Peti oktobar na bliskom istoku i arapskom svetu

[Roger Sanchez]

Kraljica Baba šalje ponovo (nakon par godinica 'ladnoće) ambasadora u Teheran.

[Roger Sanchez]

Godišnji izvještaj ISISa.

[x500]

Ako je verovati ovoj vesti,

http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Svet/474520/Irak-zatrazio-od-SAD-da-izvedu-vazdusne-napade 

ipak je Blic upitanju,

 

Onda je Irak dostigao vrhunac demoktratije i pro-zapadne orjentacije - mole SAD da ih opale iz vazduha!

 

Pozdrav,

X500

[Roger Sanchez]

Šteta što ne nalaze snagu za dostizanje vrhunca antifašizma i slobodarstva - da mole Putina da ih anektira ili im ispoljzuje.

 

Pozdrav iz Casteaua.

[x500]

Rogo,

 

Pozivanje bilo koje strane sile da okupira ili demokratizuje iz vazduha zemlju je vrhunac demokratije i pro-zapadnog nacina razmisljanja.

Tako da se nebih slozio sa Tobom po pitanju Putina i njegovih obozavalaca.

 

U slucaju Iraka, taj nivo je utoliko veci, postu su SAD u perodu od 1991-2003 sistematski demokratizovali Irak. Infrastruktura (putevi, mostovi, bolnice, skole i drugi civilni objekti), hrana/voda/vazduh su demokratizovani do temelja. 

Zbog obilne upotrebe DU municije u nadernih nekoliko stotina/hiljada godina, ljudi koji budu ziveli na teritoriji Iraka imace sansu da ubiru plodove demokratije.

 

Pozdrav,

X500

 

PS: Jos uvek mi dugujes odgovor na jedno pitanje -> http://www.parapsihopatologija.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19114&p=2609723

[Roger Sanchez]

[Muwan]

Godišnji izvještaj ISISa.

Nije loše, polako ovladavaju materijom. U dogledno vreme bi mogli i IPO da objave.

[Turnbull]

Kako uspete svaki bogovetni topik o međunarodnoj poltiici da pretvorite u Putin vs NATO prepucavanje, alal vam patka.

 

On topic, idiotski hawk-ovi su uspeli da potpuno sjebu ovu sirotu zemlju.

 

 

Against Intervention in Iraq

American military involvement would inflame, not ease, Iraq’s sectarian divisions.

The Editors

June 18, 2014   |    This article appeared in the July 7-14, 2014 edition of The Nation.

 

An Iraqi army armored vehicle burned on a street in the city of Mosul, June 12, 2014 (AP).

The stunning military advance into cities in northern and central Iraq by an Al Qaeda offshoot, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—backed by some of Iraq’s Sunni tribal paramilitary forces and a militia tied to remnants of the deposed Baath party—compounds Iraq’s long-running tragedy. For thirty-four years—through the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88), the Gulf War (1990–91), the brutal US-led sanctions against Iraq (1990–2003) and the devastation that followed the US invasion in 2003—Iraq’s people have suffered unspeakably. Now the ISIS-led offensive is adding to that suffering. In seizing Falluja, Mosul and a string of other cities, ISIS has left devastation and mass executions in its wake, and it is aggressively provoking a revival of the Sunni-versus-Shiite civil war that left thousands dead between 2005 and 2008.

But American military involvement in the latest eruption in Iraq, reportedly under consideration by President Obama, would be the wrong response to that suffering, morally and strategically. Even if limited to airstrikes, whether from F-16s, cruise missiles or drones, military action by Washington would almost certainly kill civilians, especially since ISIS is concentrated in heavily populated cities. Worse, such action would inflame, not ease, Iraq’s sectarian divisions, allying Washington more closely with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s monumentally corrupt and sectarian regime and against a seething Sunni population, and would send recruits streaming into ISIS’s camp.

President Obama has hinted that he’ll make any US military support conditional on a change in Maliki’s sectarian style of governance. Since taking office, Maliki has excluded Sunnis from power—dismantling the Sunni tribal militia of the Anbar Awakening, accusing leading Sunni politicians of “terrorism,” creating security and intelligence machinery that reports only to him, and installing pet generals throughout an army so corrupt and incompetent that it simply fled at the start of the ISIS offensive. But if the United States couldn’t persuade Maliki to change his spots when it had some 150,000 troops in-country and advisers in every ministry, it certainly can’t do so long-distance. Despite eight years of blood and treasure lost in the Iraqi quagmire after 2003, the United States has precious little leverage left.

Since the departure of US forces in 2011, Obama has been under attack by hawks, neoconservatives and Bush administration refugees in Washington’s think tanks for ending the war. Their catechism, repeated endlessly, is that Obama left too soon, abandoning Iraq to civil war. Now, after the ISIS offensive, the “Obama lost Iraq” mantra is on a Fox News loop, echoed in The Wall Street Journal and by the likes of John McCain. This narrative gets the whole story wrong. (Not surprising, since this was the same crowd that was so woefully wrong in calling for war in 2003. How many times does the Beltway hawk caucus get to be wrong before the media realize they don’t know what they’re talking about?)

First, of course, the Iraq civil war is the direct result of the Bush administration’s criminal decision in 2003, illegal under international law, to attack a country that was not involved in 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no threat to the United States. That invasion and the subsequent occupation destroyed Iraq’s central institutions, including the army, the police and the Baath party. In the fight to fill the resulting power vacuum, Iraqis separated into Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni camps, a trend fostered by US occupation authorities. The countless dead left on the streets of Iraq’s cities, then and now, are on George W. Bush’s head.

Second, the decision to withdraw entirely from Iraq in 2011 was signed in Baghdad by President Bush himself in 2008, as the price for that year’s Status of Forces Agreement. On taking office, Obama tried to undo that decision. He pressured Maliki to allow a sizable contingent of US troops to remain in Iraq past 2011, but those negotiations failed. Ostensibly, they failed because of sticking points like Washington’s demand that Iraq extend legal immunity to US troops, which Iraq felt was a violation of its sovereignty. But the talks actually collapsed because Iraq didn’t want US troops to stay. Not only did many Sunnis—who might have favored the United States as a stabilizing presence—argue that America was an occupying power; the government installed by Bush & Co., heavily weighted toward sectarian Shiites with close ties to Iran, didn’t want the United States to stay either. That’s partly because Iran, which has enormous influence in Baghdad, didn’t want any US role in Iraq, and made its wishes clear to Maliki in no uncertain terms. So, short of toppling Maliki, the United States was out.

But if Obama isn’t to blame for the US withdrawal from Iraq, there is one important way the president is responsible for making the crisis worse: by fanning the flames of civil war in Syria. Washington opposes ISIS in Iraq but supports the armed opposition to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, which includes that selfsame ISIS along with many other Islamist militias, including the Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda ally. By arming and training Syrian fighters (mostly through proxies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar), the Obama administration helped create space in Syria for ISIS to grow. Although Al Qaeda broke with ISIS because the latter was too indiscriminately violent, ISIS grew more powerful in northern and eastern Syria with funding from wealthy private sources in the Gulf states. It erased much of the Syria-Iraq border, built camps in Anbar and seized Falluja in January. In essence, the wars in Syria and Iraq have merged into one. The best step Obama can take now is to back off in Syria, ending support for the rebels there and seeking to work with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Russia in search of a regional political solution.

Rather than compound the suffering with more American missiles, Obama should provide humanitarian relief for the estimated half-million refugees who have fled the ISIS offensive. The region is already buckling under the strain of what has become the world’s worst humanitarian crisis because of the Syrian war, which nearly 3 million have fled, with more than twice that number internally displaced. The most constructive action from Washington would be to send food, clothing, shelter and medicine to relieve the suffering.

In some ways, the conflicts in Iraq and Syria are proxy wars that pit Saudi Arabia against Iran, and have plunged the region into a sectarian rivalry, with Riyadh and Tehran backing Sunnis and Shiites, respectively. So the next thing Obama ought to do—rather than bomb Iraq—is to encourage a Saudi-Iranian rapprochement.

In recent months, Iran and Saudi Arabia have tentatively sought to reconcile, and the ISIS scare could drive them closer together. Iran is of course bitterly opposed to ISIS and doesn’t want it to disturb its client in Baghdad (indeed, after ISIS seized Mosul, Gen. Qassim Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds force, offered Tehran’s assistance, and it seems certain that Iran is supporting some of the many Shiite militias mobilizing to battle ISIS). And while Saudi Arabia supports sectarian Sunni movements around the world, it considers ISIS, Al Qaeda and the like beyond the pale. Iranian president Hassan Rouhani has reached out to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states. A Saudi-Iranian accord could vastly ease the crises in Syria and Iraq, nudging the leaders in Damascus and Baghdad toward a more open, accommodating stance. Iran and Saudi Arabia could work with Turkey in both countries, too. If Obama believes the rhetoric of his recent West Point speech favoring diplomacy over military action, he’ll invest his energy—and that of Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden—in precisely that tall diplomatic task.

 

[Turnbull]

A evo ih i ove dve kretenke.

 

It’s appropriate that two of the leading liberal interventionists, both of whom have served in prominent positions in Barack Obama’s administration—are named Power and Slaughter.

[Budja]

Slaughter, citirana u gore postvaljenom clanku.

 

 

If nations like Russia and China block action for their own narrow interests, we should act multilaterally, as we did in Kosovo, and then seek the Council’s approval after the fact. The United Nations Charter was created for peace among the people of the world, not as an instrument of state power. This is not merely a humanitarian calculation. It is a strategic calculation. One that, if the president had been prepared to make it two years ago, could have stopped the carnage spreading today in Syria and in Iraq.

 

Vreme je za topic Medjunarodni tupan dana. Rasmusen se juce kandidovao onom izjavom o frakingu, Rusima i ekolozima.

Ovaj pasus je ranijeg datuma.

 

Da ne pominjem zivopisne likove po ruskoj dumi i ukrajinskoj radi.

[Zaz_pi]

Amerikanci traze od Malikija da prihvati sunitske zahteve, cak i da odstupi. Ali stize vest iz Moskve-Rusija podrzava Malikija u borbi protiv ISISa . Inace, Rusi, a sa njima i Kinezi, kazu da SAD moraju da dobiju odbrenje UN za akciju u Iraku, u suprotnom ce biti velikih posledica po svet Naravno, oni ce to blokirati sve dok im ne ispune uslove koje traze drugde. Amerikanci to nece uraditi, e onda sledi haos na razlicitim mestima...Ovih dana je Lavrov u poseti Saudijskoj Arabiji. Mozda padne neki dogovor oko ISISa ;)

Edited June 20, 2014 by Zaz_pi

[Bane5]

a isis se pali i gasi na dugme?

to u nekoj igrici moze, ali ovde ne.

 

ps. ako administracija ne pruza bezuslovnu podrsku malikiju to je ipak dobar znak.

[Prospero]

Iran says Obama remarks show U.S. not serious in fighting terrorism

DUBAI Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:48pm EDT

 

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's plan to send advisers to Iraq to help Baghdad counter Sunni Islamist militants shows the United States is not serious about fighting terrorism, an Iranian official was quoted by official media as saying on Friday.

 

Obama on Thursday offered up to 300 Americans to help coordinate the fight against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). But he held off granting a request for air strikes from the Shi'ite-led government and renewed a call for Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to do more to overcome sectarian divisions that have fueled resentment among the Sunni minority.

 

“Obama’s recent remarks showed that the White House lacks serious will for confronting terrorism in Iraq and the region,” the official IRNA news agency reported Deputy Foreign Minister for Arab and African Affairs Hossein Amir Abdollahian as saying.

 

Abdollahian said the U.S. “delay” in fighting terrorism and the ISIL has “fueled suspicions and doubts about the U.S. objectives in Iraq,” IRNA reported.

 

Another official, Hamid Aboutalebi, who works in the office of President Hassan Rouhani, also criticized Obama's remarks, the news agency said.

 

"The U.S. cannot adopt contradictory policies in the Middle East; to support war in Syria and peace in Iraq or be on the side of terrorists in Syria and against them in Iraq," Aboutalebi wrote on his Twitter account on Friday, IRNA said.

 

Iraqi forces were massing north of Baghdad on Friday, aiming to strike back at the Islamists' offensive towards the capital. [iD:nL6N0P12GT]

 

(Reporting by William Maclean; Editing by Louise Ireland)

:D

 

It's funny cuz it's true

[Filipenko]

[Lord Protector]

 

US, ISIS, and Shi’ite Clergy Agree: Maliki Must Go

Sistani Calls for New, More Inclusive Government

by Jason Ditz, June 20, 2014

With Iraq in the early stages of another bloody sectarian war, the Sunni rebels and the Shi’ite clergy are at odds about almost everything. There is common ground on the issue of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, however, he has to go.

The US made clear their opposition to Maliki earlier this week, and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the religious leader for Iraq’s Shi’ite majority, seems to concur, with his statement during Friday prayers calling for Maliki’s replacement with a new “effective” government that includes Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

The Islamic Army of Iraq (IAI), one of the Sunni rebel factions fighting alongside ISIS, is also in agreement on that issue, warning his faction will attack Baghdad if Maliki isn’t replaced, and suggesting there was room for a settlement of the conflict along the lines of three autonomous regions so long as Maliki is gone.

Sunni factions in northern Baghdad are pretty concerned about the status quo as well, seeing the growing sectarian tension as putting them in considerable danger, since they are still outside of ISIS territory and a prime target for local Shi’ite militias.

Ultimately, the war seems to be heading toward furthering the “sectarian cleansing” of regions that began during the US occupation, with the minority sect chased out of ISIS and the Iraqi government’s respective regions, though even within what remains of Shi’ite Iraq Maliki’s position is greatly weakened, and he seems likely to be ousted soon.

Who will replace Maliki is anyone’s guess, but the US is pushing hard for their old friend Ahmed Chalabi, who was a major architect of the 2003 US invasion and occupation. Reports have suggested that in addition to Chalabi, two members of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council are also getting some support for the new prime minister.

 

 

 

ISIS Overruns Key Towns in East Syria

Towns Give ISIS a Base to Attack Nearby Military Airport

by Jason Ditz, June 20, 2014

 

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to grow tonight, with the latest reports that they overran the towns of Muhassan, al-Bulil, and Al-Buomar in the Deir Ezzor Province, a cluster of towns along the Euphrates River.

Muhassan is seen as a particularly strategically valuable town, as it is just a stone’s throw away from the city of Mayadin, and the Syrian military’s main eastern airport.

If ISIS manages to take Mayadin, they will effectively control every major city in Deir Ezzor, a major oil-producing province that borders the ISIS-controlled Anbar Province of Iraq.

Some portions of other Deir Ezzor cities, including al-Bukamal, have been contested off and on between ISIS and rival al-Qaeda faction Jabhat al-Nusra, though ISIS seems to be getting the better of most such confrontations, and seem to be moving ever closer to de facto statehood.

 

 

Edited June 21, 2014 by slow