Iraq falling apart

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 12 Jun 2014, 11:56

I feel we are living in interesting times again, but the bulk of the Western world hasn't noticed yet.

Libyan oil exports zero
Syrian oil exports zero
Egypt oil imports rising
Brazilian oil imports rising
Iranian oil exports constrained
Russian oil production plateaued
Iraqi oil exports looking very likely to collapse
Chinese demand rising almost as fast as ever.

Nigeria and Sudan are not looking too healthy either.

Atman · Post by **Atman** » 12 Jun 2014, 14:34

Putting on my evil genius hat...could this be the creation of Iran and/or Russia as retaliation for the US meddling in the Ukraine? Russia is not concerned with disrupted oil supply, being an exporter (iirc) while this clusterf**k in Iraq is very bad for the USA because they will be dragged in to prevent a huge amount of global oil production going offline.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 12 Jun 2014, 15:07

See my other post Ukraine says Russia has just sent in the tanks!

(3 of them).

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 12 Jun 2014, 23:50

Atman wrote:Putting on my evil genius hat...could this be the creation of Iran and/or Russia as retaliation for the US meddling in the Ukraine? Russia is not concerned with disrupted oil supply, being an exporter (iirc) while this clusterf**k in Iraq is very bad for the USA because they will be dragged in to prevent a huge amount of global oil production going offline.

You've got that all backwards - but there again, given the outright propaganda being spewed out by the MSM, that's hardly surprising.
Iraq is splitting into 3 different sub divisions - a Shi'ite South, a militant Sunni Anbar province and a Kurdish Iraq in the North.

The ISIS contingent, comprising mainly Saudi, Libyan, Tunisian and Chechen fighters, are moving across from Syria where they have been steadily losing ground. They have encountered a fairly inept Iraqi military with the resultant chaos.

Maliki is somewhat in the Iranian sphere of influence and the actions of the Iraqi army have seriously undermined his authority. The state of the Iraqi military is well known in Iran for fairly obvious reasons!
Another thing that needs to be factored in is that Maliki does not have anywhere near the level of support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. (Compare and contrast the MSM's euphoric coverage of the Iraqi election, held in the middle of a brutal civil war which only resulted in a coalition Government being formed after bitter wrangling against the recent Syrian elections held in the middle of a brutal civil war in which over 80% of the electorate voted and voted unanimously for Assad)

It is far more likely that it is a ploy by the likes of KSA to lure Iranian forces into positions where they can be attacked

Here's an interesting post over at Moon of Alabama: Syrian War Spillover: ISIS attacks Mosul

Post by **clv101** » 13 Jun 2014, 07:45

I wonder if/when China will be lured into a conflict beyond its borders. One of the big challenges their military faces is a complete lack of any combat experience, from privates to generals. Moving quarter of a million troops and equipment into Iraq for a decade might be seen by some as a worthwhile training exercise!

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Jun 2014, 10:38

clv101 wrote:I wonder if/when China will be lured into a conflict beyond its borders. One of the big challenges their military faces is a complete lack of any combat experience, from privates to generals. Moving quarter of a million troops and equipment into Iraq for a decade might be seen by some as a worthwhile training exercise!

I'm sure they are tempted by the oil present but expect them to instead make some rather bold moves elsewhere while the west is preoccupied with things in Iraq.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 13 Jun 2014, 15:24

China won't send anyone (military) anywhere, except within their own borders if things spread that far (e.g. islamic-ish NW of the country). Not their style.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Jun 2014, 19:59

RenewableCandy wrote:China won't send anyone (military) anywhere, except within their own borders if things spread that far (e.g. islamic-ish NW of the country). Not their style.

Oh quite agree with that for as long as they can make it work. Better to buy, bribe, invest your way into resources with American money you have gained by using cheap labor. A girl making fifty cents an hour assembling smart phones does them more good then a soldier fighting on a battle field and she doesn't have to die in the bargain.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 13 Jun 2014, 22:09

I don't see the ISIS insurgents making much more progress. They will probably expand to the Sunni heartlands and that is it. I see the Kurds being the winners in all this. If they stay united they can undo the reverses of the Anfal campaign of the 1980s and get back Kirkuk and become a reasonably big oil player. The main losers are Iraq's Christian population who will probably get wiped out.

Iran will be the big regional winner perhaps going back to its role as 'the policeman of the middle east' that it had in the 1960s and 1970s.

China will be happy to buy oil when and where it can and bide its time when it can be the dominant regional power in East Asia. There was something on TV in China when I was there with some kind of meeting between Chinese and Arabs in China. The Arabs looked like they would rather anywhere but at that meeting. I cant see Chinese troops in the middle east at all ever. They are happy to stay within their borders but they have a different idea to neigbouring countries about where exactly these borders are.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 13 Jun 2014, 22:45

BritDownUnder wrote:I don't see the ISIS insurgents making much more progress. They will probably expand to the Sunni heartlands and that is it. I see the Kurds being the winners in all this. If they stay united they can undo the reverses of the Anfal campaign of the 1980s and get back Kirkuk and become a reasonably big oil player. The main losers are Iraq's Christian population who will probably get wiped out.

Iran will be the big regional winner perhaps going back to its role as 'the policeman of the middle east' that it had in the 1960s and 1970s.

China will be happy to buy oil when and where it can and bide its time when it can be the dominant regional power in East Asia. There was something on TV in China when I was there with some kind of meeting between Chinese and Arabs in China. The Arabs looked like they would rather anywhere but at that meeting. I cant see Chinese troops in the middle east at all ever. They are happy to stay within their borders but they have a different idea to neigbouring countries about where exactly these borders are.

I think you are correct in your current assessment of the Chinese position. Unfortunately I think future events will force a change in those policies. When, forever what reason, food or energy supplies in China become inadequate the desperation will drive the leadership to bold and risky attempts at securing other peoples supplies. War is by far the most likely outcome.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 14 Jun 2014, 18:21

This is probably an intelligent article: http://theconversation.com/explainer-wh ... from-27944

Post by **adam2** » 15 Jun 2014, 18:57

Seems to be getting worse with unconfirmed reports of large scale slaughter of one side by the other.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27858692

Latest report.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 Jun 2014, 09:19

It's not often I agree with Boris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27864603

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 16 Jun 2014, 13:10

PS_RalphW wrote:It's not often I agree with Boris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27864603

Tony Blair's total lack of repentance for his war crimes just compounds them. What a complete arsehole he is. Even now, all he actually cares about is his "place in history", while Boris is rightly pointing out the basic truth that if one does not acknowledge one's past mistakes then one can't learn from them.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 16 Jun 2014, 13:39

He can't acknowledge any misdeeds. If he did, it would open a Pandora’s box not only him but also for the Bush administration and its cronies. The only point at which Blair will acknowledge anything about this whole bloody disaster is at the foot of the scaffolds.

Furthermore, whilst I detest the slimy toad in any event, I am bound to suggest that this would very likely have been the fate of whoever was in power at the time in the UK. One way or another, the USA was going to insist that the UK back them up and I can't see how any UK prime minister would have been able to withstand that pressure. Or, at least the kind of politician/administration that would have been able to withstand it would (is) never let anywhere near the door of Downing Street in the first place.