ISIS in Iraq and Syria

I hope the Kurds are measured in their advance if ISIS is falling back. As I understand it, ISIS has the numerical superiority. Play the safe game, let the coalition pound them from the air. Don't get caught out by ISIS trying to lure the Kurdish forces out of the relative security of a city (if the retreat is a ploy).
 
Kaos said:
Because it hasn't, nor has it recently annexed 950 acres of land that doesn't belong to them.
Click to expand...

It does have a hand in sectarian mass murders in two neighbouring countries though. They have a way in fighting their wars. Dropping a nuke also wouldn't take invading anyone.
 
holyland red said:
It does have a hand in sectarian mass murders in two neighbouring countries though. They have a way in fighting their wars. Dropping a nuke also wouldn't take invading anyone.
Click to expand...

You still on about this? Haven't Bibi and the US been babbling on about how the Iranians are on the brink of a nuke for the past 20 years? Man they're slow.

There's nothing particularly unique about Iran supporting allies through proxy wars, as much as I despise their position. To suggest so is a bit strange.


http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-in-1992-iran-close-to-having-nuclear-bomb.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84
 
Last edited:
holyland red said:
It does have a hand in sectarian mass murders in two neighbouring countries though. They have a way in fighting their wars. Dropping a nuke also wouldn't take invading anyone.
Click to expand...

So they use proxies, like pretty much every major power in the world? The point stands - Iran has never invaded or unprovokedly attacked another nation in eons. Its not suicidal either so you needn't concern yourself with the nuke hysteria.
 
Kobane still going strong, air strikes becoming more and more effective as cooperation between the two increases.
 
Kaos said:
So the first course of action Turkey takes in this military campaign is to bomb Kurdish militias? Lovely chap this Erdogan is.
Click to expand...

More specifically, the PKK:
The air strikes on Daglica were in response to PKK shelling of a military outpost, the armed forces said.

Both sides have been observing a truce and it is the first major air raid on the PKK since March 2013.

The air raids on PKK positions near the south-eastern village of Daglica on Monday caused "heavy casualties", Hurriyet daily reported.

The strikes followed a three-day PKK assault on a military outpost with heavy machine guns and rocket launchers, it said. Clashes were also reported between the PKK and troops in the Tunceli area of east-central Turkey on Monday, far from the border.

Turkish jets bomb Kurdish PKK rebels near Iraq
Click to expand...
 
africanspur said:
You still on about this? Haven't Bibi and the US been babbling on about how the Iranians are on the brink of a nuke for the past 20 years? Man they're slow.

There's nothing particularly unique about Iran supporting allies through proxy wars, as much as I despise their position. To suggest so is a bit strange.


http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-in-1992-iran-close-to-having-nuclear-bomb.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...warnings-since-1979/Earliest-warnings-1979-84
Click to expand...

Israel has been babbling about this stuff since 1981. A more recent example was this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard
 
Hectic said:
More specifically, the PKK:
Click to expand...

Its fitting though. The most heinous barbarians on the planets are just a few hundred metres away and the Turks don't bat an eyelid - heck they even go out of their way to stop Kurds from crossing the border to help their brethren. Yet they'll saddle up with full force when it comes to targeting the Kurdish militias, PKK or otherwise.
 
Kaos said:
So they use proxies, like pretty much every major power in the world? The point stands - Iran has never invaded or unprovokedly attacked another nation in eons. Its not suicidal either so you needn't concern yourself with the nuke hysteria.
Click to expand...

No other major power in the world has a terrorist organization armed with 10,000s of rockets and missiles to run its wars. As I said, severe damage can be inflicted on rivals without invasions, which in fact is not an option when that rival is not a neighboring state.
 
holyland red said:
No other major power in the world has a terrorist organization armed with 10,000s of rockets and missiles to run its wars. As I said, severe damage can be inflicted on rivals without invasions, which in fact is not an option when that rival is not a neighboring state.
Click to expand...

The US has been using proxy terrorism for decades, as have nations like the UK and France. The Saudis, Qataris and Turks have also been doing it recently. Your own country has been notorious for sanctioning terrorism too.

Its clutching at straws to single out Iran. The point still stands, they've yet to use direct force on anyone - which is a lot more than you can say for its neighbours and those trying to antagonise it.
 
Kaos said:
The US has been using proxy terrorism for decades, as have nations like the UK and France. The Saudis, Qataris and Turks have also been doing it recently. Your own country has been notorious for sanctioning terrorism too.

Its clutching at straws to single out Iran. The point still stands, they've yet to use direct force on anyone - which is a lot more than you can say for its neighbours and those trying to antagonise it.
Click to expand...

It takes on a different dimension when Iran is arming Hezbollah and Hamas in that the more sophisticated the weapons they acquire, the more likely both groups will have access to them. Iran's military history going back 200 years ago is also irrelevant. Its their penchance of arming their proxies post 1979 that is more relevant.
 
Kaos said:
Iran has never invaded or unprovokedly attacked another nation in eons. Its not suicidal either so you needn't concern yourself with the nuke hysteria.
Click to expand...

I've always found this a strange argument, given that the period in question coincides with a period of extreme Iranian military weakness - weakness that would disappear the instant they acquire nuclear weapons. Qajar Iran spent most of the 19th c. getting kicked around in the Caucasus by Russia and struggling to maintain its own territorial integrity - foreign adventures were out of the question. Same goes for the Pahlavis until the 1970s, when the Shah took Abu Musa and the Tunb Islands in the Gulf (something many Arab Nationalists regard as an illegal occupation to this day), and sent troops to Oman to help defeat the Dhofar Rebellion.

Also, the argument doesn't account for the vast ideological differences between the Qajars, the Pahlavis and the Islamic Republic.

In any case, Iran invaded Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war - now obviously this was not unprovoked seeing as Saddam initiated hostilities, but from 1982 onwards the war was largely fought on Iraqi soil, and whatever the true intentions were, Iranian propaganda was full of revolutionary zeal and talk of liberating Karbala, etc.

I'm not one for demonizing Iran, but I can understand why Israeli Jews, given their history, would rather not have to chance a nuclear Iran.
 
Its getting a bit off topic, but anyway:

You will find hardly any non-irani, who is getting excited about Iran having nuclear weapons. Of course that would be a very bad thing for various reasons. There are two important questions to be asked:

Why does Iran want to get nuclear weapons and how is it possible to change Iran´s priorities about that.

Maybe iran is a completely unreasonable theocracy with a death-wish. If thats the case only military force can stop them from getting the bomb.
Maybe Iran has very reasonable security concerns, because the USA was running their country not long ago, supported an evil fascistic dictator in a war a against them, invaded countries all around them, supports their biggest local rival, while having 50 military bases around them and while openly saying every 1-2 years, that they´ll going to attack them. If thats the case, there would be a diplomatic solution.
 
africanspur said:
Right, thanks for the completely irrelevant link.

What that has to do with Bibi and other Israeli officials constantly telling the world that Iran is mere years away from the bomb for the past 20+ years I'm not too sure but please carry on.
Click to expand...

In fact, it's relevant on more than one account.

First, Israel appears to know better than anyone else about nuclear programs in the region. Then, when you think about an active nuclear reactor in Deir-a-Zur this story becomes even more on topic.

But hey, this is all irrelevant because of Bibi. The same Bibi who was babbling about the threat of rocket fire from Gaza back in the early 1990s.
 
Raoul said:
It takes on a different dimension when Iran is arming Hezbollah and Hamas in that the more sophisticated the weapons they acquire, the more likely both groups will have access to them. Iran's military history going back 200 years ago is also irrelevant. Its their penchance of arming their proxies post 1979 that is more relevant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.

The US has been arming groups that can/could be defined as terrorist organizations, and some which are terrorist organizations since the 50's. The saying the best predictor of the future behavior is past behavior is a saying for a reason.

Your posting history is a pretty good predictor of your future posting behavior. You always, I mean always ignore the transgressions of "your side". You come up with stuff like your quote here. Rationalizing similar behavior. It's bad because it's not us. That is your modus operandi.

Iran plays the same game we are playing over here. They arm proxies, we arm proxies. We spy, they spy. They have national security interests, we have them. My perspective isn't about who is right or who is wrong. It's about a silly double standard. You're living in a glass house. If it makes you feel secure and snuggly late at night to tar and feather everyone-who-isn't-us-who-plays-the-same-game-as-us as evil, do what you have to do.

Now, please carry on with your Bill O'Reilly impersonation.


P.S please don't ban me.
 
Good post @Nucks not one super power is beyond criticism here - everyone has a stake in destabilizing the region - same with South Asia
 
Nucks said:
I'm not sure how you can say this with a straight face.

The US has been arming groups that can/could be defined as terrorist organizations, and some which are terrorist organizations since the 50's. The saying the best predictor of the future behavior is past behavior is a saying for a reason.

Your posting history is a pretty good predictor of your future posting behavior. You always, I mean always ignore the transgressions of "your side". You come up with stuff like your quote here. Rationalizing similar behavior. It's bad because it's not us. That is your modus operandi.

Iran plays the same game we are playing over here. They arm proxies, we arm proxies. We spy, they spy. They have national security interests, we have them. My perspective isn't about who is right or who is wrong. It's about a silly double standard. You're living in a glass house. If it makes you feel secure and snuggly late at night to tar and feather everyone-who-isn't-us-who-plays-the-same-game-as-us as evil, do what you have to do.

Now, please carry on with your Bill O'Reilly impersonation.


P.S please don't ban me.
Click to expand...

In short the US can do it because its the world's most powerful nation. Iran can do it as well as long as their actions don't challenge US interests, which in this case they do. Its just the way the international system works. The powerful states get to call the shots.
 
digitalnirvana said:
Good post @Nucks not one super power is beyond criticism here - everyone has a stake in destabilizing the region - same with South Asia
Click to expand...

No one is beyond criticism if you disagree with what they say or do. But if you look at things at the systemic level, you will see the international system is still anarchic, and states are still incentivized to seek "self help", or to look out for their interests first. As much as it annoys people, powerful states get to set the agenda in world politics, and its not likely to change until there's a world government.
 
What would happen if we just gave baghdadi his bit of land and told everyone they can go there I'd they want but not come back. How long before they invade other areas?
 
Relevated said:
What would happen if we just gave baghdadi his bit of land and told everyone they can go there I'd they want but not come back. How long before they invade other areas?
Click to expand...
depends on the size of the territory, but he is obviously not interested in peace. Without war his legitimacy would fade away quickly.
 
Last edited:
Relevated said:
What would happen if we just gave baghdadi his bit of land and told everyone they can go there I'd they want but not come back. How long before they invade other areas?
Click to expand...

Could we then nuke it from orbit? It's the only way to be sure they keep their crazy to themselves.
 
PedroMendez said:
i thought about replying to that in in detail but decided against it; for some reason it saved the first line when I responded to relevated and I didnt notice that.
Click to expand...

Ahh the draft feature on the new text editor tends to do that. I'm not a Realist, but there's something to be said for how state actors tend to behave in line with Waltzean neo-Realism/Structural Realism.
 
Raoul said:
Ahh the draft feature on the new text editor tends to do that. I'm not a Realist, but there's something to be said for how state actors tend to behave in line with Waltzean neo-Realism/Structural Realism.
Click to expand...
realism is either incredible trivial/imprecise in its paradigm or just wrong. Its a nice and easy first step to learn about international political theory, but it has hardly any empirical or theoretical relevance anymore. There are only very few and highly special cases where it actually presents better explanations than other theories.
 
PedroMendez said:
realism is either incredible trivial/imprecise in its paradigm or just wrong. Its a nice and easy first step to learn about international political theory, but it has hardly any empirical or theoretical relevance anymore. There are only very few and highly special cases where it actually presents better explanations than other theories.
Click to expand...

That's one way of looking at it - another is that as long as the world is run by nations - the state and the system of states will remain the fundamental unit of analysis whereby the system is run almost exclusively through the interactions of state actors - either by way of nations, or International Organizations, which are merely a device for powerful states to advance their policy interests. As a fundamental theory - Neo-Realism still works both in a way that provides a coherent theoretical framework for state interactions, as well as a theory that policy makers can digest. Neo-Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism, Feminism, Post-Structuralism et al, are all interesting, but excepting Neo-Liberalism, they are also a bit too abstract and un-implementable beyond quaintly naive University debates.
 
Raoul said:
That's one way of looking at it - another is that as long as the world is run by nations - the state and the system of states will remain the fundamental unit of analysis whereby the system is run almost exclusively through the interactions of state actors - either by way of nations, or International Organizations, which are merely a device for powerful states to advance their policy interests. As a fundamental theory - Neo-Realism still works both in a way that provides a coherent theoretical framework for state interactions, as well as a theory that policy makers can digest. Neo-Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism, Feminism, Post-Structuralism et al, are all interesting, but excepting Neo-Liberalism, they are also a bit too abstract and un-implementable beyond quaintly naive University debates.
Click to expand...

Robert Keohane left Duke right before I got there to go to Princeton with his wife. So all I got was a grad student for intro IR theory.
 
Sir Matt said:
Robert Keohane left Duke right before I got there to go to Princeton with his wife. So all I got was a grad student for intro IR theory.
Click to expand...

Would've been great to learn from him. I had a chance to talk to Joe Nye when he spoke at my grad school. Amazing, down to earth guy. Also had one of the more noted Constructivist scholars, Friedrich Kratohwil, ref my Thesis.
 
It's been one month now since the start of the offensive by ISIS on Kobane.
 
Raoul said:
That's one way of looking at it - another is that as long as the world is run by nations - the state and the system of states will remain the fundamental unit of analysis whereby the system is run almost exclusively through the interactions of state actors - either by way of nations, or International Organizations, which are merely a device for powerful states to advance their policy interests. As a fundamental theory - Neo-Realism still works both in a way that provides a coherent theoretical framework for state interactions, as well as a theory that policy makers can digest. Neo-Liberalism, Constructivism, Marxism, Feminism, Post-Structuralism et al, are all interesting, but excepting Neo-Liberalism, they are also a bit too abstract and un-implementable beyond quaintly naive University debates.
Click to expand...

If you desperately want to use realism to analyse anything use another region of the world, e.g. southeast asia. Not that it would provide deep insights, but at least it can claim some accuracy. In a region, where national states itself struggle to exist, realism has literately nothing to say. The few aspects that realistic theories can explain in the middle east are so shallow that its not worth talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.