Paris attacks - ongoing

Well in regards to making sure nations like the DPRK, China, Russia and Iran do not attack our allies, I agree that we cannot be isolationistic.

The ME issue I have clarified already, With the exception of Israel, and given the playing field stayed equal, I would agree our ME adventures were total failures and should not have been undertaken AKA Afghanistan post 9-11 and Iraq.

The ME nations have the sole right to sell gas at whatever prices they want withojt ANY foreign intervention, GIVEN, they handle any terror groups that pop up.
 
DarkCorp said:
Well in regards to making sure nations like the DPRK, China, Russia and Iran do not attack our allies, I agree that we cannot be isolationistic.

The ME issue I have clarified already, With the exception of Israel, and given the playing field stayed equal, I would agree our ME adventures were total failures and should not have been undertaken AKA Afghanistan post 9-11 and Iraq.

The ME nations have the sole right to sell gas at whatever prices they want withojt ANY foreign intervention, GIVEN, they handle any terror groups that pop up.
Click to expand...

That is a fair agreement that I support... apart from the terrorist part. That was the loophole the US used to mess with Africa and the Middle East.
 
Well, if said terror group is interrupting gas sales and is causing issues, given we are asked to help, I don't see why we shouldn't fix the problem.
 
DarkCorp said:
Well, if said terror group is interrupting gas sales and is causing issues, given we are asked to help, I don't see why we shouldn't fix the problem.
Click to expand...

HAH! Sorry but that's funny, because when America is doing that it's fine, but when Russia does it in Syria they're evil. Russia fights ISIS in Syria, after being asked by the Syrian government and helping the Syrian army and gets attacked by media for it.
 
Well, its more like Putin is hitting IS AND the rebel forces, not all of whom are terror groups/fundamentalists.

But the Syrian issue is much more than terrorism, its political with Assad backing Putin, a man known for wanting the west to fall off a cliff.
 
DarkCorp said:
Well, its more like Putin is hitting IS AND the rebel forces, not all of whom are terror groups/fundamentalists.

But the Syrian issue is much more than terrorism, its political with Assad backing Putin, a man known for wanting the west to fall off a cliff.
Click to expand...

And? The rebels aren't the legitimate government meaning he has every right to hit them especially as they're against his ally. Is that so wrong when Russia does it, but good when America does it? And who cares if the west collapses, they aren't the answer to our problems.
 
1406320738693.jpg
 
Sander said:
@naossano: The rise of ISIS is more or less a direct result of the West's invasion of Iraq, a war that led to over a million dead in the region. I don't think "didn't intervene enough" is the issue here.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "we didn't intervene enough" but "we didn't intervene at the right moment". The US had invaded the Iraq on a false pretense, to destroy weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, without the support of the west, while there wasn't a massive support from the Iraq population that i am aware of. For Syria, the rebellion called for help, since 2011. They wanted the help from the west and we just sat there and did nothing. If it was a time the west should intervene, this is then, when the people from said country ask for an intervention. We shouldn't do it when we want for false pretense and no support, but it is our duty to do it when asked for it by the people in a time of need. (provided that we have the ressources to do it)

And today, we are paying the price for it, not only with the bombings, but with all those refugees that wouldn't be here in the first place if we had helped them years before. Refusing to intervene when it was needed wasn't an innocent choise. It has consequences that we see today.
 
Last edited:
I like to quote a few lines out of a couple paragraphs and pretend that's the person's whole argument. We should do that some more. That'll make for a great thread.

Now, who the fuck gives a shit who is to blame? That's moralizing, and it gets nobody anywhere. Yes, the west has caused a lot of anti-west sentiment, through bombings and wars. Pull everything out now, and europe and america would remain infidel devils however.



"Why do we kill infidels?"
"Because they kill Muslims."

It's a cycle.

There are no good options remaining, it is up to the west to choose the option that is least bad. I'm not sure intensified bombings are the answer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Akratus said:
"Why do we kill infidels?"
"Because they kill Muslims."

It's a cycle.

There are no good options remaining, it is up to the west to choose the option that is least bad. I'm not sure intensified bombings are the answer.
Click to expand...

Well that's a good answer, kind of, but i'm also interested in why they keep children sex slaves? How does that mix in this whole thing?
 
naossano said:
Sander said:
@naossano: The rise of ISIS is more or less a direct result of the West's invasion of Iraq, a war that led to over a million dead in the region. I don't think "didn't intervene enough" is the issue here.
Click to expand...

I didn't say "we didn't intervene enough" but "we didn't intervene at the right moment". The US had invaded the Iraq on a false pretense, to destroy weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, without the support of the west, while there wasn't a massive support from the Iraq population that i am aware of. For Syria, the rebellion called for help, since 2011. They wanted the help from the west and we just sat there and did nothing. If it was a time the west should intervene, this is then, when the people from said country ask for an intervention. We shouldn't do it when we want for false pretense and no support, but it is our duty to do it when asked for it by the people in a time of need. (provided that we have the ressources to do it)

And today, we are paying the price for it, not only with the bombings, but with all those refugees that wouldn't be here in the first place if we had helped them years before. Refusing to intervene when it was needed wasn't an innocent choise. It has consequences that we see today.
Click to expand...
You're still asking the West to militarily intervene in a civil war. Yes, the rebels wanted help -- of course they want help, they're rebelling -- and Assad was a murderous dictator. At the same time, many of those rebel groups were themselves problematic, and the rebellion itself was splintered into many different factions. You can't just send military force every time a rebel group (or government group) wants help. In fact, if history teaches us anything it's that the West's constantly supporting rebel groups leads not to stability and democracy, but chaos and further violence.

The problem with your reasoning is that you're assuming a positive outcome. There's nothing in the past century of Western military intervention that should make you think that the result will be peace and tranquility in the region. Yet assumptions like that continually drive support for aggressive foreign policy.

Also, the US eventually had a lot of support from the West in general. Not only are they the leading voice in the West, the coalition that invaded Iraq consisted of the USA, UK, Australia and Poland, and 37 other countries contributed military force to the occupation afterwards.
 
attachment.php


(Source = Der Postillon who pretty much nailed it.)

Rough translation:
French fighter jet bring violence back to where it belongs

Rakka - now everything's back to normal again: French figher jets of the type Dassault Raffale have brought the violence back to where it belongs: the middle east. If civilians were killed is unknown and, according to experts, pretty much irrelevant.

"An attack on civilians in Europe violates the rules, which say that civilian casualties are restricted to countries of the middle east - especially Iraq and Syria," says Middle-East expert Klaus-Peter Brockschmidt. "France escalating their air strikes against Syria that have been going on for over a year should make that more than clear to everyone."
Just to make sure, all countries that are currently bombing Syria and Iraq or supplying weapons to warring parties have designed a flyer that clearly designates the areas in which violence against civilians is deemed okay. It is to be deployed over bombarded areas and included with weapon shipments:
ApprovedViolence.jpg
 
Sanders>
The point is that the rebel would have won in ending the reign of a war criminal that is no better than the Islamic State. They had the upper hand at some point and required some limited help to finish the job. Not an invasion, not us taking the lead and do as we like. Just the level of required help. We waited and the war criminal managed to strike back. Years of chaos ensued, chaos in which another group as bad as that war criminal had plenty of time and freedom to rise and conquer. It wouldn't have happened if we helped Syria earlier.

If the rebellion had deposed the dictator and had chosen another one afterward, it would have been their own responsability. Here we are directly responsible to the current situation through our inaction when asked for support. It isn't the first time in history some armies took too many years to intervene. One of those instances led to some overcrowded trains and a bit of organic dust in Poland.
 
Last edited:
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/
What I Discovered From Interviewing Imprisoned ISIS Fighters
More pertinent than Islamic theology is that there are other, much more convincing, explanations as to why they’ve fought for the side they did. At the end of the interview with the first prisoner we ask, “Do you have any questions for us?” For the first time since he came into the room he smiles—in surprise—and finally tells us what really motivated him, without any prompting. He knows there is an American in the room, and can perhaps guess, from his demeanor and his questions, that this American is ex-military, and directs his “question,” in the form of an enraged statement, straight at him. “The Americans came,” he said. “They took away Saddam, but they also took away our security. I didn’t like Saddam, we were starving then, but at least we didn’t have war. When you came here, the civil war started.”
Click to expand...

Interesting article.
 
Supporting one group even without boots on the ground is still a military intervention, specifically of the kind that helped prop up a variety of dictatorial regimes in South and Middle America over the past half-century, and of the kind that led to the US supporting what would later turn into al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And the logic used to justify -- that of "we'll remove an oppressive dictator and things will be better" -- is the same that people used to rationalize the Iraq War once it became abundantly clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction. "We found no WMD but at least the outcome is positive" -- except it isn't. That's not just an accident of history, those kinds of unintended consequences are a constant in Western foreign military support and intervention over the past century.

The problem is that you presume to know the logical outcome of supporting rebels in Syria. "It wouldn't have happened if we helped Syria earlier." That is not something we actually know, and history suggests that continued violence would have been likely, with pro-Assad forces continuing to fight after being defeated, and other rebel factions fighting whichever faction won, potentially leading to yet another fractured state filled with sectional and regional war. Because, again, that's what we've seen consistently when the West lends military support directly or indirectly to one group or another.

The argument-ad-Hitler takes the form of the same logical flaw. Everyone saw Hitler's oppressive regime, but few expected the Holocaust as it actually happened. It's easy to say they should have intervened earlier now, but how would we look back on a US (or UK, or French) invasion into Germany in the 1930s, when there was no war, when Hitler was running an oppressive but not yet genocidal regime, and millions of people died in Europe as a result of such an invasion? Would we genuinely be looking at a peaceful Europe, or would we have seen what we see now in Iraq: a fractured state filled with regional and sectarian violence, victimizing and radicalizing civilian populations, throwing the region into chaos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top