[Closed] Mosul- Iraq

Listening to the news it was the former Iraqi military that have taken it!

No one's really interested hora, just like no one is interested in the mess that we helped to create in Libya, or the mess we're helping to create now in Syria through our despotic friends. So let's keep embarrassing news out of the limelight eh ?

Listening to the news it was the former Iraqi military that have taken it!

The Ba'athist party behind it??

No. Former Iraqi soldiers fighting with ISIS.

Seems pretty obvious to me that if you have a country like Iraq made up of many different factions then you need a strongman dictator to keep them all in line . Sure Saddam wasn't perfect but Iraq ran a whole lot better with him in charge . Also if you try and force democracy onto a country it really ceases to be democracy .

I'm sure some remote controlled freedom will be delivered to the area shortly

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/tens-thousands-flee-unrest-iraq-mosul-201461175824711415.html

Says ISIL fighters also in Kirkuk and Salaheddin (so spreading).

Could it be that starting to lose in Syria, ISIL diverted its resources towards Iraq?

Ramsey Neil - theres a line/woman in the series Generation Kill that struck me- a Iraqi woman says 'why are you here, why did you invade? Baghdad was peaceful, Saddam was an idiot but we don't deserve this'

I never understood the logic of going into Iraq. I've posted before about how my Iraqi colleague explained that things where terrible under Hussain but much much worse under the new regime and he really feared for the long term future. Well this is it, we are seeing the long term future. Any loss of life in a war is to be deeply regretted but the sacrifice so many have made in Iraq will be proven to be for nothing

As @Ramsey says and we have seen in Egypt and Libya if you depose a regime you cannot be sure what you will get in it's place.

Anyone else noticed how FAST this new bunch has grown? Doesn't seem that long ago they were just a minor player in the Syria nause-up. Now they've taken a major city.

I understand they're Sunni? Iran must be gearing up again, then.

Former Iraqi soldiers fighting with ISIS.

Iraq must be full of former soldiers - pretty much any male over conscription age I would have thought.

Sorry but you are suprised by this?

Send Tony and Bushballs back in, on thier own, no guns n stuff, no back up..

I've a fiver ready for the plane ticket.. 😀

Maybe a Kickstarter project page should be built..

Did we castrate the Iraqi military, destroy it back in 2003 because its bloody ineffective now isn't it

Its not the effective fighting force it was under Saddam

I never understood the logic of going into Iraq.

It was the messianic arrogance of Tony Blair and his best buddy Bush that got us into Iraq, not logic, that and the absolute certainty that Iraq was a weak country which could easily be defeated, ie, that they didn't have any nasty weapons of mass destruction which could be used against us. It all seemed so easy and straightforward.

I think I'd like to hear from Tony Blair on this subject.

What happens now Tony?

Perfect, now they're all in one place we can apply the Grozny/Fallujah solution!

Wasn't it a gamble on Tony's side- he was being promised that WMD WOULD be found/it was only a matter of time and Bush was already well on the path to invasion. I think past a certain point, it was a point of no return. Mid-invasion it became clear there was no evidence found by the Inspectors nor would there be. Thats when Blair turned it into Saddams evil/found evidence of torture/torture jails etc etc to lessen the political impact.

I think I'd like to hear from Tony Blair on this subject.

What happens now Tony?

Isn't he busy working on peace for the Middle East?

Oh, hang on...

I think I'd like to hear from Tony Blair on this subject.

Tony Blair is still available for opinions on the subject :

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/23/tony-blair-battle-islamic-extremism-political-agenda ]Tony Blair to say battle against Islamic extremism is paramount[/url]

He certainly has a track record of fighting Islamic extremism, after all he did help to put Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which made it necessary for UK forces to fight them.

Although he has now changed his mind that the way to fight Islamic extremism is through "democracy". It turns out that he isn't such a big fan of democracy in the Middle East after all :

[i]Blair caused controversy when he sided with the Egyptian military's overthrow of the democratically elected government [/i]

Isn't he busy working on his personal cashpoint, the Middle East

FTFY

Post-colonial realignment of borders innit. Imperial europe carved up the middle east using things like lines of lattitude/longitude and random georaphical features in the 20's-50's (Iraq being 'Winstons Folly'). Then we're surprised when there's conflict from the tribes/sects/ethnicities we've shoe-horned together, all fostering centuries of simmering rivalries. General watsit on R4 this morning was about right. It'll take generations to settle down and the borders will look very different and we'll have some unpleasant regimes to deal with to get at the oil (and presumably some less unpleasant ones - but they probably won't have the oil).

I wonder how well St Tony sleeps at night.
He must get the night terrors knowing that he has made the biggest **** ups this century.
Being a good god fearing catholic he must know the flames await him.

I think the catholocism thing was based on repenting and getting away with it.

Mr Blair is a public speaker now so you may get charge £200k/hr just to speak to him on a stage.

Quids innnn ...

Perhaps if we ask Tony, he'll give us the 'gist' of what we should do about it

he was being promised that WMD WOULD be found/it was only a matter of time

Of course he knew that WMDs wouldn't be found, that's why it was imperative for him that the invasion of Iraq be started before the UN weapons inspectors had completed their work. Remember how Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors were warned "get out of Iraq because we're going to start bombing" ?

And Robin Cook the UK Foreign Minister at the time had access to the same intelligence sources as Tony Blair, the conclusion he came to was that Iraq was going to be attacked because it was weak - not because it was a threat.

What Tony Blair expected was that the stated reason for going into Iraq would be quickly forgotten, just like the stated reason for going into Afghanistan, ie to arrest Osama bin Laden, was quickly forgotten.

The problem for Blair was that because of far greater opposition to the Iraq war than had existed over Afghanistan he had to overstate the excuse for attacking Iraq, so far from people quietly forgetting about why we went into Iraq it came back to haunt him.

EDIT : And to be fair to Blair had there been huge heaving happy crowds rejoicing and and celebrating their liberation from Saddam when the Western troops rolled into Baghdad, then I'm sure people would have quickly forgiven him for the failure of finding WMDs and hailed him as a hero.

Unfortunately for him because it all went tits up the reaction instead was "so where's these ****ing WMDs arsehole?"

I'm not going to get into the politics or history of this piece, but it was really graphically represented to me this morning on the radio when one journalist stated that "it's like the city of Manchester falling under enemy control within 24 hours".

That's a pretty big area to cover, pretty fast and my heart goes out to all those thousands of families that are currently running away from home to a place of safety.

(Please note, some would say that Manchester falling under enemy control would be a good thing, but not me. I quite like it)

nickc - Member

Perhaps if we ask Tony, he'll give us the 'gist' of what we should do about it

The 'gist' will be about "The brilliance of Blair as British PM with the power of spin" ...

£200K quids please ... (Blair grinning with his hand out stretched palm facing you)

I wonder how much ISL were helped by all of that 'non-lethal' aid they were supplied with?

And Robin Cook the UK Foreign Minister at the time had access to the same intelligence sources as Tony Blair, the conclusion he came to was that Iraq was going to be attacked because it was weak - not because it was a threat.

I often wondered about the "convenient timing" of his death.

A friend of Mrs Zip is one of St Tonys bodyguards I hope he isn't too near when destiny comes calling.

bigG - the size of Greater Manchester? If so that'd take quite a force. Not a few hundred on the back of pickups.

zippykona - Member

A friend of Mrs Zip is one of St Tonys bodyguards I hope he isn't too near when destiny comes calling.

The money is good working as bodyguard so friend of Mrs Zip will be the sacrificial goat in exchange when destiny comes calling ...

Quids in ... £200k please as Blair grins towards you. 😆

the size of Greater Manchester? If so that'd take quite a force.

Not really. I'm sure a thousand or so armed men could effectively take control of Manchester if demoralised army and police forces were to flee.

The US would have invaded Iraq on it's own, so whether we went in or not it would not have changed the outcome for that country. I actually believe any likely UK Prime Minister Labour or Conservative would have been in the same position, actually I think Blair had very little choice.

@ernie - we went in to Afganistan to counteract the Taliban and Al-Queda who where headquartered there, it was never about arresting an individual.

This would be an ideal time to finally publish the Chilcott Enquiries findings. I expect we'll see it any day now.

Not really. I'm sure a thousand or so armed men could effectively take control of Manchester if demoralised army and police forces were to flee

Then we're surprised when there's conflict from the tribes/sects/ethnicities we've shoe-horned together, all fostering centuries of simmering rivalries.

if you have a country like Iraq made up of many different factions then you need a strongman dictator to keep them all in line .

@ernie - we went in to Afganistan to counteract the Taliban and Al-Queda who where headquartered there, it was never about arresting an individual.

Nope, that's not true. The then leader of Afghanistan Mullah Omar was specifically told that Afghan government had to hand over Osama bin Laden so that he could be put on trial for planning 9/11, failure to do so would result in military action against Afghanistan.

Mullah Omar initially responded by saying that Osama bin Laden would only be handed over if was to be put on trial in a neutral country. The West/US said this was unacceptable and again threaten to take military action against Afghanistan if he wasn't handed over.

Finally Mullah Omar said that they would hand him over but didn't know where he was. The West/US responded by saying this was totally unaccepted and shortly afterwards started bombing.

All along the Taliban government in Kabul was told that no military action would be taken if Osama bin Laden was handed over so that he could be put on trial for planning 9/11.

See how easily people forget ?

[i][b]"This is non-negotiable. There is no need to discuss innocence or guilt; we know he's guilty. Turn him over. If they want us to stop our military operations they've just got to meet my conditions."[/b][/i] George Bush October 2001

Someone just needs to tell them that the final whistle has already blown:[img] [/img]

Then they'll all just go home, no problem.

Looks like they're not happy with one city, and they're after another. Anyone would think that they were trying to establish some kind of hardline islamic caliphate in the region? But nobody has ever mentioned anything as bonkers as that, so I suppose thats why the security services were caught so off their guard. Those sneaky muslamic buggers

In the long term, unfortunately all "they" (the extremists) will achieve is putting Iraq back into the "dark ages" in terms of it's society. When you see the scientific and cultural history that Iraq had, this is a real shame. Unfortunately, the extremists are just that, extreme, so they don't play by our 1st world political and cultural stds.

We, the west, had a go at changing things, but it didn't work, and now i think is the time to just build a wall and shut the doors. Unfortunately this will condemn millions of ordinary Iraq people to a horrible life, but i see no other option....

In the long term, unfortunately all "they" (the extremists) will achieve is putting Iraq back into the "dark ages" in terms of it's society. When you see the scientific and cultural history that Iraq had, this is a real shame. Unfortunately, the extremists are just that, extreme, so they don't play by our 1st world political and cultural stds.

We, the west, had a go at changing things, but it didn't work, and now i think is the time to just build a wall and shut the doors. Unfortunately this will condemn millions of ordinary Iraq people to a horrible life, but i see no other option....

Binners you are missing the big picture....have they got any oil yet?

Erm..... Aren't you forgetting why we went in there in the first place. It certainly wasn't because of any concern for the ordinary Iraqi citizen. There's the small matter of all that black stuff underneath the country. Which now has a bunch of psychotic beardies sat on top of it*

The news is focussing on them over-running cities, but I suspect it's the oilfields and infrastructure that the puppet regime is most concerned about. Judging from the noises coming from Iraq though, the government don't seem to have the remotest clue what to do, apart from ask the Americans for air strikes

..... And here we go again!

* not Mumford and Sons on Meth

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

In the long term, unfortunately all "they" (the extremists) will achieve is putting Iraq back into the "dark ages" in terms of it's society.

We, the west, had a go at changing things

We created the conditions which "they" (the extremists) thrive in.

Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we meddled in their affairs, today a group more extreme than the official Al Qaeda are seizing control of Iraq's major cities.

All this was totally predictable and Blair and his supporters were warned that they were creating the conditions in which extremism was certain to flourish.

However these warnings were dismissed as bleeding-heart leftie nonsense and Blair and his supporters pressed on with their policy of bombing the crap out of countries and then wading in.

And we are still repeating the same mistakes in Syria where the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant controls vast sways of the country.

EDIT : When I say "repeating the same mistakes in Syria" I of course mean in terms of helping to create the conditions in which extremism was certain to flourish, we never got round to bombing Syria, probably more due to public opinion than anything else. But we did bomb Libya and look at the mess we've left it in, although the media mostly ignores it - it seems that the fact that Libya is now worse off than it was under Gaddafi is just too embarrassing to talk about.

Tikrit also fallen today.

Iraq today, Afghanistan tomorrow.

According to channel 4 news, 60,000 American trained Iraqi troops, tooled up with American hardware, ran off in the face of 3,000 jihadi's, dumping their uniforms in the process. Given those odds, I doubt the beardy nut-jobs will be stopping at Tirkrit. And Al Maliki has just made the most unconvincing threat/whimper about a counter attack imaginable

Baghdad before the end of the week? They'll get there a lot quicker in all their new Humvees.

[i]...we never got round to bombing Syria, probably more due to public opinion than anything else. [/i]

It would the first time that they ever paid attention to public opinion if they did.

Good posts Ernie, spot on analysis

hora - Member
...this'll have been in planning for sometime.

No shit?

Sadly I am not surprised to see further cities fall. As @binners says it doesn't matter what kit/training the Army has if they don't want to fight. The country is in crises, there is little work so people sign up for the military but they don't want to fight, they don't believe in "the cause" and they are not going to risk their lives for it. The military has been widely infiltrated by the extremists, it wouldn't take much IMO for the Army to actually fight against the Government.

@ernie I think it was easy politics to make statements about Osama being the target and asking for him to be handed over (which was impossible as the Afgan Government had no idea where he was). Bush knew he wasn't going to be handed over so there would be no obstacle to an invasion.

We (the West) have created a very big problem in Iraq.

EDIT: Syria. We where never going to get involved after Afgan, Iraq and Libya - we (people and government) had had enough.

EDIT: Syria. We where never going to get involved after Afgan, Iraq and Libya - we (people and government) had had enough.

How could we get involved in Syria? One half is populated with exactly the people that we have been fighting since 9/11 in theory...which lead the voting public in the West confused.

Yep- we have had enough. The Iraqi government asked for assistance from the US- no help yet. How can the US help? Since hand over there are still daily car bombings in Iraq and it'd be knee-deep in mire even more this time. Who is the enemy and who is the foe?

Al-Assad doesn't fit the Democracy-model but I've noticed a big slice of Syria aint exactly overthrowing their leader.....so in the Arab sense he aint that unpopular.

Maybe Iraq is best left to work this one out. Whichever way it goes.

I'm really surprised by this, Islam seems such a peaceful, fun loving religion.

Dobbo - Member

I'm really surprised by this, Islam seems such a peaceful, fun loving religion.

As does christianity , and as does western secular society. 😕

As does christianity , and as does western secular society.

Don't get me wrong, I think all religion is a crock or crap, but Islam is up there at the top.

Al-Assad doesn't fit the Democracy-model but I've noticed a big slice of Syria aint exactly overthrowing their leader.....so in the Arab sense he aint that unpopular.

As with most things in the region, It divides along sectarian lines. If you're on the same side as the ones presently in charge, then happy days. If you're not, then things are pretty grim.

I've said it before, but there really is only one way to sort the entire region out…..

[img] [/img]

Let the dust settle for a couple of decades, then get in there and start pumping oil again. I mean… can anyone see this whole thing not deteriorating at such a rate now, that they've as good as got their longed-for caliphate already. And theres going to be eff all, short of the above 'solution' that anyone can, or will do about it. So theres now effectively a 'nation' of insane, shouty, beardy, head-chopper-offerrers, who have a lot of Syria and Libya's (and now American) heavy weaponry, including possibly chemical weapons? What could possibly go wrong?

Thing is, after the last "x" years of war and the presence of Western troops on the ground in Iraq, i can't imagine they have the capability to develop WMDs any longer. And simple trade bans on critical items prevent any "nuclearisation" etc. However, those trade bans also hurt the general population significantly......

Don't get me wrong, I think all religion is a crock or crap, but Islam is up there at the top

Did you miss the bit where two happy clappy western christian leaders went on a crusade v the axis of evil where you were either with them or against them?

If only we could make them more peaceful like us...how many more do we need to invade till this works eh?
Just look at western christian history , no legacy of conquest or wars or invasion there is there---why can they not learn from us?

And Binners is right if they wont live like we think they should we should just bomb the terrorist bastards back to the stone age and no one should notice the irony in the suggestion either as they are the baddies and we are peacful and the goodies

i can't imagine they have the capability to develop WMDs any longer

I wonder if a East/West Germany style "wall" is an option? Draw a line across Iraq, and the Extremists can have the northern bit, and everyone else can have the southern bit. In about 30 years, when the northern population get jealous of the southern part having MTV / widescreen tellies, then they can "knock the wall down" like happened in Berlin in 1989. (In effect, communism wasn't defeated by the cold war, or military might, but by capitalism itself!)

On a more positive note - The Kurds might come out of it well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27809051

Did you miss the bit where two happy clappy western christian leaders went on a crusade v the axis of evil where you were either with them or against them?

I'm talking about state of Islam as a whole, and it's actions throughout the world, Boko Haram being another fine example of this great religion.

As for 2 wrongs making a right I don't think we should have gone in to Irag in the first place either FWIW, let old Saddam do what he wanted, it's his country right?

I wonder if a East/West Germany style "wall" is an option? Draw a line across Iraq, and the Extremists can have the northern bit, and everyone else can have the southern bit. In about 30 years, when the northern population get jealous of the southern part having MTV / widescreen tellies, then they can "knock the wall down" like happened in Berlin in 1989. (In effect, communism wasn't defeated by the cold war, or military might, but by capitalism itself!)

Abit late. They are now 80miles from Baghdad. The Iraqi Government said it wont fall/it'll be a strong point but the Government couldn't even get a vote to declare a state of emergency as half the politicians didn't show up to vote on it.

Mental, they've literally gone through the country QUICKER than the 2003 invasion with less material and boots on the ground.

Just shows how ****ed Iraq is now post 2003 invasion.

i can't imagine they have the capability to develop WMDs any longer

Kind of a moot point, when you've got all the heavy weapons they looted from Libya, Syria, and now the American stuff from Iraq. From todays Guardian….

[i]Isis released footage of large numbers of weapons and armoured military vehicles being received by members in eastern Syria, confirming fears that the looted weapons would fuel the insurgency on both sides of an increasingly irrelevant border.[/i]

[i]Most of the weapons seized by Isis were taken from the al-Qayara base in Mosul, the fourth largest in the country, after two divisions of the Iraqi army fled the city en masse on Tuesday, allowing a far smaller extremist force to enter.

The haul included armoured humvees, rockets, tonnes of ammunition and assault weapons. Evidence of the large-scale desertion remained littered across the streets of the central city, with flak jackets, camouflage uniforms and ammunition clips being held up by insurgents as they celebrated their victory[/i]

Aside from all the military kit ISIS has $500 million from the Mosul central bank, I saw a quote today which described them as the best equipped and funded terrorist organization of all time.

@binners you really need to stop inflaming the situation with pictures of mushroom clouds, they just act as recruiting posters for extremists.

best equipped and funded terrorist organization of all time.

You mean the new Greater Islamic Republic government?

I imagine parts of Syria/Iraq and who knows elsewhere will become theirs.....

Would Saudi Arabia hold up? Whens the last time they fought anyone?

I imagine if Kuwait was invaded again the US would stop this..

@ernie I think it was easy politics to make statements about Osama being the target and asking for him to be handed over (which was impossible as the Afgan Government had no idea where he was). Bush knew he wasn't going to be handed over so there would be no obstacle to an invasion.

Well that's exactly my point ! 🙂

Handing over Osama bin Laden was merely the excuse, they were sure that Mullah Omar couldn't comply which would lead the way for invasion. While of course at the same time placating domestic public opinion.

Likewise Iraq's alleged WDMs were merely the excuse, Blair and Bush knew damn well that Iraq didn't possess them, otherwise to attack Iraq and risk the deaths of tens of thousands of British and American service personnel (we do know what weapons of mass destruction means don't we?) would have been political suicide for both of them.

The decision to attack Iraq was based on the assessment that Iraq was weak and that US/UK losses would be minimal, thereby enhancing the political careers and legacy of both Blair and Bush.

Moreover the certain lack of WMDs made non compliance by Iraq certain and thereby provided the guaranteed excuse to attack. If you remember when Iraq agreed to allow the UN inspectors in far from celebrating that fact Blair and Bush sounded totally exasperated, and as I mentioned earlier they were determined to attack before the UN inspectors had completed their work.

That's despite having claimed that Iraq had had WMDs for 20 odd years, which made a complete mockery of their claim that the issue should be dealt with with serious urgency.

The difference between the excuses given to the UK/US electorate for attacking Afghanistan, and the excuses given to the UK/US electorate for attacking Iraq, is that unlike Afghanistan the excuses given for attacking Iraq have not been forgotten.

As I suggested earlier Afghanistan was deemed a success (I'm not entirely sure why) while Iraq was seen as a complete disaster. It's logical that people focus on the reasons for doing something after it's all gone wrong.

Billy Bragg was right when he wrote this, he was right when he did this version in 07 and sadly it seems given some of the comments above he is still right today. Waiting for the great leap forwards. The relevant line comes at about 1:35

I still remember Bush landing on the deck and saying mission accomplished. Sheesh.

Then fast forward, Cameron said the ****ing same thing about Afghanistan. I had to pinch myself as by this point it was proving that Iraq wasn't and was racked by double-digit daily deaths from bombings and mass finds of beheaded men. So surely he'd have thought 'not the term to use'...

You need to make sometimes five or six times before you can be absolutly sure.

they don't play by our 1st world political and cultural stds.

depleted uranium

Link me to the research that actually shows DU munitions have adverse health effects. Apart from mild cases of death when hit by one (obviously).

I remember something sticking with me a couple of years after 'we' went into Afghanistan, and sums up the reason its such a mess now in Iraq, and will be even worse once we pull out of Afghanistan. One Taliban commander was interviewed, and asked why he thought they'd evntually triumph, the same as they did with the Russians. His answer: "we've got all the time in the world"

Link me to the research that actually shows DU munitions have adverse health effects.

I remember seeing on the TV news during the early stages of the Iraq War footage of British service personal recovering bodies from some sort of military vehicle that had been hit by US "friendly fire". They wore full protective suits simular to those pictured below (although that picture is of soldiers measuring radiation levels on a tank destroyed by depleted uranium in Kosovo) because depleted uranium munitions had been used.

I remember thinking "blimey, they're not taking any chances, despite telling us that depleted uranium is safe".

[img] [/img]

LOLZ. The ideology goes back much much further than the gulf conflicts.

Muhumed Ali (not the boxer one) circa 1800, his son Ibrahim and the early "revolts". TE Lawrence and the "arab revolt". The betrayal post WW1.... even all that is pretty recent.

Heck, OBL even harped on about Andalucia being brough back into the Arab kingdom. They lost that circa 1600 with the reconquest.

The whole caliphate thing.... this is what they are after

[img] [/img]

Although this time I doubt they are bringing science and a new system of numbers.

LOLZ. The ideology goes back much much further than the gulf conflicts.

The conditions under which ISIS has been able to seize control of major Iraqi cities is directly connected to the last Gulf conflict.

I don't know why that makes you laugh so much or why you might want to absolve those responsible for instigating the Iraq War.

Kurdish forces have retaken Kirkuk. Possible the advance is stretched too thin. Maybe Baghdad will be that city that proves too far?..

I reckon theyll retreat/consolidate.