Iraqi Emergency: Major Bridges shut down, troops in Green Zone - Polidicks

[quote]#BREAKING Iraqi troops and security forces are deployed in #Baghdad's green zone and have closed some major bridges #Iraq 5:12 PM - 10 Aug 2014[/quote] Not a better source than the CNN news room at the moment, more will develop soon: [url=https://twitter.com/CNNnewsroom/status/498592750099791877]source[/url]

So this means ISIS controls the green zone?

[QUOTE=Svinnik;45652655]So this means ISIS controls the green zone?[/QUOTE] IS was 60-30 miles out of town last I heard. They might be making a push hense the buildup of force in the Green Zone. [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] The Green Zone is in the heart if the city. It's almost like a modern castle keep. If IS was there we would have been alerted by the siege of Baghdad that would be required to get near it. [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] My best guess is theyre expecting some kind of attack, could be a terror threat.

Apparently Malaki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is committing a coup against the Iraqi president, and has the presidential palace surrounded with his elite-troops.

[QUOTE=cheezey;45652926]Apparently Malaki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, is committing a coup against the Iraqi president, and has the presidential palace surrounded with his elite-troups.[/QUOTE] Holy crap

[img]http://i.imgur.com/74U9S4L.png[/img]

A coup. Just the thing Iraq needs right now.

I wonder how the US will react to a coup and any potential civil conflict that follows. They've been making it pretty clear lately that they think Maliki should fuck off

Christ, each time you think it can't get any worse something new pops up. This is going to lead to bad things, yes? Surely this will hamper efforts to stop ISIS.

Jesus christ. Iraq can never get a break.

[QUOTE=smurfy;45652999]I wonder how the US will react to a coup and any potential civil conflict that follows. They've been making it pretty clear lately that they think Maliki should fuck off[/QUOTE] Probably backdoor threats, like threatening to recognize Kurdistan as a sovereign nation. That'd work.

What would actually be the ramifications of recognizing Kurdistan as a sovereign nation, now that I think about it?

[QUOTE=itak365;45653071]What would actually be the ramifications of recognizing Kurdistan as a sovereign nation, now that I think about it?[/QUOTE] They have oil up there, not to mention lost revenue.

[QUOTE=itak365;45653071]What would actually be the ramifications of recognizing Kurdistan as a sovereign nation, now that I think about it?[/QUOTE] Iraq being pissed that they're losing most of their good oil fields?

Yep the US is firmly backing the President and wants him to find a new Prime Minister [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/11/us-iraq-security-idUSKBN0G808J20140811?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=twitter[/url] [quote]"Fully support President of Iraq Fouad Masoum as guarantor of the Constitution and a (prime minister) nominee who can build a national consensus," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Brett McGurk, the State Department point man for Iraq, said on his Twitter feed.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Zambies!;45652953][img]http://i.imgur.com/74U9S4L.png[/img][/QUOTE] How much you wanna bet they'll take ISIS side?

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45653389]How much you wanna bet they'll take ISIS side?[/QUOTE] :downs:

What other reason would you have for a coup during war time? Usually when you're at war and someone tries to overthrow your Government, it's because they want to end the war, by joining the other team.

[QUOTE=Gentry;45653080]Iraq being pissed that they're losing most of their good oil fields?[/QUOTE]This and it would definitely piss Turkey off, and they're actually a competent ally so things might get hairy with them for awhile. However, if (and this would never happen) all the wanted Kurdish independence dudes turned themselves in to appease the Turkish government, then maybe supporting a Kurdish state wouldn't be a bad idea. Personally I'd say fuck the Turks (sorry Turkish FPers) and support the Kurds anyway, they've consistently been our friends and we've ignored them every time we shouldn't have. Hell the only time we've paid attention to them was to condemn Saddam or to add Turkish Kurd militia groups to the terror watchlist. I mean, yeah, both of those actions were the right thing to do, but we could have done more.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45653415]What other reason would you have for a coup during war time? Usually when you're at war and someone tries to overthrow your Government, it's because they want to end the war, by joining the other team.[/QUOTE] thank you for this amazingly realized geo-political analyse conducted by someone who [I]clearly[/I] knows what he's talking about

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45653415]What other reason would you have for a coup during war time? Usually when you're at war and someone tries to overthrow your Government, it's because they want to end the war, by joining the other team.[/QUOTE] Nouri al-Maliki is under extreme pressure to step down(because he's a fucking idiot who ruined the country), and he doesn't want to do so. I doubt he'd like ISIS because not only is he a Shi'ite, ISIS has been framing him and his people as cronies for the Americans and Israelis this whole time.

[QUOTE=itak365;45653071]What would actually be the ramifications of recognizing Kurdistan as a sovereign nation, now that I think about it?[/QUOTE] It would essentially be validating the fundamental reasons for conflict in the Middle East and repeating the very same failures of colonialism that started this all by assigning political meaning to one's religious and ethnic identity instead of promoting more sustainable pluralism [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] If you give Kurdistan a mandate to form a government, you essentially mandate violence where ethnic and religious divisions are more geographically complex

[QUOTE=Kommodore;45653609]It would essentially be validating the fundamental reasons for conflict in the Middle East and repeating the very same failures of colonialism that started this all by assigning political meaning to one's religious and ethnic identity instead of promoting more sustainable pluralism[/QUOTE] Because they've been living together so peacefully.

Yeah, for hundreds of years actually [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] age-old conflict my dick

[QUOTE=Kommodore;45653609]It would essentially be validating the fundamental reasons for conflict in the Middle East and repeating the very same failures of colonialism that started this all by assigning political meaning to one's religious and ethnic identity instead of promoting more sustainable pluralism [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] If you give Kurdistan a mandate to form a government, you essentially mandate violence where ethnic and religious divisions are more geographically complex[/QUOTE]Except the Kurdish Iraqis and Kurdish Syrians didn't start any of this so that line of thinking really doesn't apply here. Plus the fighting going on right now is just the newest in a chain of bitter conflicts that date back to before the Persian Empire, you're warning against something that has happened and is still happening. [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] Actually the fact that "Kurdistan" doesn't exist is a perfect example of all of that.

How is the prime minister chosen compared to how the President is chosen? It seems weird that the two could have ideals that are so completely different that one would want to overthrow the other.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;45653767]Yeah, for hundreds of years actually[/QUOTE] Yeah all that sectarian conflict never happened?

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45653806]Except the Kurdish Iraqis and Kurdish Syrians didn't start any of this so that line of thinking really doesn't apply here. Plus the fighting going on right now is just the newest in a chain of bitter conflicts that date back to before the Persian Empire, you're warning against something that has happened and is still happening. [editline]10th August 2014[/editline] Actually the fact that "Kurdistan" doesn't exist is a perfect example of all of that.[/QUOTE] Bullshit, early modern and medieval conflict between Sunnia and Shia muslims are incomparable to the ones taking place now. It'd be like calling the 30 Years War sectarian violence. It was political and strategic more than it was communal. After that, Ottomanism circumscribed religious identities to their communities, beyond which their broader political identity was irrelevant. Ottoman administrative provinces which later became nation-states were bureaucratic and abstract from actual local identity. Saying that Kurdistan gets a pass because they get along is ridiculous from a pragmatic point of view because it's going to create broader and longer-term problems up to and including the ethnic cleansing of Kurds living outside of Kurdistan.

So it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;45653850]How is the prime minister chosen compared to how the President is chosen? It seems weird that the two could have ideals that are so completely different that one would want to overthrow the other.[/QUOTE] The president is chosen by parliament, and then the president has 15 days to ask the nominee of the biggest bloc in parliament to form a cabinet, which gets approved by parliament. There's a convention that the president is a Kurd, the PM is a Shi'ite and the speaker is a Sunni. This president was chosen on 24 July and Maliki turned up like 'okay you can ask me to form a cabinet now', but everyone wants Maliki to fuck off because they blame him for marginalising the Sunnis and allowing ISIS to prosper, so the president's like 'uhh yeah about that lol' and now 15 days have passed and Maliki ain't taking the hint and he's like fuck you guys I wanna be PM Also I think if enough parties in parliament could come together, they could pick someone else for PM and get rid of Maliki, but so far they can't agree on anyone