It didn't take long for a replacement battle after the ISIS Capital falls

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

As ISIS loses stream, at least in a traditional military sense, now a new scrap looms. Kurds Vs Iraqis. They're already fighting.

www.msn.com...

Which is it? The continued NWO/US/Israel/Saudi....add or subtract depending on who's doing the finger pointing. Perhaps it's just the damn region?

Now more than ever, I hold Trump to his campaign promise to not get involved beyond the removal of ISIS as a threat to the US via terrorist acts. Get the hell out of there. Let Russia or whoever deal with it- other than Nuclear weapons development, that is- and let the chips fall where they may.

ENOUGH.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Let Russia or whoever deal with it- other than Nuclear weapons development, that is- and let the chips fall where they may.

I remember their entrance into Syria got many people in a tiff...

I for one don't mind taxpayers of a different country picking up the bill.

Maybe that makes me cynical, but I don't care.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: nwtrucker

Let Russia or whoever deal with it- other than Nuclear weapons development, that is- and let the chips fall where they may.

I remember their entrance into Syria got many people in a tiff...

I for one don't mind taxpayers of a different country picking up the bill.

Maybe that makes me cynical, but I don't care.

What's the alternative? Support the Kurds, who likely deserve the support and fight against Iraq....again?? Or Shaft the Kurds, and back Iraq?

I'm getting a headache....

That region will always be in conflict, no matter what.

a reply to: SailorJerry

That region will always be in conflict, no matter what.

Cheney used the words Kurds and Quagmire in the same sentence back when talking about Iraq and the war ...just sayin

originally posted by: SailorJerry
That region will always be in conflict, no matter what.

That's my gut reaction, as well. Yet, tell me Europe hasn't been as bad, if not worse, war-wise over the last 2,000 years, than the ME?

If they can be tamed, with a large military presence for about three generations one would think the ME could as well.

Naw, wishful thinking. A pox on both of them.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I have an Imperialist solution. Invade and conquer some land in the ME. Estalish secular libertarian law under the Bill of Rights. Arm the people. Give them jobs, and make it a safe haven for refugees from other ME nations. Then leave the rest of the ME nations to slaughter each other. Those who don't want to play genocide can find asylum in the US ME colony.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nwtrucker

I have an Imperialist solution. Invade and conquer some land in the ME. Estalish secular libertarian law under the Bill of Rights. Arm the people. Give them jobs, and make it a safe haven for refugees from other ME nations. Then leave the rest of the ME nations to slaughter each other. Those who don't want to play genocide can find asylum in the US ME colony.

So Israel?

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nwtrucker

I have an Imperialist solution. Invade and conquer some land in the ME. Estalish secular libertarian law under the Bill of Rights. Arm the people. Give them jobs, and make it a safe haven for refugees from other ME nations. Then leave the rest of the ME nations to slaughter each other. Those who don't want to play genocide can find asylum in the US ME colony.

Definitely cheaper and less loss of U.S. life.

Here's another one, make a deal with Iran. No nukes and you can have Iraq! Just support a Kurdistan- you can own the leadership just like you do in Syria and Palestine- and we will leave you to your little Persian Empire.....BUT NO NUKES.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nwtrucker

I have an Imperialist solution. Invade and conquer some land in the ME. Estalish secular libertarian law under the Bill of Rights. Arm the people. Give them jobs, and make it a safe haven for refugees from other ME nations. Then leave the rest of the ME nations to slaughter each other. Those who don't want to play genocide can find asylum in the US ME colony.

Definitely cheaper and less loss of U.S. life.

Here's another one, make a deal with Iran. No nukes and you can have Iraq! Just support a Kurdistan- you can own the leadership just like you do in Syria and Palestine- and we will leave you to your little Persian Empire.....BUT NO NUKES.

So how do you put the Genie back in the bottle?

originally posted by: IcanXplain

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nwtrucker

I have an Imperialist solution. Invade and conquer some land in the ME. Estalish secular libertarian law under the Bill of Rights. Arm the people. Give them jobs, and make it a safe haven for refugees from other ME nations. Then leave the rest of the ME nations to slaughter each other. Those who don't want to play genocide can find asylum in the US ME colony.

Definitely cheaper and less loss of U.S. life.

Here's another one, make a deal with Iran. No nukes and you can have Iraq! Just support a Kurdistan- you can own the leadership just like you do in Syria and Palestine- and we will leave you to your little Persian Empire.....BUT NO NUKES.

So how do you put the Genie back in the bottle?

"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil. For I am the meanest SOB in the valley".

a reply to: IcanXplain

No, Israel is a nationalist theocracy. That would be the opposite of a libertarian asylum for refugees.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think the asylum state would be more responsible. If you let Iran have its way with the ME, you're only subjecting more innocent lives to genocide. Just draw a line. One side, no genocide, on the other, free-for-all. If people want to kill each other, they're going to find a way to do it. Why not just designate a place to do it?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I follow a blogger who usually has some nice tidbits to whats going on ...todays email brought me this

Penny for your thoughts Russia's Roseneft To Take Majority Share in Kurdish Oil Pipeline Posted: 20 Oct 2017 07:51 AM PDT Keep it under your hat! How does this development affect the regional situation? If it does at all? Might this be a factor in all the demonization of Barzani? In the push to get the Barzani clan out of power? So many questions........... Oilprice.com: While tensions between Iraq’s federal government and the Kurdistan region continue to escalate, Russia’s state-controlled oil giant Rosneft said on Thursday that it had agreed with the Kurdistan Regional Government to take majority control in the operation of the oil pipeline in the Kurdish region, in an apparent push by Russia and Rosneft to achieve greater political and economic influence in the Middle East. Rosneft’s share in the project may be as high as 60 percent, while the other project participant with a 40-percent stake will be KAR Group—the current pipeline operator, the Russian company said.
“The entry into the infrastructure project will contribute to achievement of Rosneft’s strategic objectives and will enable Rosneft to enhance the efficiency of oil transportation to the end customers including supplies to the Company’s refineries in Germany,” said Rosneft’s CEO Igor Sechin, who is a close ally of Vladimir Putin. According to sources familiar with the deal who spoke to Reuters, Rosneft’s investment in the project would be around US$1.8 billion. The Rosneft deal comes just days after Iraqi government forces seized control of all oil fields that Iraqi state-held North Oil Company operates in the oil-rich Kirkuk region from Kurdish forces. Last week, Iraq’s Oil Minister Jabbar Al-Luiebi ordered state-held oil and pipeline companies to begin restoring oil flows from Kirkuk to Ceyhan via a pipeline that bypasses Kurdistan, increasing pressure on the breakaway region that voted for independence last month in a referendum strongly opposed and deemed illegal and invalid by the federal government.

On Thursday, Iraq’s Oil Ministry issued a statement saying that it “warns seriously all the countries and oil companies from contracting or dealing with any authority inside Iraq without taking the approval from the federal government and the ministry of oil.” Oil Minister Al-Luiebi said that “the irresponsible statements from some of the officials inside & outside Iraq or the foreign companies about their intention to sign oil contracts with any authority inside the geographic borders of Iraq without telling the federal government or the ministry of oil, is considered as a Blatant interference in the internal affairs and a derogation from national sovereignty, and an outright violation of international norms.” Although the statement doesn’t specifically name any foreign company, it came on the day after Rosneft signed another deal with Kurdistan--Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) for five production blocks, for a total investment of up to US$400 million. This week’s deals between Rosneft and Kurdistan are not the first agreements between the Russian oil giant and the region that overwhelmingly voted for independence from Iraq at the end of September. Even before the referendum, Rosneft had already become the biggest source of oil funds for Kurdistan. Thoughts?

Nationalist theocracy might be a stretch as far as i went the opposite way.

a reply to: IcanXplain

Anyways, we can call the state Not-Israel.

As if the ME didn't have enough quagmirish tomfoolery going on MoA brings up today

Emma Sky - British 'Mother of Daesh' Wants To Reoccupy Iraq While the Iraqi government forces sweep Kirkuk clean of the Kurdish occupation, one writer strongly pushed pro-Kurdish/anti-Iranian views. Three pieces by Emma Sky appeared in three prestigious imperial outlets within just four days. They are obviously part of a well prepared lobbying campaign. But the author is not an neutral observer or academic specialist. Emma Sky is the person most responsible for messing up Kirkuk. She is also a 'Mother of ISIS'. On October 16 Emma Sky published in Foreign Affairs: Mission Still Not Accomplished in Iraq - Why the United States Should Not Leave. On October 18 she plants the same notion in The Atlantic: America Has Become Dispensable in Iraq. The subtitle reveals what it is really about: The conflict in Kirkuk offers further evidence of Iran’s steady rise. Sky pushes hard to implant a sectarian, anti-Iran meme. Consider this howler: Once more, Iran is playing the key role, helping to broker a deal between the PUK and the Iraqi government and guiding the Shia militias supporting the Iraqis. What nationality please to the "Shia militia" in Iraq have? Are they from Mars?

www.moonofalabama.org...

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: nwtrucker

I think the asylum state would be more responsible. If you let Iran have its way with the ME, you're only subjecting more innocent lives to genocide. Just draw a line. One side, no genocide, on the other, free-for-all. If people want to kill each other, they're going to find a way to do it. Why not just designate a place to do it?

Where?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Somewhere accessible. I'd say central Iraq. Give them the industry they need to build infrastructure and a wicked military force, and let them guard their own boarders.

So give them someone else's land. That is brilliant. It has always worked in the past.