Mudcat Café message #3649262 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #154894   Message #3649262
Posted By: Teribus
08-Aug-14 - 01:27 AM
Thread Name: BS: Caliphate
Subject: RE: BS: Caliphate
"I am now puzzled. You seem to say that the Iraqi forces and Shia militias can defeat ISIS and don't need outside help - yet you are bewailing the lack of outside help."

Ehmmmm no Richard, on the ground and in the air even with the tiny air force they have Iraqi forces and the Shia militias could defeat ISIS on their own but that would and will take time. But those under seige and threat of extermination from ISIS forces at present do not have that time so help from the International community is required - in short a humanitarian/military operation is required now, and the President of the United States has just announced that targeted airstrikes will now be made against ISIS as well as humanitarian relief flights to drop supplies of food water and medicine to those trapped in the mountains by ISIS.

>"In more detail - you admit that the Iraqis used air power against the Kurds, and above asserted that the Kurd were saved by a no-fly zone."

In 1991 the Kurds were not saved solely by the imposition of a "no-Fly Zone" - they were saved by physical intervention on the ground (Courtesy of 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines) and British, US and French aircraft holding Saddam's air force off. Enforcing a "No Fly Zone" on its own over the Southern part of Iraq did not protect the Shia Arabs of Iraq as the Safwan ceasefire permitted Saddam to fly helicopters - supposedly for "humanitarian purposes" as bridges had been destroyed. Instead the helicopters flown were Mil-24 "Hind" Gunships and over 200,000 Iraqis died (Courtesy of Saddam Hussein).

"But ISIS has (pretty much) no air capability. It might have captured some aircraft but it has very few if any pilots. So Western air power cannot save from ISIS (unless they attack ISIS directly)."

Pssst Richard I think that that is precisely what is about to happen.

"I said "decimate or worse". Extermination is worse. So I was right in my formulation.   I nowhere said or implied that that was all right. My point was as above - that air power was an irrelevance."

No you did not say "decimate or worse" - you said "decimate (or worse)". Perhaps you should look up the literal meaning of the word "decimate", not the slack, inaccurate and idiotic way the word is used. As far as air power being irrelevant? ISIS is just about to find out exactly what air power when properly applied can do. All they have to do is review the coverage of airstrikes made on Saddam's forces during Desert Storm, or perhaps what happened to the Taliban in Afghanistan between October and December 2001 - perhaps we will have a "grainy photo" of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sat astride the pillion seat of a motor bike as he leaves Iraq for the "safety" of Syria.

"You are wrong that there is no outcry. The Guardian is covering it."

Oh WOW, that'll make all the difference then won't it - The Guinard FFS.

"In short you are simply saying "It's all right for Israel to be nasty because others are worse".    That's (a) pointless (b) silly.

Comparing apples to oranges Richard and you know it. Israel can be as nasty as it likes because it has been attacked and is defending itself against an enemy that has the full support of the people of Gaza and an enemy that has rejected any peace deal on offer and who has just refused to extend the current ceasefire. Whatever deaths and injuries caused in Gaza from this point forward are down to Hamas.