So we haven't discussed this tiny middle east problem in a long time, so in the interests of focusing on international problems

Syrian warplanes reportedly strike in Iraq, killing 57 - CNN.com

However things have definately taken a turn and we should examine whether intervenion is now necessary because things have gone far beyond norms. Last year there was intervention in the crisis because of the use of "WMD" in the form of gas, but many more have died in Syria and Iraq and still much hand wringing goes on in Washington.
What does Malaki have to do to prove himself a tyrant?
What do ISIS have to do to prove themselves terrorists and envoke the War on Terror?

I think I know, they have to threaten the US in some manner, launch an attack beyond their borders, attack an embassy.

When do terrorist stop being a group and become an army?
When do they get to form their own country?

The place is a wasteland anyway, so who cares

Is it acceptable for pirates to have their own country when they use it and it's wealth to wage war on civilization ?

Quote:

---

Is it acceptable for pirates to have their own country when they use it and it's wealth to wage war on civilization ?

---

"Rhetorical question, Tom and the same might have been asked at the time of the American revolution when an act of piracy was committed in Boston Harbour. We can all fly under a flag of convenience

The Somali pirates seem to have some vestige of a country of their own


But in fact you are asking the same question I am, how long will the powerful nations of the world permit this situation to develop? You have not responded to my other questions


m

history always asks the questions ... 'how could you have permitted that to happen' ? But it appears that any preemptive actions gets one accused of being a war monger . History later calls those who don't act appeasers.

there is nothing preemptive about fighting terrorist whereever they might be found. you have a convenient sense of history, who objected to taking on al qaeda in afghanistan

There are rumblings of replacing Maliki, by the newly elected Iraq government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/wo...ment.html?_r=0

well that's what happens when you are an a$$hole, doesn't much matter where you live

Syria, Iraq, Iran and Afghan. constitute about 161 million (half of U.S. population). Many others can be added to the list.
Numbers do matter.
Obama is not honoring his oath of office. He doesn't get the "protect" part quite right.
He is scared of polls bemoaning Americans' "war fatigue".
1/2 of 1% serve in the military (if that). What are we so fatigued about?

population isn't the question either you are committed to the War on Terror or you are not, that is the only question now. ISIS are terrorists they operate beyond the norms

ISIS have escalated the campaign declaring a caliphate and calling on all Muslims for their allegiance

Iraq conflict: ISIS declares a 'caliphate', calls for Muslims to pledge allegiance - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So the question becomes whose on their side and who isn't. Russian has shown their hand by supplying planes to Iraq

Russia's interest in this is Syria. My interest in this is the 100+ already confirmed Americans who are fighting for ISIS ,and the hundreds of Europeans who have taken up arms in their cause. ISIS is a threat to us like it or not and has to be dealt with. My opening salvo would not be proping up the Malki government ,but instead giving material support to the Peshmerga .

You only got 100, even we have more than that involved in the conflict and radicalised. Your idea is saying break Iraq up, those guys want their own state not a unified Iraq. No you have the perfect foil against Iran and you don't see it take aleaf out of Russians book and arm the Syrian insurgents against ISIS and let the cards fall where they may

arm the Syrian insurgents ???? they are fighting side by side with ISIS .

Well some of them are fighting ISIS in Syria and they are fighting Bashar who isn't your ally. You just don't get it, what happened to that well known "Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis" or has that motto or its abbrevrated version "sic semper tyrannis" been consigned to US history

the last person in the US to use that line killed our 2nd greatest President.

Yes It was missused by Booth however those forebares of yours thought enough of it to carry the banner into the the gates of hell so why abandon it, or has Virtue fled also

You may have noticed that the Syrio-Iraqi conflicit otherwise know as the establishment of the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq has entered a new phase

US aircraft strike Islamic State positions in Iraq: Pentagon - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The US has once again embroiled itsself in the affairs of Iraq. Now I'm not saying that ISIS doesn't need to be and must be stopped, particularly in their genocidal objectives. This whole thing has been allowed to get out of hand because deposing the Syrian regime was in the interests of the US and why not let the boys at home do it, after all the syrian regime is symathetic to Iran and the US is not, The great game continues but with dire consequences for anyone in the way

Of course we would've been looking at a different scenario if the emperor and Evita had managed to extend the SOFA . Clearly the Iraqi government was not ready to completely take control of their security . And yes, our arming and supporting jihadists throughout the Sunni world contributed to the rise of ISIS ;and the current Gaza conflict.

What he should be doing is giving weapons and support to the Kurdish Peshmerga . They are fighting ISIS on a 600 mile front with antiquated weapons. We have a history of helping the Kurds (the no fly zones during Saddam's reign).Kurdistan has been the one success story of our interventions; and the emperor risks losing those gains with his very limited response. Given them the material assistance they need ,and we won't need to use air strikes and US troops...at least to defend Kurdistan. Whether we should take actions to take out ISIS is an open debate. I for one am reluctant to do anything to assist any Iranian puppet ,be it in Iran ,or Syria, or Gaza.

You have a history of leaving people behind, not your own troops but others who have been your friends. You have a history of setting up puppet governments and abandoning them, this is where we got Saddam from and Iran came as a result of a puppet government, you arm people and they turn on you. By all means arm the Kurds and send in your advisors as you did in Vietnam, remember that one, and you now have a vested interest in making sure Syria is secure, no matter who is in charge. I understand very well why the Israeli keep their own counsel and deal with issues in their own way and I understand why you want limited involvement. This is a strategy you know; to bleed america dry. You exit Afghanistan and here is Kurdistan right between the Caliphate and Iran and Libya was such a great success, what military genius did that one?