363 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Isis can be beaten by their fellow muslims. Its only a matter of time. 

 

 

 

This is like saying the Mexican police can clean up their corruption problem. Never going to happen.

[thE-Ro]

This is like saying the Mexican police can clean up their corruption problem. Never going to happen.

Its already happening. They are losing, it should be faster but the politics in the middle east means none of these nations want to commit force for fear of weakening themselves, or getting drawn in too deep. 

 

I would advocate troops sent in if Baghdad fell. That wont happen, but if it did, THAT would be cause to act. Until then, airstrikes and special forces raids are enough. 

[bEVEsthda]

WW1 was most certainly based in ideologies... ideologies of global empires, of an arms race of military alliances against other European countries, of hyper-nationalism. These may not have been the ideologies that defined the sides of the war, but they were most definitely the cause of them.

 

To the extent that WWI was about anything at all, it was about colonies. But "hyper-nationalism", yes. The main cause of that disastrous development, was that war still seemed like a jolly good idea to a lot of people.

 

 

Also, I'm not sure people in Asia or the Middle East would be particularly happy with how the chips fell in the fallout of the Cold War. Besides, it's not a matter of how well things were handled... the West made the third world its warfare playground to avoid actually fighting in their own countries. That's incredibly selfish and lacking in any sort of value for human life. Their conflicts, politics and policies called death, destruction and poverty in parts of the world that would have otherwise not had any part of such things.

 

"War by proxy"? Really now, it takes two to play the game that is so described. And I think every conflict there deserves to be analysed by its own history. The actions taken, the policies which led there and the motives behind.

Rather than sweepingly stating "the West made the third world its warfare playground".

The West would have fought in their own countries. If the enemy had come there. And in a way they did, by investing in armament.

 

 

And for WW2, you can't say the West took care of Nazism on its own in one post and then say WW2 had nothing to do with Nazism in another. You're moving the goal posts of the conversation.

 

But I didn't say that. To clarify: Nazi Germany certainly influenced how WW2  played out. But we would have had a WW2, some kind of WW2, regardless. Different enemies, different allies, different end. But world war there would be.

[Eternal Phoenix]

I refer to the way the West, following World War 1 and 2, carved up the Ottoman Empire like it was a piece of Salisbury steak and slapped crippling economic sanctions in the region that crippled it for over a century, leading to a complete lack of progress, stability and infrastructure, all for wars Europeans started and which massively outpace anything Islamists have done in terms of scope, cruelty and barbarism.

The dismantling of the Ottoman Empire was single stupidest mistake Europe ever made. And that's saying something, given millenia of baffling dumb ideas.


Islamists aren't alone with co-opting religion for their use. You bring up Nazis and Christianity, but Republicans wouldn't even be a real party any longer if they had not taken up the banner of Christian values (as well as the losing side of the Civil Rights debate) back in the 60's, converting the South froma predominantly Democratic region to a Republican base.

Today, Christian conservatives scream for us to attack ISIS, but continue to turn a blind eye to Christians committing ethnic cleansing in Africa. Not are they raising hackles about Christians being killed by Muslim or other groups in Africa or Asia. It's only when dangerous Muslims exist on countries with oil that suddenly does this mantle of "Christianity must stop these evils" comes into play. If that's not co-opting religion for political purposes, I don't know what is.

 
The Ottoman Empire was evil from the get-go. It was responsible for the fall of the Byzantine Empire. The Ottomon Empire deserved to be dismantled or are we going to forget how they were anti-European throughout their history, enslaving Europeans, forcefully converting Europeans to Islam and the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek Genocide they committed in the 20th century?

 

Like Nazi Germany, the Ottomon Empire received their just due and they had over six centuries to contribute to the world, as it was, they contributed with nothing and due to terrible leadership, could not keep their little "empire" running. Their empire was falling apart long before the Europeans had anything to do with it, they simply put the final nail in the coffin for a dying empire.

 

Besides anything that is based on Sharia Law is something that shouldn't exist in the modern era. Period. I don't care if it was their "culture" it was primitive and barbaric just like the current Islamic states today.

 

You clearly don't know much about the Ottomans if you think the Europeans "massively outpaced" these Islamists in terms of cruelty and barbarism. Sure you can look at the Roman Empire and the Spanish Inquisition but I think the slavery, persecution, wars and genocides by the Ottomans were far more worst.

 

Africa is the way it is because it is backwards which is why Islam and folk religions in Africa are the same with their primitive superstitious, witch burnings and exorcisms. This has nothing to do with any of the religions there.

[Fast Jimmy]

The morons think they can destroy us. I say let's destroy them first. Display our military strength and maybe other extremist groups will think twice.

That's NEVER worked in the past. These guys have a hardon for dying in the line of fire. Kill one and you rally ten more to their side. Bring down an army and you incense a nation.

We look very weak right now. We need to change that. We have the most advanced military so it shouldn't be much of a problem wiping ISIS out of this plain of existence.

Look weak to whom? The fanatics? They are irrelevant. To the Western world? Trust me, Europe, Canada and the rest of them are tired to death of the U.S. kicking over every anthill in the Middle East. China and Russia? They both have people in their own country revolting against them and thumbing their noses... they don't have a leg to stand on.

You know how you look weak? Trying to chase down and pummel anyone who tries to provoke you to an attack. You know how you look strong? Looking at something and saying "you aren't even worth my time."

[thE-Ro]

Look weak to whom? The fanatics? They are irrelevant. To the Western world? Trust me, Europe, Canada and the rest of them are tired to death of the U.S. kicking over every anthill in the Middle East. China and Russia? They both have people in their own country revolting against them and thumbing their noses... they don't have a leg to stand on.

Haha, The western world is constantly begging for our troops and arms to protect them from Putin, Russia can no longer match us militarily(declining population, huge unstable borders, lack of allies, corruption, and outdated tech) and even China is no where near military parity.

We are at a point where our military so far outclasses everyone else, looking weak to a few savages in the middle east is indeed, irrelevant.

[Jehuty]

You know I have to agree. My wanting to avoid boots on the ground is a bit more personal, but you make a good point. Its easy for a bunch of fox news spawned civilian foreign policy experts to advocate all sorts of silliness but at the end of the day its a great thing that we have educated and well trained professionals working on these issues. If you have no skin in the game "RAH RAH DEPLOY TROOPS HRUUUR" is an easy thing to say. 
 

Bombing them is enough. Arming our allies in the region to help is enough. Isis can be beaten by their fellow muslims. Its only a matter of time, and American troops are not needed. 

 

And it always cracks me up, people talk about how awful isis is but no one talks about the absolute WORST conflict happening right now. The bloodiest conflict no one is talking about.  Then again, who cares about these people, they have nothing we need. 

They'll just hide in caves. Airstrikes and bombing doesn't work by it's self. They have to be hunted down and killed. 

 

I don't want troops on the ground either, but someone is going to have to fight them, whatever it be us or someone else. Even Russia I believe has a bone to pick with them, along with several other countries. It's only a matter of time. But also, who says we have to be the ones on the ground? But again, someone dies regardless. What difference does it make? It doesn't matter if a European soldier dies but it matters if an American one dies? Someone died regardless.

 

You arm our allies, ISIS can kill them and take the stuff. Most if not almost all ISIS soldiers will fight to the death in the name of their beliefs. That makes them zealous. In order to fight them you must be able to exploit that or fight with equal determination. 

 

And it's sad that that conflict is happening, and something should be done about it. But a conflict is a conflict regardless, and people die regardless. It's a fact of war.

[thE-Ro]

They'll just hide in caves. Airstrikes and bombing doesn't work by it's self. They have to be hunted down and killed. 
 
I don't want troops on the ground either, but someone is going to have to fight them, whatever it be us or someone else. Even Russia I believe has a bone to pick with them, along with several other countries. It's only a matter of time. But also, who says we have to be the ones on the ground? But again, someone dies regardless. What difference does it make? It doesn't matter if a European soldier dies but it matters if an American one dies? Someone died regardless.
 
You arm our allies, ISIS can kill them and take the stuff. Most if not almost all ISIS soldiers will fight to the death in the name of their beliefs. That makes them zealous. In order to fight them you must be able to exploit that or fight with equal determination. 
 
And it's sad that that conflict is happening, and something should be done about it. But a conflict is a conflict regardless, and people die regardless. It's a fact of war.

Muslims fighting Isis and dying for their homes and families is in my opinion a better option then American soldiers dying. Their homes, their people, let them fight it out. We can and are backing the people we want to win, sending our own troops in changes from us subsidizing the foreign policy of middle eastern nations(which is bad enough) to actively bleeding for them. Most of them hate us. Sure they are more then happy to take money and arms, but they still dislike us. Our people dont need to die for this.

[slimgrin]

Haha, The western world is constantly begging for our troops and arms to protect them from Putin, Russia can no longer match us militarily(declining population, huge unstable borders, lack of allies, corruption, and outdated tech) and even China is no where near military parity.

We are at a point where our military so far outclasses everyone else, looking weak to a few savages in the middle east is indeed, irrelevant.

 Dirty bombs, planes into buildings, poisoned water systems. Not much high tech knowledge needed for terrorists to succeed. It's not a matter of looking strong, it's a matter of not dragging this crap out, constantly allowing them to regroup and spread influence. The longer we let it drag out, the more people they have in their flock. It took years for Al Qaeda to form. Why are we giving Isis a chance?

[thE-Ro]

Dirty bombs, planes into buildings, poisoned water systems. Not much high tech knowledge needed for terrorists to succeed. It's not a matter of looking strong, it's a matter of not dragging this crap out, constantly allowing them to regroup and spread influence. The longer we let it drag out, the more people they have in their flock. It took years for Al Qaeda to form. Why are we giving Isis a chance?

A fair point. Do you think it likely that disbanding isis and destroying them is going to have any effect on the number of terrorist attacks that hit the west? I would argue the defeat of isis will have zero affect on what happens here and in europe in terms of terrorist attacks that is.

Global terrorism existed without isis, it exists with isis, and it will exist after they are long gone. There are tons of crazies that want us dead. Sending troops to fight isis does not make us any safer.

[Jehuty]

That's NEVER worked in the past. These guys have a hardon for dying in the line of fire. Kill one and you rally ten more to their side. Bring down an army and you incense a nation.


Look weak to whom? The fanatics? They are irrelevant. To the Western world? Trust me, Europe, Canada and the rest of them are tired to death of the U.S. kicking over every anthill in the Middle East. China and Russia? They both have people in their own country revolting against them and thumbing their noses... they don't have a leg to stand on.

You know how you look weak? Trying to chase down and pummel anyone who tries to provoke you to an attack. You know how you look strong? Looking at something and saying "you aren't even worth my time."

The solution isn't simply to ignore them. Sure, ISIS is taking hits but it wouldn't hurt to assist in their destruction and to ensure it happens. 

 

And if someone is attempting to harm you, your nation and take over your lands and such you don't say, "You aren't even worth my time." If something has to be done then something has to be done. The people resisting are not saying, "They're not worth my time." They're saying, "ISIS is a threat to my way of life and we need to resist." They have no choice. It's either resist or be killed. 

 

Muslims fighting Isis and dying for their homes and families is in my opinion a better option then American soldiers dying. Their homes, their people, let them fight it out. We can and are backing the people we want to win, sending our own troops in changes from us subsidizing the foreign policy of middle eastern nations(which is bad enough) to actively bleeding for them. Most of them hate us. Sure they are more then happy to take money and arms, but they still dislike us. Our people dont need to die for this.

Actually I thought about it, wouldn't it be better to send in the special forces and do quick, surgical strikes. Cut off their leadership. Sure, ISIS may have funding because of oil but if their leadership gets compromised and cut off, then perhaps they may become disorganized. If it cannot be drone striked or bombed, then we simply send in the SEALs or groups like them. We become a scalpel instead of a hammer. We let the rebels fight the ground war and we cut the head off of the snake whenever we can. 

 

Prevents a full fledged invasion. Keeps our loses down and theirs high. Hmmm? 

[Fast Jimmy]

Arm our allies? Like who? Syrian dictators? Iranian fundamentalists? Turkish forces who would as soon as ****** on a Kurd as lift a finger to help one? Saudi Arabia, a country who has a law where a woman can't leave the house without her husband or father's permission? A random warlord who is just as unstable and crazy as ISIS themselves?

The only allies in the area that aren't complete d!cks are so hesitant to go to war that they wouldn't stick their necks out even if their well being depended on it.

ISIS will kill, butcher and burn as far and wide as they can. And that infinitely horrible and unfortunate.

You know who should be most outraged and rallying to send armies? Syria and Iraq. These countries need to develop their own sense of identity and value as a nation if a stable government (let alone democracy is ever going to have a chance to take root. People need to fight and believe in a sense of community. That's not going to happen if they think their country is a Western farce or if the leader is just another warlord who holds the throne right now.

Iraq needs to step up and use its trained forces instead of fleeing at the first sight of trouble. They need to do this FOR THEMSELVES. Not the international community to come in and either save the day or muck things up worse.

[thE-Ro]

Actually I thought about it, wouldn't it be better to send in the special forces and do quick, surgical strikes. Cut off their leadership. Sure, ISIS may have funding because of oil but if their leadership gets compromised and cut off, then perhaps they may become disorganized. If it cannot be drone striked or bombed, then we simply send in the SEALs or groups like them. We become a scalpel instead of a hammer. We let the rebels fight the ground war and we cut the head off of the snake whenever we can. 
 
Prevents a full fledged invasion. Keeps our loses down and theirs high. Hmmm?

You just described the future of anti terrorism operations. Small special forces units backed by air are a much better option then full scale military invasion by our conventional forces. Its proven to work for things like this, and while not a perfect option, it is superior to what was suggested earlier.

If you are interested, read this https://medium.com/w...an-d0c59ff535f6.

From that

In late 2010, U.S. president Barack Obama authorized a new strategy in Afghanistan—one that greatly emphasized direct action by American Special Operations Forces.

The resulting surge in aerial ambushes and nighttime ground raids took a heavy toll on the Taliban. Thousands of insurgent leaders and foot soldiers died in just a few violent months.

But the new commando campaign required intensive air support. And that put the U.S. Air Force’s Special Operations Command, whose 14,500 people fly most of America’s unique commando planes, in a delicate position.

[Jehuty]

Again, if you're going to fight ISIS, you need to be determined to win and be able to exploit their zealous nature. 

 

A huge weakness on ISIS's part. 

[Fast Jimmy]

The solution isn't simply to ignore them. Sure, ISIS is taking hits but it wouldn't hurt to assist in their destruction and to ensure it happens.

...yes. Yes it would. It can hurt INCREDIBLY bad. We are in the midst of the longest war in U.S. history! Our national debt is spinning into tailspin not because of entitlement spending or any number of other things conservatives blame it on, but WAR. Expensive, painful, unproductive war. More of it is not what anyone should say "wouldn't hurt."

And if someone is attempting to harm you, your nation and take over your lands and such you don't say, "You aren't even worth my time." If something has to be done then something has to be done. The people resisting are not saying, "They're not worth my time." They're saying, "ISIS is a threat to my way of life and we need to resist." They have no choice. It's either resist or be killed.

Nothing has to be done. Al Queda is better organized and financed than ISIS and hasn't been able to execute a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. There's no clear threat that is anywhere near as dangerous as committing untold amounts of resources and lives in fighting a group that has absolutely zero chance at holding long term the areas they are raping and pillaging.

Actually I thought about it, wouldn't it be better to send in the special forces and do quick, surgical strikes. Cut off their leadership. Sure, ISIS may have funding because of oil but if their leadership gets compromised and cut off, then perhaps they may become disorganized. If it cannot be drone striked or bombed, then we simply send in the SEALs or groups like them. We become a scalpel instead of a hammer. We let the rebels fight the ground war and we cut the head off of the snake whenever we can.

Prevents a full fledged invasion. Keeps our loses down and theirs high. Hmmm?

This is exactly what we are doing today. A few months ago, U.S. drone strikes killed the founder of ISIS. Surgical strikes of special forces will never be publicized, but best believe they are underway. As is funding existing resistance forces.

So what more would you have done BESIDES boots on the ground?

[Jehuty]

...yes. Yes it would. It can hurt INCREDIBLY bad. We are in the midst of the longest war in U.S. history! Our national debt is spinning into tailspin not because of entitlement spending or any number of other things conservatives blame it on, but WAR. Expensive, painful, unproductive war. More of it is not what anyone should say "wouldn't hurt."


Nothing has to be done. Al Queda is better organized and financed than ISIS and hasn't been able to execute a terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. There's no clear threat that is anywhere near as dangerous as committing untold amounts of resources and lives in fighting a group that has absolutely zero chance at holding long term the areas they are raping and pillaging.


This is exactly what we are doing today. A few months ago, U.S. drone strikes killed the founder of ISIS. Surgical strikes of special forces will never be publicized, but best believe they are underway. As is funding existing resistance forces.

So what more would you have done BESIDES boots on the ground?

Actually we're in deep debt with China. War isn't the only reason. We keep borrowing money and making stupid mistakes. 

 

I think you may have missed my point. Not entirely sure. The reason ISIS will lose territory and the like because people are resisting them. The only way for ISIS to be pushed back is for others to resist them. The people of Iraq and Syria who resist ISIS are the reason ISIS cannot get a hold of more territory. Otherwise, if no one resist then ISIS would have a whole lot more ground.

 

Drone strikes are not enough. Again, let's be the scalpel instead of the hammer. But I also don't think we need to go in full force now. Like I said, let the rebels fight the ground war and we'll fight in the shadows and from the sky. 

 

We also have to be careful about giving weapons and the like. It could possibly hurt us in the long run. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Actually we're in deep debt with China. War isn't the only reason. We keep borrowing money and making stupid mistakes.

The vast majority of debt has been from fighting two wars for a decade. We inflated our debt from 4.6 trillion to over 14 from war and war alone. Our budget has not inflated dramatically since 9/11, only our war chest. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of Congress' budget, but rather considered "emergency" funds to keep the deployment going. Nearly every dime spent on both wars has been pure and unadulterated debt.

I think you may have missed my point. Not entirely sure. The reason ISIS will lose territory and the like because people are resisting them. The only way for ISIS to be pushed back is for others to resist them. The people of Iraq and Syria who resist ISIS are the reason ISIS cannot get a hold of more territory. Otherwise, if no one resist then ISIS would have a whole lot more ground.

Drone strikes are not enough. Again, let's be the scalpel instead of the hammer. But I also don't think we need to go in full force now. Like I said, let the rebels fight the ground war and we'll fight in the shadows and from the sky.

We also have to be careful about giving weapons and the like. It could possibly hurt us in the long run.

I think you have missed my point... we are already doing exactly what you are suggesting. What more needs to be done that isn't exactly what you just said?

[Draining Dragon]

The vast majority of debt has been from fighting two wars for a decade. We inflated our debt from 4.6 trillion to over 14 from war and war alone. Our budget has not inflated dramatically since 9/11, only our war chest. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of Congress' budget, but rather considered "emergency" funds to keep the deployment going. Nearly every dime spent on both wars has been pure and unadulterated debt.

What is your source for this, exactly?

[Jock Cranley]

What is your source for this, exactly?

 

 

Bullcrapper's Anonymous

 

Military spending is dimes on the dollar of the deficit. If we disbanded our entire military, we'd still have a deficit. 

[Voxr]

How is it this thread stays open, but when all the other pseudo political ones get closed??

[Jehuty]

Because someone has yet to report it. 

[bEVEsthda]

I never said peace loving. They were expanding and updating their military, chasing Europe's coattail a (ostensibly to pursue the same results). It doesn't change the answer to your original question - if the West hadn't erupted into a war that stretch across a quarter of the globe (twice), the Ottoman Emprie would likely be intact (or some version of it) instead of the decimated and chaotic Middle East of today.

 

But the chaotic Middle East of today (and Balkan) cannot, of course, be the result of several centuries of corrupt mismanagement by the Ottomans? And the internal breakdown cannot have anything to do with revolts and reactions to a couple of genocides and massacres? Armenians, Bulgarians and Arabs, of course not? No, no, it would be such an enlightened, advanced and prosperous paradise today? If not for stupid, evil West?  - Now why the H*** would it be that!? Seriously, there's not a shred of reason for such a development.

 

And once again, the Ottoman Empire chose to enter WWI, by their own initiative, without cause and after a lengthy hesitation about which side seemed to be winning. Arch enemy Russia on the other side, and the fact that they somehow (despite that "the West had never done anything to help the Ottomans") owed France $430 million and Britain $107 million, and this dept would disappear if Germany won and The Ottomans were on their side, seem to have tipped the scale.

 

 

So, because Europe had never done the smart thing and did the dumb thing instead, it's okay? It's barbarism to crush your enemies beyond the chance of recovering, an economic salting of the fields. Just because no one had thought to treat an entire region with either compassion or common sense doesn't absolve any sort of responsibility or culpability.

 

Yes it does. A government is not responsible for their enemy's glorious prosperity. They're first of all responsible for their own people's security and prosperity.

 

And you're guilty of hyperbole, "crush your enemies beyond the chance of recovering", "salting of the fields".

 

Germany was considered - with some right, they did rush to invade France, they did shell civilian villages, pillage, murder and burn, as "revenge" for military losses, they did introduce gas warfare, they did bomb civilian cities with Zeppelins, they did sink passenger liners, - to have been the instigator of all the violence. There was a very understandable desire to both have compensation for the damages, and to block Germany from doing it again. It's all very reasonable and common sense. And it was how it was done. Or much, much worse. By everybody.

Why should France, exhausted and damaged, pay for Germany's recover? And does Germany not have any responsibility for all the damage? For all the millions of unexploded shells in French fields? For all the dead and injured? Just because they lost?

 

It's how it was done after WW2, that provides the background against how we judge the WWI aftermath. But what you call "the smart thing", "compassion" and "common sense", was actually unique, completely new and extremely expensive.  Edit: the crossed over is not true, my mistake And France and Britain did not receive any help on any similar scale. Which is why Germany and Japan, despite losing the war, quickly eclipsed them after. Fair? It would have been an extremely generous act, had it not been for that it was necessary, for humanitarian reasons, the destruction so complete.

 

And this is the first time in history, that a victor - without intentions of conquering and assimilating - has massively helped a vanquished foe. And it is your hated West, with Western values and ethics, that does this. At incredible expense. And all you have to say about it, is that the West is "barbaric" for not always having done it that way before?

[DeathScepter]

Actually we're in deep debt with China. War isn't the only reason. We keep borrowing money and making stupid mistakes. 

 

I think you may have missed my point. Not entirely sure. The reason ISIS will lose territory and the like because people are resisting them. The only way for ISIS to be pushed back is for others to resist them. The people of Iraq and Syria who resist ISIS are the reason ISIS cannot get a hold of more territory. Otherwise, if no one resist then ISIS would have a whole lot more ground.

 

Drone strikes are not enough. Again, let's be the scalpel instead of the hammer. But I also don't think we need to go in full force now. Like I said, let the rebels fight the ground war and we'll fight in the shadows and from the sky. 

 

We also have to be careful about giving weapons and the like. It could possibly hurt us in the long run. 

 

 

both scalpels and hammers are both good tactics to use

[The Hierophant]

Again, if you're going to fight ISIS, you need to be determined to win and be able to exploit their zealous nature. 

 

A huge weakness on ISIS's part. 

Pornography, and American pop culture will be their undoing. Just you wait, and see.

[The Devlish Redhead]

The British can't get off scott free..

 

Look at their crazy empire building days when they tried to raid America and other countries in the name of their monarch... Redcoats anyone?    They were brutal and thuggish ... If only someone could have smacked them down back then..  And they raped countries like India stealing gold and wealth and leaving the country in a mess when they finally did leave..