If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki whose name is apparently Arabic for "Not Helping" defies Obama's calls to reach out to Sunnis and form a more inclusive government, tells the US to make it snappy with the air strikes and troops to save his ass   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 163
    More: Dumbass, Iraq's Maliki, Iraq, Saudis, Prime Minister Nuri, Sadr, Iraqi Army, Baath, political coalition  
•       •       •

2861 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jun 2014 at 3:29 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-17 12:25:06 PM  
Washington has made clear it wants Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to embrace Sunni politicians as a condition of U.S. support to fight a lightning advance by forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.
But the Shi'ite prime minister has moved in the opposite direction, announcing a crackdown on politicians and officers he considers "traitors" and lashing out at neighbouring Sunni countries for stoking militancy.



How do you say "Well, bye"  in Iraqi Arabic?
 
2014-06-17 12:47:48 PM  

Magorn: How do you say "Well, bye" in Iraqi Arabic?


I give him a week before he's arrested by the ISIS and executed in the public square

/do they have a public square?
 
2014-06-17 12:54:12 PM  
Walk. The fark. Away.
 
2014-06-17 01:04:13 PM  

DamnYankees: Walk. The fark. Away.


Right there with ya,   and yet a failed state is not in our interests either.   Iran will all but annex the shiite parts to protect them, the Kurds will declare independence which will almost guarantee a Turkish invasion of the North, and ISIS would have effective control over half of Iraq and become a terrorist's wet dream.


Not sure there IS a good answer this time
 
2014-06-17 01:07:03 PM  

Magorn: DamnYankees: Walk. The fark. Away.

Right there with ya,   and yet a failed state is not in our interests either.   Iran will all but annex the shiite parts to protect them, the Kurds will declare independence which will almost guarantee a Turkish invasion of the North, and ISIS would have effective control over half of Iraq and become a terrorist's wet dream.


Not sure there IS a good answer this time


Why should I care about any of that? Let Iran annex that part of Iraq, let the Kurds declare independence and figure it out themselves. It's really not our problem.
 
2014-06-17 01:08:20 PM  

Magorn: Not sure there IS a good answer this time


Sure there is:

Making the long trek with the kiddos across the Middle East?  Need a break from the endless miles of desert highway?

Come see the world's largest glass parking lot!  Souvenir stands with goodies for everyone, and a walk-up cafe with ice cold Coca-Cola!


/snark
 
2014-06-17 01:17:18 PM  

DamnYankees: Why should I care about any of that?


Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.

tl;dr: 9/11 2: Electric Boogaloo
 
2014-06-17 01:22:01 PM  

The Bestest: Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.


Yes. And? I fail to see how or why I should care about this? "The existence of countries in which there are people who don't like us" is not really something I care too much about as an abstract concept. Those countries have always existed, currently do exist, and will always exist in the future.
 
2014-06-17 01:26:29 PM  
Just break up Iraq into 3 different countries already.
 
2014-06-17 01:30:05 PM  

vernonFL: Just break up Iraq into 3 different countries already.


Great idea if it were done in the 30s. Would be a huge mess today, though I suppose a unified, region-wide single war would be "neater" than what we have currently.
 
2014-06-17 02:04:43 PM  
By the time all the various 'purging' is over in that farking hellhole, there won't be any people left.

But hey, free and unoccupied country!
 
2014-06-17 02:06:59 PM  

Diogenes: But hey, free and unoccupied country!


Can we send the hipsters and the anti-vax crowd there first?  :D
 
2014-06-17 02:07:10 PM  

The Bestest: vernonFL: Just break up Iraq into 3 different countries already.

Great idea if it were done in the 30s. Would be a huge mess today, though I suppose a unified, region-wide single war would be "neater" than what we have currently.


Agreed.  And doing this within the borders of just one country in the region will likely solve very little, if anything.

Add to that, the fact that there are even deeper and perhaps older rivalries than just the Sunni/Shia divide.
 
2014-06-17 02:08:12 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Diogenes: But hey, free and unoccupied country!

Can we send the hipsters and the anti-vax crowd there first?  :D


As good a plan as any I've heard for Iraq in my lifetime.  Plus, we actually might get some benefits out of the deal this time.
 
2014-06-17 02:29:59 PM  

Magorn: DamnYankees: Walk. The fark. Away.

Right there with ya,   and yet a failed state is not in our interests either.   Iran will all but annex the shiite parts to protect them, the Kurds will declare independence which will almost guarantee a Turkish invasion of the North, and ISIS would have effective control over half of Iraq and become a terrorist's wet dream.


Not sure there IS a good answer this time


Keeping Iran busy supporting a Shi'ite state, while dealing with a hostile Sunni neighbor doesn't really hurt American interests.

If we are smart, and do absolutely nothing, this will eventually become Iran's mess. They won't be able to resist trying to spread their regional influence. The Kurds will do their thing, hopefully in a quiet way.

There aren't any good answers, but it's the best bad answer in my opinion.
 
2014-06-17 03:03:05 PM  

Gonz: There aren't any good answers, but it's the best bad answer in my opinion.


Support the formation of the Kurdish state and negotiate breaking some of Turkey off for it.

Iran will deal with the Shi'ite state and probably get an Iran/Iraq war 2 out of it. Syria will be encompassed into the new ISIS, possibly Lebenon too.

Best case scenario, you have a reunited Syria and Iran on either side of the ISIS state, and they'll be dealing with that shiat.

Worst case: Syria becomes part of the ISIS state, you have mass executions and relentless killing of non-believers. Iran goes apeshiat and attacks. Kurds get tossed in, or they get stuck with the refugees that end up causing domestic terror problems for them (or Turkey decides to take back Kurdistan)

Seriously, it's gonna suck for the next decade or two there. I can only hope that the Kurds get their state before all is said and done. They seem to be the sanest ones stuck in this shiat
 
2014-06-17 03:03:47 PM  

somedude210: Iran will deal with the Shi'ite state


crap, meant Sunni state
 
2014-06-17 03:03:57 PM  
FTFA: But with the million-strong regular army abandoning ground despite being armed and trained by the United States at a cost of $25 billion, the government is increasingly relying on extra-legal Shi'ite militia to fight on its behalf, re-establishing groups that fought during the 2006-2007 bloodletting.

i.imgur.com  i.imgur.com  i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-17 03:08:54 PM  

somedude210: Support the formation of the Kurdish state and negotiate breaking some of Turkey off for it.


i.imgur.com

Yeah, like Erdogan, a NATO ally is going to even think about this.
 
2014-06-17 03:13:51 PM  

The Bestest: vernonFL: Just break up Iraq into 3 different countries already.

Great idea if it were done in the 30s. Would be a huge mess today, though I suppose a unified, region-wide single war would be "neater" than what we have currently.


Partitioning is always a biatch--see India and Pakistan in 1947.
 
2014-06-17 03:16:17 PM  

Somacandra: Yeah, like Erdogan, a NATO ally is going to even think about this.


I didn't say it was probable, but hey, Turkey wants to be part of the EU. Offer them membership if they let the Turkish Kurds have part of the country for their own state
 
2014-06-17 03:19:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Let Iran annex that part of Iraq, let the Kurds declare independence and figure it out themselves. It's really not our problem.


upload.wikimedia.org

Um, what about the so-called "Pottery Barn" rule: "...once you break it, you are going to own it, and we're going to be responsible for 26 million people standing there looking at us. And it's going to suck up a good 40 to 50 percent of the Army for years. And it's going to take all the oxygen out of the political environment. . ."

 How can one wash their hands of all this?
 
2014-06-17 03:28:39 PM  

Somacandra: How can one wash their hands of all this?


The idea that we "broke" Iraq is really just an arrogant view which puts us at the center of other people's lives. It's their country, not ours.
 
2014-06-17 03:34:04 PM  

The Bestest: Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.

tl;dr: 9/11 2: Electric Boogaloo


There's so many erroneous assumptions here that it's difficult to even start. Suffice to say that "ownership of a sovereign nation" isn't a prerequisite for twenty guys flying some planes into buildings, and even if it were, unless you're advocating invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not to mention a bunch of other places, your fallacious argument isn't even internally consistent.
 
2014-06-17 03:34:51 PM  

Somacandra: How can one wash their hands of all this?


Because he asked us to leave.

We left.

He's now farked it up and continues to fark it up by persecuting people of a diferent religious sect, while demanding we help him.

The fact that he went "Hey, we're OK now, GTFO." was when it stopped being 'our' mess.
 
2014-06-17 03:36:27 PM  
Regarding the Middle East:

www.leslieirishevans.com


I say we take our ball and go home.
 
2014-06-17 03:38:32 PM  

Somacandra: How can one wash their hands of all this?


It's really easy. We sit here with our men and materiel, send a guy a diplomat to Baghdad with a giant novelty check-sized placard that says "too bad, so sad", and let them kill each other. It's cheap, and doesn't involve us killing more people or getting killed ourselves.
 
2014-06-17 03:39:34 PM  
I wonder if the Saudis and Kuwait will get nervous and seize the southern regions.
 
2014-06-17 03:43:26 PM  
In other news, Al-Maliki has appointed a new information minister.
cdn.frontpagemag.com
 
2014-06-17 03:43:49 PM  

The Bestest: DamnYankees: Why should I care about any of that?

Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.

tl;dr: 9/11 2: Electric Boogaloo



Once there is something resembling a power structure there can also be deterrence and/or regime change. Like in Afghanistan.

Maybe it will be good to get them all in to one place and THEN negotiate with missiles.
 
m00
2014-06-17 03:44:03 PM  

vernonFL: Just break up Iraq into 3 different countries already.


Why not have a federation of three or four semi-autonomous areas that have their own institutions, and strictly rely on the federal government for military defense, foreign policy, currency, arbitration of disputes between those areas, ensuring local laws don't violate the constitution, and providing for the general welfare?
 
2014-06-17 03:44:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Somacandra: How can one wash their hands of all this?

The idea that we "broke" Iraq is really just an arrogant view which puts us at the center of other people's lives. It's their country, not ours.


I think invading their nation was pretty arrogant too. We unquestionably broke Iraq, but this could have been avoided if Maliki had the political will to rise above ancient blood feuds. He does not.
 
2014-06-17 03:44:35 PM  
Also why are we even worried about a breeding ground for terror that may come to pass decades from now? Ostensibly we became the largest surveillance state the world has ever known precisely to stop these things in the future.
 
2014-06-17 03:45:17 PM  
Looks like this is turning into a much larger Shia Sunni conflict. Let's hope it stays contained in Iraq and Syria. Thank god we got all the WMDs out of there.
 
2014-06-17 03:45:34 PM  

Felgraf: Somacandra: How can one wash their hands of all this?

Because he asked us to leave.

We left.

He's now farked it up and continues to fark it up by persecuting people of a diferent religious sect, while demanding we help him.

The fact that he went "Hey, we're OK now, GTFO." was when it stopped being 'our' mess.


Yup.  While our heart was no longer really in it, we were willing to stay and help out for years to come.  They said 'no.'  We practically begged them to change their mind.  They didn't.  They can deal with the results of their poor decision-making from that point forward.
 
2014-06-17 03:45:47 PM  
Caliphate?
 www.theblaze.com

Is this thing on???
 
2014-06-17 03:45:58 PM  

DamnYankees: The Bestest: Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.

Yes. And? I fail to see how or why I should care about this? "The existence of countries in which there are people who don't like us" is not really something I care too much about as an abstract concept. Those countries have always existed, currently do exist, and will always exist in the future.


And they flourish and grow in power any time we come in and pick sides.
 
2014-06-17 03:46:14 PM  
We shouldn't send troop one without having support, by which I mean bomb droppers and door kickers, from the Arab league in general and the Iraquis in particular.  Having a bunch of American faces being the face of death in that region isn't helpful to anyone.
 
2014-06-17 03:46:43 PM  
My father was in the Persian Gulf way back in the 60s.  He said the Iranians were some of the nicest people he ever met.  Just across the border were the Iraqis, and he thought they were all assholes.

So .... um.  Cool story, bro.  I guess.
 
2014-06-17 03:46:55 PM  
Protect the US Embassy personnel. Else wise :


i65.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-17 03:47:29 PM  
Meanwhile the Kurdish prime minister today said that a multi-state solution is the only answer and that they won't help the government in Baghdad under any circumstances.

groppet: I wonder if the Saudis and Kuwait will get nervous and seize the southern regions.


That's unlikely to help either the Saudis or Kuwait so probably not. The border between them and Iraq is already about as secure as it's going to get. And neither of them will want to get directly involved in a civil war.
 
2014-06-17 03:48:20 PM  
somedude210: Support the formation of the Kurdish state and negotiate breaking some of Turkey off for it.

www.lolwut.com
 
2014-06-17 03:48:33 PM  
Get those 30,000 pussies we trained to fight to come back.

As it turns out... I guess there are some people that prefer slavery and being subjugated.
Let them have it.
 
2014-06-17 03:49:07 PM  
i424.photobucket.com

They can't even take the time to be decent to one another. And if we do help, they only see it as meddling and taking sides, so we're not welcome over there anyway. Just get on with the killing already and wipe each other out.
 
2014-06-17 03:50:38 PM  
FTA: The latest target of his government's fury was Saudi Arabia, the main Sunni power in the Gulf, which funds Sunni militants in neighbouring Syria but denies it is behind ISIL.
"We hold them responsible for supporting these groups financially and morally, and for the outcome of that - which includes crimes that may qualify as genocide: the spilling of Iraqi blood, the destruction of Iraqi state institutions and historic and religious sites," the Iraqi government said of Riyadh in a statement.



That right there is likely one of the last mistakes he will ever make: Never call out the Saudis if you want something from the US.


Magorn: Right there with ya,   and yet a failed state is not in our interests either.   Iran will all but annex the shiite parts to protect them, the Kurds will declare independence which will almost guarantee a Turkish invasion of the North, and ISIS would have effective control over half of Iraq and become a terrorist's wet dream.


Not sure there IS a good answer this time


The only winning move was not to play but Bush and company had to have their war and here we are.
 
2014-06-17 03:50:44 PM  

Cagey B: The Bestest: Long answer: If ISIS is able to establish and maintain regional holdings or a de facto state of their own, it will almost assuredly become a breeding ground for organizations bent on causing harm to Western nations. The parallels here to Afghanistan are striking.

tl;dr: 9/11 2: Electric Boogaloo

There's so many erroneous assumptions here that it's difficult to even start. Suffice to say that "ownership of a sovereign nation" isn't a prerequisite for twenty guys flying some planes into buildings, and even if it were, unless you're advocating invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not to mention a bunch of other places, your fallacious argument isn't even internally consistent.


Wait, are you suggesting that a group too extreme even for Al Qaeda if given a large territory and sympathetic population to control wouldn't likely turn to attacks on their perceived enemies? Furthermore that a militant and extreme version of Islam wouldn't tend to lash out at the decadent Western nations that it seems undermining the values of Islam? Right now the situation is fluid in the Sunni regions of Iraq and the instability does make it easier to tip things the way that is more favorable to western interests.  While there is a willingness of Shia militias, Iranian forces, and Kurdish troops to push back ISIS/L it would be best to facilitate their efforts through low risk air support to contain and disrupt a known hostile force before the situation stablizes and the will to engage them is lost.

This is very risky and does paint a more immediate target on the western nations, but it very well could undermine their capability for carrying out larger scale hostile action in the future.  It would further empower Iran in the region which may not be desirable as it could push the Middle East toward a wider regional war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Ultimately, there are no good options in this situation, but sitting on our hands could be a worse option if it leads to a situation where the west may suffer attacks and be compelled to take more costly action down the line as was seen in Afghanistan.
 
2014-06-17 03:51:21 PM  

SpectroBoy: Regarding the Middle East:

[www.leslieirishevans.com image 500x324]


I say we take our ball and go home.


The problem with the Middle East and why we can't walk away is because of the oil (there's a "no shiat Sherlock" moment for everyone).  And somehow the US got made into the international cops.  You'd think that if places like China and Russia gave a shiat about maintaining some level of world stability for the sake of $$$$ (or yuan or rubles), they'd put some farking skin in the game and not just dick around.  I realize that Iran and Syria are proxies for Russia; but you'd think they'd realize a stable Middle East is good for *everybody*, and not just the US.

Of course, I got my GED in foreign relations, so take everything I said with a grain of salt.  It's just how I see it.
 
2014-06-17 03:53:51 PM  
The very first thing we should do is find out what Wolfowitz, Cheney, Bush, Rice, Powell and Mitt Romney think about this development.
 
2014-06-17 03:55:03 PM  

Daedalus27: Furthermore that a militant and extreme version of Islam wouldn't tend to lash out at the decadent Western nations that it seems undermining the values of Islam?


These assholes are killing their own people. No, wait, they're Shi'ite, not Sunni, so "f*ck 'em, they're not our people."  That seems to be their approach to things.  Let ALONE what they want to do to the West.  Or Russia (if you're in the Caucasus).  Or China (if you're in their western provinces).

I had thought that Mohammed instructed ALL Muslims to unite together.  I really don't get this shiat.  Of course, Christians do the same damn thing.  Re:  Northern Ireland.

People.  Ugh.

/rant off
 
2014-06-17 03:55:51 PM  
Well Obama, are Iraqi lives more valuable than American lives? Your call
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report