by a peanut gallery of nations unwilling to contribute a single soldier or even let their territory be used as an operations base.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by ScentCone · 2014-09-07 01:19 · Score: 1

No. Representative government, not tribalism, IS the common interest. The long-term thing you're describing isn't an embrace of democracy., It's the retrenchment of tribal rivalry by people who think that there is only so much prosperity available, and that the best way to get more is to kill the other guy. The "other guy" in this case, is someone who doesn't share your relatively recent family tree. Combine those gang-war family turf politics with medieval-minded murderous theo-thugocracy in the form of groups like Isis and the Wahabism that fuels it, and you've got quite a mess. None of which has anything to do with Democracy.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by dunkelfalke · 2014-09-07 01:19 · Score: 1

"shock and awe" campaigns make one a terrorist by the very definition of that word.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 02:06 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about those supporting US military action. That's a separate list. I'm talking about those who have participated in some form of engagement. The only one that is perhaps in doubt is Russia, but they are providing intelligence support, if only relaying information between the US and Syria since neither of those countries wants to admit cooperating with each other.
Those entities above known to be actively fighting the IS:
- Iraq
- Syria
- Hezbollah
- Free Syria Army
- United States
- Iran
- al-Qaeda (via al-Nusra Front)
Those entities providing military and/or financial aid to those fighting the IS:
- United States
- Britain
- Iran
- Saudi Arabia
Those entities providing intelligence support:
- Syria
- Jordan
- Free Syria Army
- United States
- Britain
- Iran
- Saudi Arabia
- Russia

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by seyyah · 2014-09-07 02:54 · Score: 1

Turkey ....
ISIS holds dozens of Turkish diplomats, their guards and family members after overrunning their consulate in Mosul. And Turkey (along with Qatar, Saudi, the US, etc) was one of the main backers of rebel groups in Syria.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-09-07 03:25 · Score: 1

The significance of your list assumes that Country = Country's Government. That might be more or less the case for most Western countries with a democratically government. But what about the Arab states. We have no way of knowing if the masses of those countries are actually sympathetic to IS cause (sympathetic until they actually have the chance to live other it). So while a certain Arab government might condemn IS, their support for any US military action might be just that, fighting words without any bite. Who knows if this will turn out to be a coalition of one backed up by a peanut gallery of nations unwilling to contribute a single soldier or even let their territory be used as an operations base.
I've got a better match for you. Here are just some of the entities that the Islamic State has made enemies of:
- Iraq - 65% Shia so mostly against.
- Syria - 72% Sunni but currently at war with them and partly living the reality of ISIS rule, so against.
- Jordan - 92% Sunni, relatively secular country, no history of widespread ISIS support but possibly in doubt.
- Hezbollah - Shia militia currently fighting against ISIS in Syria so against.
- Free Syria Army - Relatively secular, moderate and currently at war with ISIS so against.
- United States - Definitely Against.
- Britain - Definitely against.
- Iran - Shia country efinitely against.
- Saudi Arabia - In doubt.
- Russia (maybe) - Scared shitless of this kind of movement spreading to Russias moslem regions so against.
- al-Qaeda - Threatened by ISIS so, against.
There are also some other entities involved in this the original list left out.
- The Kurds - Mostly Sunni but largely secular and at war with ISIS so against.
- The Kurdish Yazidis - Currently watching their women being sold as slaves to ISIS fighter so definitely against.
- The EU nations - Definitely against.
- The Non EU Nato nations - (chief among them Turkey) Definitely against.
I'd say his analysis is overwhelmingly correct.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by hairyfeet · 2014-09-07 04:03 · Score: 1

Ya know I always thought it was hilarious how badly the west got their panties in a wad over the SCUD when its just a really REALLY crude rocket, not much better than the Katyusha of WWII. Every time old Saddam tried to improve the things all he did was make 'em more likely to fall apart or blow up, tests we did on captured ones showed you'd be damned lucky to land within 4 football fields of your target, and that was with the Russian ones, Saddams were much worse because his "rocket scientists" just kept making the cases thinner to increase range, they were right up there with the Asad Babil on the POS scale.
Like it or not getting rid of old Saddam and crazy MoMo was VERY stupid, because just like in Vietnam with the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem we didn't have a damned clue as to what to do after. And just like with Ngo Dinh Diem it gave the enemy the field as all it did was sow chaos and instability and replace a bad leader with a giant question mark, leaving the place easy pickings. Was MoMo and Saddam evil? yep they were total scum but they were containable scum, whereas the Islamist extremists build training camps and export their evil all over the planet.
If there is any lesson we should take from Libya and Iraq its that we should NOT do anything to topple Assad, because any attempt to replace him with a western stooge will only end up being a disaster, instead if the people of Syria replace him all on their own we should try to have a dialog with that person but not to try to ramrod in our own puppet because in the long run it comes and bites us on the ass.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 04:54 · Score: 1

A tribe is defined by blood. A nation is defined by things like: language, culture, ethnicity (broader) and history. That's a much larger group than a tribe. A nation is large enough to allow for complex economics, a tribe is not large enough. That's why nation-states are viable but tribal territories are not. Certainly the idea is to replicate some of the affinity one has in a tribe in the nation. For example many of the Americans traumatized and angered 9/11 didn't have anyone related to them that died in 9/11 or close friends that died in 9/11. But they still saw it as an attack on themselves.
What ISIS is doing is forming a Sunni nation state. I don't like their politics but I do believe that this formation of a nation state is a really important step forward for the middle east in achieving good government. That may not happen during our lifetimes, but the emergence of nation states makes it more likely to happen.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 04:54 · Score: 1

Well said AC.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by ScentCone · 2014-09-07 07:15 · Score: 1

A tribe is defined by blood.
But tribal behavior is pretty well baked into us, genetically, and certainly manifests itself in large groups whether they're fourth cousins twice removed or just plain people who were raised the same way or like the same things. Groupthink on Slashdot frequently looks that way, for example, where people reflexively root for or against some person, meme, or the like simply because that's what their tribe here does.

Tribal-style behavior can exist in groups much larger than kin without that group happening to be a nation-state.

What ISIS is doing is forming a Sunni nation state. I don't like their politics but I do believe that this formation of a nation state is a really important step forward for the middle east in achieving good government.
Except, lots of Sunnis consider those asshats to be unspeakably un-Sunni-like, and a scourge. You're confusing religious affiliation with the foundation of nation building. That's not "important," it's exactly what's wrong with the entire Middle East.

For example many of the Americans traumatized and angered 9/11 didn't have anyone related to them that died in 9/11 or close friends that died in 9/11. But they still saw it as an attack on themselves.
Because it WAS an attack on themselves. It was intended to be damaging to everyone in the country or who has a vested interest in the health and well being of the US economy. The people who did the attack did so because there are hundreds of millions of people who don't want to live under a cruel religious authority, and have build nations where that medieval BS is appropriately pushed to the sidelines. It's not important that ISIS take the steps it's taking, it's important that they are prevented from taking a single new step at all, ever again.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 07:20 · Score: 1

Good point. Turkey is also, I think, fairly likely to get involved, though they don't want to give the Kurds too many ideas about independence.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 07:36 · Score: 1

No, they don't. It was conventional military operations, not terrorism.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by dunkelfalke · 2014-09-07 08:05 · Score: 1

Terrorism is using violence to frighten the civilians (that is what the "terror" part of the word is about) to achieve political goals. Bombing a city is terrorism. Whether this is also a conventional military operation is utterly irrelevant. US military has been making terrorist strikes several times in Serbia and in Iraq. I know that you are flag-waving way too hard to accept it but this is the truth.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 08:53 · Score: 1

The truth isn't what you claim. In the conflicts you reference the US has bombed targets (like a rocket launcher) in cities, not the cities themselves. It isn't trying to destroy the city but rather the military targets in it. Using modern precision guided weapons makes this possible. The goal is not to frighten or terrorize the civilians but to destroy the enemy's military forces. The US often avoids attacking particular targets due to their being located on a protected facility (such as a mosque or hospital), or when there is a strong probability of excessive civilian casualties. There are times when the presence of enemy forces or equipment is sufficient to justify attacking anyway, but it will at least be considered. The point is that the US is not deliberately targeting civilians in an attempt to cause large numbers of civilian noncombatants to be killed.
Al Qaida and various other terrorist organizations take a very different approach. They deliberately target civilians engaged in ordinary routine to try to kill as many as they can. That is why they explode truck bombs in city markets - they are trying to kill innocent people to create terror.
There are consequences to being confused on that point, one of which is making it harder to condemn actual terrorism and the deliberate targeting of civilians. That makes it harder to achieve consensus and try to effectively address the problem.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 09:52 · Score: 1

But tribal behavior is pretty well baked into us, genetically, and certainly manifests itself in large groups whether they're fourth cousins twice removed or just plain people who were raised the same way or like the same things.

Exactly! That's the idea of a nation. To create the affinity bonds that exist within tribes, or something close, within a much larger group. So yes. We aren't disagreeing.

Tribal-style behavior can exist in groups much larger than kin without that group happening to be a nation-state.

True. But the converse is not true. A nation-state needs this tribal type behavior.

Except, lots of Sunnis consider those asshats to be unspeakably un-Sunni-like, and a scourge.

Most Americans didn't like our founding fathers, they had about 1/3rd support no higher than the loyalists. Lacking support is fine. They are creating common interests and defining in-group out group and also defining the territory / geography.

You're confusing religious affiliation with the foundation of nation building. That's not "important," it's exactly what's wrong with the entire Middle East.
I'm not confusing it. Look at your comment the other way. If states keep failing because they lack religious affiliation then maybe it is time to base states on religious affiliation and just change borders to match the religious affiliation of the various parties.

Because it WAS an attack on themselves. It was intended to be damaging to everyone in the country or who has a vested interest in the health and well being of the US economy.

Why did they perceive it as an attack on themselves? Why do they view themselves as having a vested interest in the USA economy? Etc... You are begging the question.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by drinkypoo · 2014-09-07 10:34 · Score: 1

Using modern precision guided weapons makes this possible.

Look, either the weapons aren't that precise, and we're hitting weddings and whatnot by accident, or we're doing it on purpose, and waging a war of terror, not on it. Also, let's not forget that there's multiple "we"s involved here. There's the "we" of "all the people responsible for American Imperialism, which includes every taxpayer" and then there's also the "we" of "the people oppressed by the American government, which includes every taxpayer" — pretty much by definition, because the fucks at the top of the pyramid don't pay their taxes, at least not like the rest of us. And they get a fantastic return on their investment, again, not like the rest of us.
The American "War on Terror" is Terror. It's an ongoing campaign of fear waged against everyone outside the auspices of the USA MIC.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 11:31 · Score: 1

Look, either the weapons aren't that precise, and we're hitting weddings and whatnot by accident, or we're doing it on purpose, and waging a war of terror, not on it.

The weapons mostly much hit what is aimed at, but they do miss on occasion. And a Taliban guerilla group moving cross country at night and part of an Afghan clan moving cross country at night to attend a wedding may appear similar, and both will be armed. Yes, there have been some mistakes made - note: mistakes - in targeting them. But by the same token the Taliban has claimed on more than one occasion that a guerilla group of theirs that was attacked was really a wedding party. In other words, the Taliban lied. You should be including that as part of your evaluation, especially since I although I may be mistaken I seem to recall that you regularly accuse the US or its associates of lying about this or that but I somewhat doubt that lying by the Taliban is something you consider.
Also don't overlook the fact that the US often compensates victims or families of mistaken attacks.

The American "War on Terror" is Terror. It's an ongoing campaign of fear waged against everyone outside the auspices of the USA MIC.
Nonsense. The US is in an armed struggle with armed militant Islamist extremists trying to overthrow governments, attack Westerners, fellow Muslims, and targets of opportunity to gain control over more territory and impose their harsh version of Sharia law. That is a pretty small population. The US has no conflict with Belgian farmers, Mexican factory workers, French doctors, Italian bakers, Turkish journalists, Jordanian date farmers, miners in Nigeria, or a vast number of other people.

--
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
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jafac · 2014-09-07 14:01 · Score: 1

Whatever Sunni state emerges there, I think that the descendents of that state don't want to have their entire ideological history tainted by ISIS and ISIS's barbarity. It will be a difficult legacy to live-down, and it will be hard for such a state to grow into a modern nation and world-citizen.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 14:29 · Score: 1

How does the barbarity of the Merovingian dynasty influence modern France?
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by ScentCone · 2014-09-07 15:24 · Score: 1

Why did they perceive it as an attack on themselves? Why do they view themselves as having a vested interest in the USA economy?
Because if you participate in the US economy (as someone who contributes to it, or someone who takes from it - either way), then a deliberate attack on it IS an attack on you. They "view" themselves as having a vested interest in the US economy because they actually do have such. There's really no room for confusion on that front.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by Jack+Griffin · 2014-09-07 16:52 · Score: 1

No, not really. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions of Iraqis.
I'm pretty sure the invaders had US flags on their uniforms...

We do indeed have to put up with lots of bad people in power. But holding our noses while contending with him ceased to be an option.
No it didn't, containment was working up until Bush decided to try and be a hero and blame Iraq for 9/11. Despite it being plainly obvious that Bin Laden and Hussein were enemies. Invading was the greatest gift we could've given the Islamic fundamentalists.

He invaded Kuwait,
Oh please. He was a friend of the US at the time and had permission from the White House to invade. It was only the worldwide condemnation that forced the US to rescind it's support and try and be World Police. The correct course, as with China, Vietnam, Russia, Zimbabwe, Libya etc etc is to contain and isolate. Invading was a colossal error and we will pay the price for that blunder for at least the next 20 years. George W Bush will go down as stupidest president ever because of it.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-07 23:19 · Score: 1

Everyone participates in that vague sense in the global economy. They don't perceive things like terrorist attacks against Saudi Arabia as attacks on themselves even when Saudi Arabia was the largest non-domestic source of US oil. So obviously that isn't all of it.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by ScentCone · 2014-09-08 00:46 · Score: 1

They don't perceive things like terrorist attacks against Saudi Arabia as attacks on themselves even when Saudi Arabia was the largest non-domestic source of US oil.
Sure they do. I do.

That's why dealing with people who use terrorist bombings and similar tactics against civilian and commercial targets in order to boost their global profile and recruit fellow idiots to their cause ARE considered a global problem, even if all they're doing is deliberately slaughtering innocent women and children at a vegetable market in Afghanistan. Because allowing people who embrace and spread that way of interacting with the world to continue unchecked just makes the problem grow. Legitimizes it, for some, as a way to communicate their twisted world view in a global media/economy era. That stuff is toxic to civilization, period. So those of us who appreciate civilization do feel assaulted when those who want to tear it down decide they can and should get away with it unmolested.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by jbolden · 2014-09-08 02:11 · Score: 1

Sure they do. I do.

Most don't. For example the MEK are being applauded by congress. The IRA has tons of popular support in the USA. Hezbollah is very popular internationally. The USA is talking about funding the FSA.
Certainly there are people who deplore all violence and see the world in a global terms. But those people in some sense really do support something like global government. For them individual states don't mean much other than administrative units. Those are people who in some sense reject the notion of the nation state entirely. You may be one of those.
Arguably what you are pushing for is something very close to what existed before nation-states: Christendom. A universal set of norms and universal government with local administrative units. Where people accepted that all of humanity (or at least a huge chunk) were one big family. I think if we want to evaluate this fairly you need to start talking about empire vs. nation-state in a realistic way. In exchange for less violent war you have:
a) A much deeper exclusion of those outside the fold.
b) Much less representative government. Much less self determination. And thus a much more entrenched aristocracy that is even less accountable.
c) Much more violence (state terror) needing to be used against those in the fold who object to (b).
Re:Eurasia vs. oceania by drinkypoo · 2014-09-08 02:54 · Score: 1

Yes, there have been some mistakes made - note: mistakes - in targeting them.
You say mistakes, I say show me some evidence that they were mistakes.
You say mistakes, I say you never pull the trigger unless you know what you're aiming at, except maybe when clearly threatened. But drone strikes don't meet that test.

The US has no conflict with Belgian farmers, Mexican factory workers, French doctors, Italian bakers, Turkish journalists, Jordanian date farmers, miners in Nigeria, or a vast number of other people.
You're an idiot: The US is in conflict with everyone in Mexico.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:news for nerds? by SilenceBE · 2014-09-06 22:36 · 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.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Vinegar+Joe · 2014-09-06 22:36 · Score: 2

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

I fixed that for you.

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 22:57 · Score: 1

Sure, it was much better when Reagan armed Saddam to the teeth!
If you can't see past the partisan bullshit to keep the ignorant masses occupied, ask an adult to explain things to you. The people murdered by US weapons in the wrong hands don't give a fuck about which label was on the door.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:08 · 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

Re:news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-06 23:14 · 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.

Re:news for nerds? by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-09-06 23:15 · Score: 1, Redundant

Like this week annexing >400km of land for settlers

400 HECTARES.

That's 4 square km, not ">400km"....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Re:al Qaeda ep. 2: this time it's... still "terror by Black+Parrot · 2014-09-06 23:20 · Score: 2

I think this is a simple case of "you break it, you buy it".

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:news for nerds? by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Here's a bit of news for you: there are Muslims of every race. If your explanation of things centers around "brown people" in some fashion you completely misunderstand the issues.

And yes, ISIS does exist. It is an offshoot of al Qaida.

--
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

Excuse me by Bender+Unit+22 · 2014-09-06 23:42 · Score: 1

If I wanted to read about this shit, I would not come here.

Re:news for nerds? by elbisivni · 2014-09-06 23:43 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Why are you bringing GW Bush into the conversation?

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:49 · Score: 1

... keep up appearances by letting them bus/use someone else's weapons to keep up appearances,...

That's hilarious, and nonsense.

Maybe you could explain how the US got all of those Soviet, Warsaw Pact, and Chinese weapons during the height of the Cold War - enough to equip the armed forces of an entire nation? That is utter rubbish. You're grasping at straws.

--
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

Send Them Back To Hell by uncleroot · 2014-09-06 23:52 · Score: 1

Sending IS back to hell with airpower is easy when they are out in the open. But once Islamic State fighters retreat to towns like Fallujah it will be very difficult to twist them out of their holes. It will require house to house fighting and the towns will be more or less destroyed in the process with great cost to any civilians in the area. If the Shiite dominated Iraq Army does it there will be all kinds of payback. But I doubt they will step up. It will be up to mostly the US with help from the UK and some token help from a few other countries. Colin Powell was right. We broke it, we bought it.

Re:Send Them Back To Hell by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 01:01 · Score: 1

That's why there is a significant effort to bring the Sunni emirs back to Baghdad's side, starting with the new Prime Minister. The IS itself doesn't have much in the way of forces (ranging somewhere around 10,000, maybe a bit more), but instead relies on allied emirs to provide fighters.
And the army has stepped up. While Shi'ite militias have certainly helped, the Iraqi Army has retaken most of Tikrit and broken the siege at Amerli. It's slow progress, but it is weeding out many of those who just joined for a paycheck. Some Sunni militias have also turned against the IS and are creating problems for it within its controlled territory.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Send Them Back To Hell by dotancohen · 2014-09-07 04:13 · Score: 1

Sending IS back to hell with airpower is easy when they are out in the open. But once Islamic State fighters retreat to towns like Fallujah it will be very difficult to twist them out of their holes. It will require house to house fighting and the towns will be more or less destroyed in the process with great cost to any civilians in the area. If the Shiite dominated Iraq Army does it there will be all kinds of payback. But I doubt they will step up. It will be up to mostly the US with help from the UK and some token help from a few other countries.
Colin Powell was right. We broke it, we bought it.
This is exactly what happened in Gaza the past few weeks, to weed out Hamas.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-06 23:52 · Score: 1

The US didn't use Saddam to fight Iran. Saddam chose to invade Iran and various nations helped prop up Iraq to prevent Iran from rolling over them and taking control of Iraq and possibly the rest of the Middle East.

The Baathists were socialists, and were mainly armed by the bloc of nations controlled by the United Soviet Socialist Republics.

--
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

Would some please... by sTERNKERN · 2014-09-06 23:53 · Score: 1

...change the motto of Slashdot? It is so annoying to read "news for nerds" all the time while I am browsing through my beloved war/politics related articles.. /sarcasm

Re:news for nerds? by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:19 · Score: 1, Troll

Not quite. It started as a group local to Iraq and led by al-Zarqawi that allied with al-Qaeda in 2004 and was then generally known as al-Qaeda in Iraq. Last year, it announced the merger of itself and the Syrian group al-Nusra; the leader of al-Nusra publicly denied this and asked al-Zawahiri to intercede. He did so and also directed that ISIS tone things down because it was making al-Qaeda and its affiliates look bad, and the head of ISIS told al-Zawahiri to get bent. Since then, al-Qaeda has disavowed the group.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:news for nerds? by hooiberg · 2014-09-07 00:20 · Score: 1

Then who was it waving black flags with white arabic on it, throwing eggs at the police?

Re:news for nerds? by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:22 · Score: 1

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).

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:news for nerds? by jbolden · 2014-09-07 00:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Like this week annexing >400km

They annexed slightly under 100 acred or 4 sq km. Nothing remotely like 400. Seems your not one-sided news is not so good after all.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 00:40 · Score: 1

There are dozens of rebel factions in Syria. The weapons were sent largely to those a part of or allied with the Free Syrian Army, a group with secular aims. It's not surprising that they ended up in other hands, given the chaos.

But the US isn't the most prolific supplier of weapons. That goes to a group of countries led by Saudi Arabia. They're sending weapons to try to overthrow al-Assad to weaken the regional influence of Iran.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Gradual, ongoing winding down by kelvin31415 · 2014-09-07 01:01 · Score: 1

Oh, I see, it's just "a kink in the gradual, ongoing winding down of U.S. military presence". This is the sort of tendentious characterization I'd expect from a white house spokesperson striving mightily to minimize the significance of recent events. According to Wikipedia, the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq was completed in 2011. I can find plenty of voices calling the withdrawal "precipitous", so I'd like to see a citation for it being gradual and ongoing, if you please.

We should bomb the dam ourselves by gelfling · 2014-09-07 01:03 · Score: 2

Drown a few hundred thousand. What's the worst that happens? The liberals blame the Jews?

Stop making sense. by MRe_nl · 2014-09-07 01:09 · Score: 1

You ought to know personal ideology almost always trumps cold hard facts ; ).

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"

Re:Stop making sense. by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 02:08 · Score: 1

I find that it's not so much ideology as a desire to boil down the situation to the simplest form in an effort to win the argument. Sometimes this works when certain nuances aren't significant, but it's easy to go too far. The most common one I see is treating all Syrian rebels as if they're part of the IS, when it's a patchwork of groups with many goals.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by dunkelfalke · 2014-09-07 01:29 · Score: 1

Maybe he can't, but I can.

USA has received a shitload of Soviet designed weapons - and I don't mean just small arms, I mean tanks, helicopters, airplanes - starting 1989. From Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:news for nerds? by Type44Q · 2014-09-07 01:49 · Score: 1

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... but... we want to drink the Kool-Aid; it tastes so much better...

If you want a pretty easy example by Sycraft-fu · 2014-09-07 01:53 · Score: 1

Look at the military hardware the Saddam era Iraqi army used: It wasn't American make, it was Russian/Soviet. Now look at Egypt, a country the US does arm, they are using US equipment.

Unsurprisingly, when countries arm other countries, they do it using their stuff. It is not only convenient, but it is one of those nice political things where you can help your own industries because you are buying from them.

Re:news for nerds? by towermac · 2014-09-07 02:09 · Score: 1

What do you mean, lapdog? The US supports democracies that value liberty and freedom as best we can. Not perfectly of course, but we try. Threatened with destruction constantly, (hell, it's in the Palestinian's charter) we do sell them weapons at close to cost. That's a lot of our 'aid' to them; the discount. They got money, and they pay (not as much as the Saudis..). We have yet to fight directly alongside of Israel, although I assume we would if it really came to that.

Bitter over the UN mandate and British administration at the end of the wars? Then maybe the Ottoman Empire shouldn't have been on the wrong side of it. But the British weren't that bad in any case. Have you seen the 1947 partition map? The Arabs could have lived with that. If they had, then it wouldn't have mattered much anyway, Because Jews would have been free to live on the Arab land, and Arabs would have been free to live on Jewish controlled land.

Oh wait, that last part is still true; plenty of Arabs live and work in present day Israel, with more rights and freedoms than anywhere else in the Middle East.

One last thing; I don't know what European country you are in, but what if one of your neighboring countries, say, Poland maybe; started lobbing rockets over the border, blowing up neighborhoods and houses or whatever. How many warheads would it take for your country to put s stop to that with a quickness?

I'm thinking, about one.

Re:al Qaeda ep. 2: this time it's... still "terror by ColdWetDog · 2014-09-07 02:22 · Score: 1

If that's the case, the Brit's really need to own up and clean out their mess.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by Savage-Rabbit · 2014-09-07 02:40 · Score: 1

Maybe he can't, but I can.

USA has received a shitload of Soviet designed weapons - and I don't mean just small arms, I mean tanks, helicopters, airplanes - starting 1989. From Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary.

The USA has been buying Soviet made equipment on the black market since the 1980s at least and in large quantities. So if anybody ever wondered where the Soviet weapons came from that the CIA gave to the Afghans to shoot at the Soviets with now you know...

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Why? by iamacat · 2014-09-07 03:04 · Score: 1

Every revolution results in the most brutal, morally crude, religiously exploitive group coming to power. This is a simple function of a free for all fragfest. If we are so revolted by some head chopping, what about French revolution and its guillotine? If US and other countries didn't launch military intervention after similarly brutal bolshevik revolution in Russia, we could have avoided much of cold war, including current Ukrainian episode. Any country would want to establish a friendly buffer zone after being repeatedly attacked from the same direction many times.

We have nothing to offer to people of Iraq. The government we installed last time supported Shias killing Sunnis. Now it's the other way around. To change that, minds of millions of people need to be changed. It's not a matter of installing one government or bombing one rebel faction. When there is a visionary with big following, we could try to support him, like German's who helped install Lenin into power in exchange for a big piece of territory. All the good it ultimately done them.

Re:Why? by david_thornley · 2014-09-08 06:38 · Score: 1

The American Revolution resulted in a pretty good government. It doesn't always happen, but sometimes.
I'm also curious why you think not intervening in the Russian Civil War would have had a long-term effect. It would have possibly have eased the tensions for a while, but Western opinion turned very seriously against Stalin and the Soviets in the last stages of WWII. Given that Russia had been invaded by Charles XII, Napoleon, the British and French in the Crimea, Germany in WWI, and again in WWII (am I missing some?), I don't think removing some basically peripheral action, however unwanted, would have made it actually friendly.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:news for nerds? by Nostalgia4Infinity · 2014-09-07 04:14 · Score: 1

Islamic history that they don't teach at Harvard: When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost British Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria. In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain. During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts. The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam: "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.

Re: al Qaeda ep. 2: this time it's... still "terro by HornWumpus · 2014-09-07 04:28 · Score: 1

Implies it wasn't a mess before we got there.

GW Bush restored the Sunni/Sheia war, putting it back the way western europe found it. No need to thank him. Oil should be sucked mostly dry soon, so restoring the irrelevance too.

Now we're just enforcing a stalemate. Bet we wouldn't be doing a thing to ISIS if they weren't winning. See also Iran/Iraq war.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:news for nerds? by troll+-1 · 2014-09-07 04:29 · 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.

Re:news for nerds? by budgenator · 2014-09-07 04:43 · 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

Re:news for nerds? by jbolden · 2014-09-07 04:56 · Score: 1

Well we are in the process of shifting an area much larger of that to Canada. You don't know about it because it is such a not big deal. People make obvious border adjustments in a spirit of goodwill all the time.

Re:news for nerds? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-07 04:56 · Score: 1

Most Americans did not actually vote for that guy...

Enough voted for him to win, twice, I shall remind you. All the politicians are perfect reflections of the people who constantly reelect them. Like it or not this is the face they present to the world. No "conflation" required.

And you people keep on talking about this "credibility" thing. Maybe you all should just look at the numbers. Amercian weapons sales dominate the world markets more than they ever have. So please, when you want to talk about success and prestige, know where to look.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:news for nerds? by fustakrakich · 2014-09-07 04:59 · Score: 1

Whoops! That went to the wrong guy! I meant to post to the GP So sorry...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by HornWumpus · 2014-09-07 05:00 · Score: 1

Iraq and Iran had been fighting over the delta for decades. Goes back to the Shaw's days at least.

Once Iran lost it's status as American Ally it lost that protection too. Sheit/Sunni is a very old war that has never stopped.

You realize there is a difference between 'Socialist' (dumb philosophy) and 'Communist' (mostly Russian funded, at least during the cold war era and distant from China)? Yes, it is now _proven_ that the American Communist Party was founded by a soviet agent and recieved regular funding. Thanks KGB archives. Never would have learned it from this side.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:news for nerds? by jbolden · 2014-09-07 05:39 · Score: 1

You are right, that was a typo in my post (not confusion) but a bad typo when correct someone else's numbers. Anyway 400km and 4km are drastically different things. The average farm (median not mean!) is over 1100 acres. We are talking one farm's worth here.

The point of his post was that the USA has bad information about Israel / Palestine and that's nonsense. Having seen the European media (especially the Catholic countries to which the USA media is often unfavorably compared) it seems to be less informational, equally biased and frankly more emotion driven just in the other direction.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 05:57 · Score: 1

LOL. Whatever, lying douchebag, the facts around that war are well documented. You can deny them, but they won't disappear because of that.

That's right, the facts won't disappear, and I've just presented them.

You possess the aggressive ignorance of Dubya and O'Really. Go learn about the sad fate of the Iraqi communists and come back to us with your fantasies about the "socialism" of Saddam's regime.

Why don't you look into the fate of the parties that competed with the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the Nationalist Socialists in Germany and see if you can extrapolate.

Maybe the "United Soviet Socialist Republics" exist in whatever online game you've cut your strategic teeth, but in the real world there was no such entity.

Close enough to say yes: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

--
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

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 05:59 · Score: 1

USA has received a shitload of Soviet designed weapons - and I don't mean just small arms, I mean tanks, helicopters, airplanes - starting 1989. From Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary.

And in the 1960s, 1970s and early to mid 1980s, when Saddam and Iraq were arming, the US didn't have those weapons. So, guess where they came from? That's right, the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and China.

--
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

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 06:03 · Score: 1

That might work for relatively limited numbers of small arms to equip guerillas, but not for modern tanks and aircraft, artillery, surface to surface missiles like the SCUD, and antiaircraft missiles and radar used to equip the Iraqi armed forces.

Saddam was mainly armed by the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, and China.

--
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

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by budgenator · 2014-09-07 06:11 · Score: 1

Seems plausable, the other thing is the Soviets and other Warsaw Pact countries had armed so many that Soviet designed weapons are pretty ubiquitious in the World. I know people who worked at TACOM who worked full-time installing M60A3 turrets on T72 prime movers for Allies.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by dunkelfalke · 2014-09-07 06:28 · Score: 1

That ones were spent in the Iran-Iraq war.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by dunkelfalke · 2014-09-07 06:30 · Score: 1

That even worked for enough titanium to built all the SR-71 airplanes. Bought with the help of several shell companies straight from USSR.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap

Re:news for nerds? by penguinoid · 2014-09-07 07:03 · Score: 1

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).

Methinks you forgot apathy/cynicism/disillusionment. There are more people now that don't vote not because they can't vote but because they can't be bothered.

--
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 07:28 · Score: 1

I expect that you understand that there is a difference between raw commodities like 10 tons of titanium and manufactured finished goods such as an aircraft. The US used the raw materials to build its own aircraft, not manufacture copies of Soviet aircraft generally equivalent to its own high performance aircraft to provide Iraq.

--
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

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 07:34 · Score: 1

However, that still doesn't make Saddam Hussein a part of the Soviet bloc, no matter how you dislike this stubborn fact.

I never claimed that Saddam's Iraq was part of the Soviet bloc, only that they bought their weapons there. It is sort of like you don't have to be an employee of Tesco to buy goods there.

When Iraq attacked Iran, Saddam had good relations with the West, because the West was in a disposition to beat the shit out of Iran. Iraq used the said good relations to get loans and import weapons. Lots of weapons, for a lot of shooting, at Iran, at the Kurds, et cetera. These are the facts.

So then, we agree that Saddam attacked Iran for his own reasons? Good, since those are the facts.

You don't even know the names of the countries you write about, this is how ignorant you are. Just like Dubya, who kept eye-racking Iraq until he got out of office. Did he ever learn how to pronounce it correctly?

And yet you understood the entire time what President Bush was referring to, and what I was referring to, and decided to avoid discussing the substance of the argument and quibbled about minor things. You aren't proving yourself to not be an idiot there.

--
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

Re:news for nerds? by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 07:41 · Score: 1

You've missed my point. Even if 50%+1 of the voting-age population (we'll leave out those not eligible to vote due to lack of citizenship, felony conviction, dishonorable discharge, etc.) voted for him, it still wouldn't be a majority of all Americans. There were about 313 million people in the US in 2012; half of that would be more people than voted, and would require 77% of the voting-age population. No president is known to have gotten that vote level, let alone overall preference. Washington might have, but no popular vote totals are available before 1824, and women were blocked from voting, as were most blacks, so rendering a majority support virtually impossible anyway even if every person legally allowed to vote did so.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

what?! by slashmydots · 2014-09-07 08:58 · Score: 1

"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"
Put a kink in it? IT WAS CAUSED BY IT!!

Re:news for nerds? by budgenator · 2014-09-07 09:04 · Score: 1

221,925,820 was the Voting-Eligible Population, so that would increase the percentage to 29.7%, so way less than a third of eligable voters voted for Obama; 131,799,320 voted for either Obama or Romney so only 59.4% voted period.

On Nov 6, 2012 US population was 314,760,969, 131,799,320 / 314,760,969 = 41.87%, so if all of the people who voted, had voted for Obama it still wouldn't be a majority of all Americans.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Obama is HyperJesus by gelfling · 2014-09-07 09:54 · Score: 1

All He Does Is Divine. Let us give praise and say Amen.

Re:news for nerds? by shutdown+-p+now · 2014-09-07 10:29 · Score: 1

Is that area settled?

Re:news for nerds? by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-07 10:35 · Score: 1

That was my original point. I'm not sure if you're trying to make an additional point or trying to contradict me by agreeing with me.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Re:news for nerds? by fnj · 2014-09-07 11:58 · Score: 1

excluded from voting for various reasons (age, gender, race, or ethnicity, depending on the time period)

An excellent point in the main, but AGE? Are you serious?

One of these things is not at all like all the others.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by HornWumpus · 2014-09-07 12:42 · Score: 1

How long was the Shaw in charge of Iran? Who's ally was he? You don't know what you are talking about.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Flood by manu0601 · 2014-09-07 13:38 · Score: 1

The idea that IS would flood Baghdad makes no sense to me: if they want to rule the territory, such a bold move against the non fighting population is counter productive: it seems impossible to be considered as a legitimate power after that.

Re:Flood by Xest · 2014-09-07 23:24 · Score: 1

Baghdad is primarily Shia, so they'd never be able to rule it. It's also the place whereby which most people that want IS destroyed come from. They wouldn't flood it to rule it, they'd flood it because it's the biggest threat to them in Iraq. There's an entire area of Baghdad called Sadr city, after a religious leader that has basically his own entire army- these guys alone are strong enough to hold IS off from Baghdad (it was basically a no go area for coalition troops when they invaded and they were more numerous and better equipped and trained than IS), so flooding it would be massively advantageous to them.

Re:news for nerds? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-07 16:02 · Score: 1

unfortunately, ISIS' latest internal demographic study concluded that women are still under-represented

Re:news for nerds? by pete6677 · 2014-09-07 16:12 · Score: 1

Too bad the European pussies won't take care of any of the atrocities occurring right in their back yards, making America be the World Police by default. Europe had better be concerned about the spread of the plague of Islamism, since it's coming right into their countries.

Re:Terrorists, not Fighters by cold+fjord · 2014-09-07 17:28 · Score: 1

No, you claimed (1) that they were 'armed' by the United Soviet Republics, ....

No, I stated that they were primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, and that is correct.

(2) on ideological grounds (as in Baathists are socialists). Nice to see you're shifting to 'oh, it was pure business' line after I pointed out how ignorant you are.

Is that what you think? Then you managed to get it wrong, including getting your own claim wrong.

You see this? -

However, that still doesn't make Saddam Hussein a part of the Soviet bloc, no matter how you dislike this stubborn fact.

Saddam was never under Soviet control, was never part of the Soviet bloc. It was a Soviet client state, and the Soviets did arm them.

Besides, you have still not addressed the bulk of my point, namely that:Saint Ronnie financed them during the war and specifically to fight the war to the tune of a cool few hundred millions. Which kind of dispenses with your "The God-Blessed Umerrikah didn't arm them" lie.

And we return to your being unable to keep my factual statement straight - the Iraqis were mainly armed by the bloc of nations controlled by the Soviets. That doesn't rule out American involvement. (You do understand that, right?) You seem to be getting wrapped around the axel about the approximately 1% of armaments or support Iraq received from the US. Big deal.

Sure. With a little help from his Western friends.

Saddam made his own decision to attack Iran. Western aid came long after the fact. You are trying to twist the history.

You seem to be about as stupid as you're arrogant.

Well if that's true, then it is a vice we both share.

The "substance" of your argument was "US wasn't arming Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war",

The substance of my argument was that Iraq was primarily armed by the Soviet bloc, a fact you keep getting wrong.

. Of course, being a lying bastard of the PNAC ideology and the Lenin methods, you simply ignored it.

You seem to be projecting.

--
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

Re:news for nerds? by dave420 · 2014-09-07 21:55 · Score: 1

The Palestinian Territories are much smaller, so if you adjust the size accordingly, it would be the same as if Canada took ~155,000 acres. Also this land already had people living in it and relying on it for water and access, both things which can soon be forgotten. And - sorry - where does good will come into stealing land from someone? A token of good-will is accepted beforehand between both parties, even if begrudgingly - this is clearly not the case here.

Re:news for nerds? by jbolden · 2014-09-07 22:59 · Score: 1

Yes, but not heavily. OTOH we have moved heavily settled territories back and forth before, just not recently. One of the reasons we developed the 60m rule with Canada was so that didn't happen. For example there are rivers that shift that are part of the border. Many tends of thousands of acres change hands as the rivers shift.

Re:news for nerds? by jbolden · 2014-09-07 23:09 · Score: 1

The claim was the border shift in and of itself was something beyond the pale.

I hate terms like "stealing land". Things that other countries do are considered to be criminal when Israel does them, and frankly it is rhetoric like that IMHO disqualifies the anti-Israel movement from being sensible. Governments don't steal land internal to their territory, they reallocate resources. I live in New Jersey, the government of the countries and the state all the time takes private lands over by matter of law, pays the owners and then uses them for something other than residential. People from all over the world don't object to this. Heck I voted for 2 people in my township that want to eminent domain my house to knock it down attach it to another development (or in racist UN speak attack my indigenous home to a settlement). Were the Palestinians willing to cooperate with the governments and file for compensation it would simply be eminent domain. Or maybe it would just be happening between the developers and the population and not involve the government at all.

Israel has de-jure annexed Area-C. It is time the world just acknowledges that the Israeli government is the government over that territory.

Re:news for nerds? by david_thornley · 2014-09-08 06:09 · Score: 1

Once you've got the prize, they can't take it away, can they?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:news for nerds? by david_thornley · 2014-09-08 06:17 · Score: 1

The minimum voting age used to be 21, discriminating against people under 21. It's now 18. Personally, after thinking about it for a while, I don't see why we need a minimum voting age. Why deny a 12-year-old the vote? What harm would it do to let him or her vote?

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:news for nerds? by Martin+Blank · 2014-09-10 05:56 · Score: 1

The original point was about all Americans. Since those under 18 (and previously 21, as david_thornley pointed out) couldn't vote, it took a significant chunk of the populace out, more so in past eras where the life expectancy was shorter.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.

Slashdot Mirror

New US Airstrikes In Iraq Intended to Protect Important Dam

148 of 215 comments (clear)