The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[Leferd]

ISIL also took control of the Mosul Dam from the Kurds. Shades of Hoover Dam and NCR/Caesar's Legion.

 

Not good.

[Gromnir]

ISIL also took control of the Mosul Dam from the Kurds. Shades of Hoover Dam and NCR/Caesar's Legion.

 

Not good.

“[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,” Petraeus’ and Crocker’s 2007 letter says. “Assuming a worse [sic] case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet] deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property.” Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5 million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris, depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver.

 

A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power magazine estimated failure “could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths.”

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057

 

perspective. the bomb at hiroshima were ultimately responsible for ~120k-135k deaths. isis now has the capacity to kill 3x as many people. we can all hope that such a thing does not occur, but that damn is in a near constant state o' collapse as it were pretty much built on sand and soil. all that needs happen is for isis to fail to adequate maintain the facility.

[Leferd]

 

ISIL also took control of the Mosul Dam from the Kurds. Shades of Hoover Dam and NCR/Caesar's Legion.

Not good.

 

“[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,” Petraeus’ and Crocker’s 2007 letter says. “Assuming a worse [sic] case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet] deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property.” Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5 million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris, depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver.

 

A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power magazine estimated failure “could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths.”

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057

 

perspective. the bomb at hiroshima were ultimately responsible for ~120k-135k deaths. isis now has the capacity to kill 3x as many people. we can all hope that such a thing does not occur, but that damn is in a near constant state o' collapse as it were pretty much built on sand and soil. all that needs happen is for isis to fail to adequate maintain the facility.

Yep. Would be an absolute catastrophe.

 

Kurdish Peshmerga are willing, motivated, and seasoned fighters. Unfortunately, they were simply outgunned by ISIL (ISIS, IS?), stretched too thin, and ran out of ammo. US/NATO don't need to have boots in the ground but they need to supply bigger guns and ammo to the Kurds. These weapons shouldn't be withheld on the condition that the Iraqi government gets their **** together.

[Rostere]

I think Obama has been wise in showing restraint, but with IS taking control of the dam, and messing around about the Christian/Yazidi/Kurd parts of Northern Iraq where there are plenty of minorities to behead, it's very clear where to draw the line and administer some euthanasia from above for them when things get out of hand in this way. IS is no longer about an internal struggle in some Muslim country, it's an all-out genocidal campaign. You can only hope this will be done similar to Libya - ideally they would set up 24/7 aerial surveillance, block roads towards IS-held territory for commercial purposes, and bomb any military columns moving anywhere, and any heavy weaponry and military encampments which can be seen.

 

The reliance on air force is crucial to avoid the image of an occupation and the clashes with locals that entails, as shown in Libya (when compared to Iraq).

[Nepenthe]

 

 

ISIL also took control of the Mosul Dam from the Kurds. Shades of Hoover Dam and NCR/Caesar's Legion.

Not good.

“[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,” Petraeus’ and Crocker’s 2007 letter says. “Assuming a worse [sic] case scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet] deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of life and property.” Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5 million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris, depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver.

 

A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power magazine estimated failure “could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian deaths.”

 

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057

 

perspective. the bomb at hiroshima were ultimately responsible for ~120k-135k deaths. isis now has the capacity to kill 3x as many people. we can all hope that such a thing does not occur, but that damn is in a near constant state o' collapse as it were pretty much built on sand and soil. all that needs happen is for isis to fail to adequate maintain the facility.

Yep. Would be an absolute catastrophe.

 

Kurdish Peshmerga are willing, motivated, and seasoned fighters. Unfortunately, they were simply outgunned by ISIL (ISIS, IS?), stretched too thin, and ran out of ammo. US/NATO don't need to have boots in the ground but they need to supply bigger guns and ammo to the Kurds. These weapons shouldn't be withheld on the condition that the Iraqi government gets their **** together.

 

 

Yeah, and arming enemies-of-my-enemies hasn't backfired once since mao/vietnam/a-stan etc. You guys really should stop using proxies, it bites you (and those percieved to be your allies) in the ass every time.

 

[BruceVC]

I think Obama has been wise in showing restraint, but with IS taking control of the dam, and messing around about the Christian/Yazidi/Kurd parts of Northern Iraq where there are plenty of minorities to behead, it's very clear where to draw the line and administer some euthanasia from above for them when things get out of hand in this way. IS is no longer about an internal struggle in some Muslim country, it's an all-out genocidal campaign. You can only hope this will be done similar to Libya - ideally they would set up 24/7 aerial surveillance, block roads towards IS-held territory for commercial purposes, and bomb any military columns moving anywhere, and any heavy weaponry and military encampments which can be seen.

 

The reliance on air force is crucial to avoid the image of an occupation and the clashes with locals that entails, as shown in Libya (when compared to Iraq).

 

Once again despite the creation of ISIS having nothing to with the West it is expected that the West must help deal with this Islamic extremist threat

 

If the West's  suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have  been in existence today. So Russia and China should be pressured to deal with ISIS...oh that's right, I forgot., Russia and China only intervene when there own national interests are directly threatened.

[Malcador]

Once again despite the creation of ISIS having nothing to with the West it is expected that the West must help deal with this Islamic extremist threat

 

If the West's  suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have  been in existence today. So Russia and China should be pressured to deal with ISIS...oh that's right, I forgot., Russia and China only intervene when there own national interests are directly threatened.

Well, the West and Russia and China play the global game so they interfere in places they really don't need to all the time. Surely you're not implying with your last line that the West acts outside of their own interests.

 

US should definitely look to end ISIS. Perhaps they can enlist IDF help, too.

[BruceVC]

 

Once again despite the creation of ISIS having nothing to with the West it is expected that the West must help deal with this Islamic extremist threat

 

If the West's  suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have  been in existence today. So Russia and China should be pressured to deal with ISIS...oh that's right, I forgot., Russia and China only intervene when there own national interests are directly threatened.

Well, the West and Russia and China play the global game so they interfere in places they really don't need to all the time. Surely you're not implying with your last line that the West acts outside of their own interests.

 

US should definitely look to end ISIS. Perhaps they can enlist IDF help, too.

 

 

The reality of the creation of ISIS is simple, they were born out of  the protracted civil war in Syria. The civil war in Syria would have been over years ago if the West had been allowed to intervene like the Syrian rebels asked them to do through the United Nations security council. Just like the West helped end the civil war in Libya

 

Russia and China vetoed military action in Syria, the creation of ISIS is there fault. But they don't care and pressure gets put on the West to do something about it

[Fighter]

If the West's  suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have been in existence today.

 

 

Oh wow. US naively made a predictable mess -- just like the years of blood and destruction during Iraq occupation or the Taliban post USSR occupation -- by sponsoring these freedom fighters. But sure blame everything on Russia and China.

[BruceVC]

 

If the West's  suggestions around military intervention in the Syrian conflict in the beginning of that civil war hadn't been vetoed by Russia and China ISIS wouldn't have been in existence today.

 

 

Oh wow. US naively made a predictable mess -- just like the years of blood and destruction during Iraq occupation or the Taliban post USSR occupation -- by sponsoring these freedom fighters. But sure blame everything on Russia and China.

 

 

Strawman argument, I didn't say the USA is not partly responsible for the Iraq mess. But they did pull out in 2011 and leave a functional government. The new Iraqi government failed to integrate the  Iraq Sunni's who have now mostly aligned themselves with ISIS

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

[Malcador]

The reality of the creation of ISIS is simple, they were born out of  the protracted civil war in Syria. The civil war in Syria would have been over years ago if the West had been allowed to intervene like the Syrian rebels asked them to do through the United Nations security council. Just like the West helped end the civil war in Libya

 

Russia and China vetoed military action in Syria, the creation of ISIS is there fault. But they don't care and pressure gets put on the West to do something about it

So what ? It's in the West's interests to go finish off ISIS as they're slapping around Iraq at this point and the US has an objective of fighting Islamic terror with broadswords the past decade. Heh, what was the reason for getting involved in Libya, anyway ?

 

Debatable if Russia and China are to blame for ISIS existing as it's hardly that simple, and last I've heard they're not arming them (might be abusing the West's arming of the "good" rebels for that at the start).

Edited August 8, 2014 by Malcador

[BruceVC]

 

The reality of the creation of ISIS is simple, they were born out of  the protracted civil war in Syria. The civil war in Syria would have been over years ago if the West had been allowed to intervene like the Syrian rebels asked them to do through the United Nations security council. Just like the West helped end the civil war in Libya

 

Russia and China vetoed military action in Syria, the creation of ISIS is there fault. But they don't care and pressure gets put on the West to do something about it

So what ? It's in the West's interests to go finish off ISIS as they're slapping around Iraq at this point and the US has an objective of fighting Islamic terror with broadswords the past decade.

 

 

I'm confused, are you saying its okay for the West to intervene in other countries affairs even if it doesn't directly impact them? I believe that but I always thought you were one of those that said "the West should stay out other countries internal affairs" ?

[Fighter]

Strawman argument, I didn't say the USA is not partly responsible for the Iraq mess. But they did pull out in 2011 and leave a functional government. The new Iraqi government failed to integrate the  Iraq Sunni's who have now mostly aligned themselves with ISIS

 

Left a governement that almost immidiately failed without direct US role. That is not my definition of a functional government.

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that.

 

 

ISIS was created because of the space created by fuelling a war which breeds lawlessness. US behind the scenes intervention has been fuelling and direct military intervention would have done little to prevent radicals from thriving.

 

This is what really happened in Lybia:

 

Three years after Gaddafi, Libya is imploding into chaos and violence

World View: Its government has no real power; militias are ever more entrenched, and now the state itself is under threat

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/three-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-imploding-into-chaos-and-violence-9194697.html

[Malcador]

I'm confused, are you saying its okay for the West to intervene in other countries affairs even if it doesn't directly impact them? I believe that but I always thought you were one of those that said "the West should stay out other countries internal affairs" ?

Well it being okay, and the way it works are often different, so best looking at things case by case. In this case, they can't ignore ISIS making a joke of their hopeful client state.

[BruceVC]

 

Strawman argument, I didn't say the USA is not partly responsible for the Iraq mess. But they did pull out in 2011 and leave a functional government. The new Iraqi government failed to integrate the  Iraq Sunni's who have now mostly aligned themselves with ISIS

 

Left a governement that almost immidiately failed without direct US role. That is not my definition of a functional government.

 

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that.

 

 

 

This is what really happened in Lybia:

 

Three years after Gaddafi, Libya is imploding into chaos and violence

World View: Its government has no real power; militias are ever more entrenched, and now the state itself is under threat

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/three-years-after-gaddafi-libya-is-imploding-into-chaos-and-violence-9194697.html

 

 

I see this a lot, whenever I say "Libya is an example of how the West should intervene in order to achieve regime change"

 

People will say " but look at Libya now, we are seeing sectarian violence". They are missing the point, the West cannot be involved in regime change and run the government, this has proven not to work as the West in seen as an occupying force like in Iraq. The West allowed the Libyans to run there country the way they wanted once Gaddafi was removed

 

Now you  may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

[BruceVC]

 

I'm confused, are you saying its okay for the West to intervene in other countries affairs even if it doesn't directly impact them? I believe that but I always thought you were one of those that said "the West should stay out other countries internal affairs" ?

Well it being okay, and the way it works are often different, so best looking at things case by case. In this case, they can't ignore ISIS making a joke of their hopeful client state.

 

 

Sure I agree foreign intervention is complicated. But either the West must abide by the UN security council votes or it must ignore them. What annoys me is that now the world is asking "What is the West doing to stop ISIS"....but if the West has intervened in Syria and ignored the UN we would be hearing " look its the arrogant West getting involved in other countries conflicts. Obama is a warmonger " and other ridiculous comments

 

So the West is damned  if it does and damned if it doesn't ?

[Fighter]

Now you  may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

 

 

Except that you did not leave Syria alone. If you had maybe we could see what would happen. And it's not up to me or you to decide if they are better off.

[Malcador]

Now you  may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

Well, not that proper a comparison though. The West has been helping the rebels out in Syria, no ? So not totally hands off, or you'd have to think the rebellion would have put down by now. Even if Assad's military seems incompetent.

 

Hah, reading on this I came across a theory that the US doesn't want the rebellion to end quick either way, longer it goes it drains on Hezbollah/Iran.

 

Shouldn't be confusing to read people waiting for the US to attack ISIS, it hits a lot of checkboxes on the list : Islamic extremists, Attacking a US "ally", Doing nasty things in the media.

[BruceVC]

 

Now you  may say "well the West should have just left Libya to sort out there own civil war" and all I'll say "compare Syria to Libya and ask yourself what country is better off despite the current violence in Libya"?

 

 

Except that you did not leave Syria alone. If you had maybe we could see what would happen. And it's not up to me or you to decide if they are better off.

 

 

Wow, you really think the West has deeply intervened in the Syrian conflict? Some arms were supplied to the rebels but the Saudis and other Sunni countries provided  most of the support for the Syrian rebels. Proper intervention from the West would have involved destroying Assads tanks and supremacy of the air like in Libya...and the West didn't do this at all. If they had done this then the ground fighting would have been between the Syrian rebels and troops loyal to Assad. Right now the Syrian rebels are at huge disadvantage because Assad  has the usage of his whole army that includes tanks, artillery and planes. Its a very one sided civil war  

[obyknven]

Wow, you really think the West has deeply intervened in the Syrian conflict? Some arms were supplied to the rebels but the Saudis and other Sunni countries provided  most of the support for the Syrian rebels. Proper intervention from the West would have involved destroying Assads tanks and supremacy of the air like in Libya...and the West didn't do this at all. If they had done this then the ground fighting would have been between the Syrian rebels and troops loyal to Assad. Right now the Syrian rebels are at huge disadvantage because Assad  has the usage of his whole army that includes tanks, artillery and planes. Its a very one sided civil war

Do you really so naive? Though if not it's not better - your lie is too primitive, don't work well against  expirienced in intrigues Russians, and this is probably explain why West have constant failures against our Emperium in last times (hint - don't lie as Aes Sedai  do).

 Saudis and other Sunni countries are subslaves of the West, some sort of infants for dirty jobs. It's a bit laughable how these "faithfull muslims" play role of  cannon fodder for Western alcogholics and pork eaters ( It's alwais funny encounter "faitful" Qatarian's in  some European drunk sinholes. If you known about Islam culture, Quran of curse and how these "Muslims" make proxy wars against "wrong" Muslims and People of Book.).

 

Murican marine have butthurt here caused by Western  involvement in Syrian and Libyan wars. 

http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ru/2014/07/how-many-terrorists-have-we-trained.html#comment-form

How many terrorists have we trained?

 

The above video is concerning.  The US military, the State Dept and the President are all fired up about providing training to various shady characters around the globe.

 

The latest are terrorists that are fighting in Syria and in Libya.

 

I wonder how many of those people were actually Hamas or ISIS?  I wonder how many of those same terrorists will soon be turning their weapons on US forces?  SOCOM, and the Pentagon need to do a serious gut check on the "partnership"/training mission mindset that has taken hold.

 

Israel is on the frontlines fighting the beast that is Hamas.  Soon he will turn up at our door....will he arrive with training we provided?

Hound bite own masters hands is so bad:rolleyes:

[Fighter]

 

Wow, you really think the West has deeply intervened in the Syrian conflict? Some arms were supplied to the rebels but the Saudis and other Sunni countries provided  most of the support for the Syrian rebels. Proper intervention from the West would have involved destroying Assads tanks and supremacy of the air like in Libya...and the West didn't do this at all. If they had done this then the ground fighting would have been between the Syrian rebels and troops loyal to Assad. Right now the Syrian rebels are at huge disadvantage because Assad  has the usage of his whole army that includes tanks, artillery and planes. Its a very one sided civil war  

 

 

Oh so it's a meaningless and insignificant amount of arms and support then? Just for giggles?

 

I'm sure the US support of the rebels has been calculated to have an effect. Nothing is nothing. Support political and material from behind the curtains by the worlds richest country isn't something you can just dismiss as not getting involved.

[Gfted1]

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

[Zoraptor]

But the real question should be "how was ISIS created " and I've answered that

 

Incorrectly though. Of course. Al Baghdadi was a big pal of a certain Abu Musab Al Zaqawi, laterly of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and succeeded him as lead in that organisation. ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq, rebranded, and as such predates the Syrian Civil War by years. Indeed their extreme measures are almost identical from 2006 to now, including softie liberals like Ayman al-Zawahiri thinking they are bit too extreme.

 

Thank goodness for Russia and China and their principled and reasoned stand, else Al Baghdadi would be ruling from Mosul and Damascus instead of Mosul and Raqqah, and would be halfway towards living up to ISIS's name. Shame it took that clusterasterisk in Libya for them to learn the costs of ill thought out western meddling and how they'd ignore everything about UN resolutions except the parts they like, but for some reason they trusted western good intentions. Poor naive Russia and China, falling for the equivalent of a Nigerian Money Scam, but at least they learnt from their mistakes.

[Monte Carlo]

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

 

MURICA!!!

[Gfted1]

 

U.S. Planes Start Airstrikes on Iraq Militants.

 

MURICA!!!

 

 

I sure wish we would develop orbital weaponry. Just imagine the jet fuel savings!