Zoraptor Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Not really, you expanded the point Gorth was making to extinguish it- he didn't mention Iraq at all, just external parties to Syria and how they viewed the belligerents; you addressed Iraq in its own context not the Syrian one. I could have phrased it better though (and made it more clear that it was wrt Syria), certainly, but I didn't particularly want to deal with the Iraqi situation in detail. But since you kind of asked I'll answer in the broader context. The problem is much the same as with the assertion that Assad doesn't want to fight ISIS because he thinks that the international community will pick him over them. That might be true, but there are compelling military reasons for prioritising the other rebels which trump any 'philosophical' guff like fighting the greater evil. Overall your evidence leads back from the conclusion (basically, that the international community and its opinion is most significant) and not the other way around as it should be, you talk of international recognition etc as if that's the important factor rather than facts on the ground. The 'international community' has been bombing ISIS for more than a year now yet they still have the facts on the ground and have made actual gains to boot. That deals with the more theoretical objection. The practical/ political objection is that both the Syrian rebels and ISIS have a specified claim over Syria, with the rebels being better placed to enforce that claim since they're closer to the important parts of the country, hence ISIS is a secondary threat there; we agree there though the reasoning is different. ISIS also has a specified claim on Iraq. The Kurds however, do not- they claim only 'Kurdistan' with some disputation about what that entails, eg Kirkuk, and have not declared independence as ISIS have. Even if they did break away Iraq would still exist and they're not going to be marching on Tikrit or Baghdad or Basra or Baquba because they don't want to, and have no reason to. The critical questions to frame the reason why ISIS are Iraq's biggest threat is simple: (1) Would Iraq be fighting ISIS in Syria if they were able to? Yes, pretty much definitely. Maybe in similar style to Iran, but then they're using a lot of informals even for the fighting inside Iraq. (2) Would they be fighting Kurds in Syria if they were able to? No, they aren't even fighting their own Kurds. Kurdish independence is a theoretical situation at this point which may or may not happen eventually. ISIS is an entirely practical problem which is ongoing, whether looked at specifically in the Syrian context or specifically in the Iraqi context, or in the wider context.
Gorth Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 P.S. http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/unifeed/2015/10/un-lavrov-presser/ Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia:"If it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it's a terrorist. Right?" A missed opportunity... he should just have stuck with "If it walks like a terrorist and it quacks like a terrorist..." 2 “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein
Fighter Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 "Refugees". More: http://www.ridus.ru/news/199880
213374U Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 "Refugees" I can't read Russian, which by extension means I can't very well discern your meaning, but at the very least, the green shirt guy photo was proven to be a hoax. IIRC someone mentioned it a few pages back, too. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Fighter Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I can't read Russian, which by extension means I can't very well discern your meaning, but at the very least, the green shirt guy photo was proven to be a hoax. IIRC someone mentioned it a few pages back, too. The meaning is pretty much as the pictures show. Militants enter Europe amongst the refugees. Some of the pictures look like they may be Iraqi soldiers. Edited October 6, 2015 by Fighter
Malcador Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Probably just some COD fanboy. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Hurlshort Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Ah yes, the 'bad apple spoils the bunch' philosophy. Very good.
Malcador Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Ah yes, the 'bad apple spoils the bunch' philosophy. Very good. Or just trying to ensure people check them. Guess a bleeding heart or a racist, with this kind of deal. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Fighter Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Ah yes, the 'bad apple spoils the bunch' philosophy. Very good. No. Just that whatever one may think of the refugees it's an obvious potential easy doorway for terrorists.
Hurlshort Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 That would be obvious, although really there are probably better doorways for actual organized and funded terrorists. Ideally it would be great to be able to swoop up any extremists with background checks, but it's probably not entirely realistic. 1
Rosbjerg Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Closed due to length, continued here. Fortune favors the bald.
Recommended Posts