ISIS demolish ancient city of Nimrud

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

Do those costs include sending soldiers from concerned countries to fight on the ground? If so, is that view held by enough of the public to spur action by those governments? I doubt anything less will stop the madness.

Polls seem to indicate a solid majority of Americans now support sending troops on the ground. With some diplomatic efforts, it seems possible to forge a coalition including both Western powers and local nations (Egypt and Jordan, as well as Irak obviously, have already sent troops).

[Antonio the Sixth]

This madness must be stopped. At all costs.

why?  how many fcks did you give about "Nimrud" before 5 minutes ago?

It wasn't being destroyed five minutes ago.

That doesn't quite answer the question.

The "question" was not worth answering anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

Saddam's regime was less stable than Assad's prior to the US invasion. International sanctions had leveled Iraq's economy, the country had been in a quasi-war with the United States for over a decade, and its internal divisions were only less palpable because its government had no qualms about massacring any group that piqued its suspicion.

So your assumption is that the Arab Spring would have roughly the same effects in Irak as it had in Syria? That makes sense, but it would still mean that ISIS would have developed much more recently. Besides, Saddam's Irak was the opposite of Assad's Syria: a majority-Shiite country governed by Sunnis. ISIS gained so much traction in Irak by playing on the Sunnis' resentment against the new Shiite leaders of the post-Saddam era. I don't think they would have found the same support if they were fighting against Saddam.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would certainly be a less frightening world if we could blame the botched US invasion of Iraq for ISIS. But aside from wishful thinking, I'm not sure why anyone aside from dictator-apologists like George Galloway would accept that as truth.

Please elaborate. I might be missing something, but I have a hard time imagining how ISIS could have become such a powerhouse without the post-2003 chaos in Irak. Of course the post-2011 chaos in Syria certainly helped, but would it have been enough?

Saddam's regime was less stable than Assad's prior to the US invasion. International sanctions had leveled Iraq's economy, the country had been in a quasi-war with the United States for over a decade, and its internal divisions were only less palpable because its government had no qualms about massacring any group that piqued its suspicion.

So your assumption is that the Arab Spring would have roughly the same effects in Irak as it had in Syria? That makes sense, but it would still mean that ISIS would have developed much more recently. Besides, Saddam's Irak was the opposite of Assad's Syria: a majority-Shiite country governed by Sunnis. ISIS gained so much traction in Irak by playing on the Sunnis' resentment against the new Shiite leaders of the post-Saddam era. I don't think they would have found the same support if they were fighting against Saddam.

"Roughly the same"? Not likely - it's pointless to predict exactly what would have happened because so much is contingent on the politics of Saddam's inner circle - but whatever effect it had would very likely have been at least as bloody for Iraq as it actually has been. Consider, for instance, that the 1991 uprisings against Saddam had a death toll comparable to the Syrian Civil War to date.

Yes, but the question is whether or not ISIS would still have developed in these conditions. And the most likely answer is probably "yes, but much more slowly" IMO. At this point in time, it would still be a manageable threat and certainly wouldn't control half of Iraq.