Iraq

Drowned Out

Idris said:

bootlegger10 said:

unsung said:

rr165892 said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Fucked up, brain-washed, psychopathic idiots.

What do you do with them? This is a calamity that is rapidly spiralling way out of control.

The U.S. or Isis?
-
We deal with ISIS, then who deals with us? (the U.S.)

You know, the U.S., the country that invades, bombs, destroys, supports the worst people in the world.

The U.S., the country that dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) in Iraq, causing congenital birth defects,cancers, total immune system collapse.

That was us, we did that, evil? No? Destroying the lives of babies, yet to be born, can it get more 'evil'? What position are we (the U.S.) in to go around talking about how Evil other people are.

and the real kicker, many of these people/groups were created directly or indirectly by U.S. actions around the world.

It's us, we are the bad ones, someone needs to do something about us.

Really Idris??Are you fucking kidding me ? You with good conscience how can you even think ISIS and the US are on the same level.Thats just asinine.
We are far from perfect,and criticizing our foreign policy and involvement around the world is not only your right but your duty.But those same freedoms that give you the right to do that freely is also one of the big differences that separate us from those lowlife piece of shit terrorist scum bags.They CUT KIDS IN HALF,PUT HEADS ON STICKS and slaughter without remorse just for not being the right type of fundamentalist Muslim.These are some sick fuckers.Dont even try to think we as a country are even close to that kind of filth.Like I said earlier,we are not without our share of mistakes and or faults,but we also do a hell of a lot of good around the world and you better keep that in mind while throwing your own country under the bus.To many of our Brothers and sisters ,children and family have died trying to fight scum like this.You should really check your priorities,they seem out of whack.

This is why I supported Ron Paul.

He firmly believes in a non-intervention policy, his critics from both sides were quick to label him as an isolationist. Our interventionist policies are the cause of much of the problems around the world, including having a large hand in what happens in the middle east.

We arm one country with planes to attack another country that we gave tanks to. We arm "rebels" in countries like Libya and Syria, but then when they use those weapons to attack our "friends" we call them terrorists. Our politicians steal from people in this country via the taxation system to send the funds to essentially arm these groups while it directly harms innocent people.

So yeah, I am very strongly saying that we should have never stuck our f-ing noses in it to begin with.

Here is a question for you: Let's say the US never went to war in Iraq. The US had no hand in the power vacuum in Iraq. Would you support the US's involvement in helping those civilians stuck in the mountains?

The Mountain.

Yazidis Weren’t Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions
State Dept Tries to Credit US With Solving Phony Problem
by Jason Ditz, August 13, 2014

The 40,000 Yazidis stranded on the mountain. That was the pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, as set out by President Obama last Thursday. The air war was commenced, and officials were talking up sending ground forces for “rescue” operations as recently as this afternoon.

But a funny thing happened when the US “advisers” got to Mount Sinjar. There weren’t 40,000 starving Yazidis stranded there. In fact, the indications are that there never were, and the Pentagon quickly dropped the “rescue” plan.

What happened? It turns out there were Yazidis already living on the top of the mountain, and while there were some refugees who fled up there, the humanitarian crisis was never what it was made out to be, and an influx of Kurdish PKK fighters from Syria quickly broke the overblown siege.

The Pentagon is trying to manage the narrative by simply saying the rescue mission “appears unnecessary,” but the fact that it was used to start a US war remains, and the State Department is doubling down, trying to spin the lack of a crisis as vindication of the war.

“President said we’re going to break the siege of this mountain, and we broke that siege,” bragged Brett McGurk on Twitter, neglecting to mention that the siege was largely mythical in the first place. The Pentagon wasn’t nearly so daring as to take credit for solving a crisis that didn’t exist.

Instead, the Pentagon is combing the countryside of northwestern Iraq, where their former casus belli was before it so rudely evaporated, and looking for other crises that they might use as a justification for continuing and escalating the war.

Officials seem to be totally ignoring the obvious question: where the false story of a massive Yazidi crisis came from in the first place. In that regard, there are no easy answers, though the obvious beneficiaries of the new US war are the Kurdish Peshmerga, which are suddenly getting flooded with Western arms to fight ISIS, and eventually, to fuel their secession.

The administration just seems grateful that they got an excuse to start a war they’ve been chomping at the bit for, and even if the excuse didn’t exactly pan out, they’ll quickly find another.

news.antiwar.com/2014/08/13/yazidis-werent-stranded-pentagon-looks-for-other-missions/

smfh.....
and normally rational people were ready to start dropping bombs over this. Really wish people would stop trusting the fucking media, and our governments

Drowned Out

Here is a very LOOONG and in-depth analysis of the current situation,and the US policies that have shaped it. We need to stop being duped into imperialist ambition masked as benevolent humanitarian intervention. It’s the same shit every time. Fool me once shame on me….fool me twice….we won’t be fooled again.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/debacle-of-a-great-game-the-islamic-state-is-and-americas-war-on-iraq-and-syria/5395402

dignin

Drowned Out said:

Here is a very LOOONG and in-depth analysis of the current situation,and the US policies that have shaped it. We need to stop being duped into imperialist ambition masked as benevolent humanitarian intervention. It’s the same shit every time. Fool me once shame on me….fool me twice….we won’t be fooled again.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/debacle-of-a-great-game-the-islamic-state-is-and-americas-war-on-iraq-and-syria/5395402

Very interesting

lolobugg

Drowned Out said:

Idris said:

bootlegger10 said:

unsung said:

rr165892 said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Fucked up, brain-washed, psychopathic idiots.

What do you do with them? This is a calamity that is rapidly spiralling way out of control.

The U.S. or Isis?
-
We deal with ISIS, then who deals with us? (the U.S.)

You know, the U.S., the country that invades, bombs, destroys, supports the worst people in the world.

The U.S., the country that dropped Depleted Uranium (DU) in Iraq, causing congenital birth defects,cancers, total immune system collapse.

That was us, we did that, evil? No? Destroying the lives of babies, yet to be born, can it get more 'evil'? What position are we (the U.S.) in to go around talking about how Evil other people are.

and the real kicker, many of these people/groups were created directly or indirectly by U.S. actions around the world.

It's us, we are the bad ones, someone needs to do something about us.

Really Idris??Are you fucking kidding me ? You with good conscience how can you even think ISIS and the US are on the same level.Thats just asinine.
We are far from perfect,and criticizing our foreign policy and involvement around the world is not only your right but your duty.But those same freedoms that give you the right to do that freely is also one of the big differences that separate us from those lowlife piece of shit terrorist scum bags.They CUT KIDS IN HALF,PUT HEADS ON STICKS and slaughter without remorse just for not being the right type of fundamentalist Muslim.These are some sick fuckers.Dont even try to think we as a country are even close to that kind of filth.Like I said earlier,we are not without our share of mistakes and or faults,but we also do a hell of a lot of good around the world and you better keep that in mind while throwing your own country under the bus.To many of our Brothers and sisters ,children and family have died trying to fight scum like this.You should really check your priorities,they seem out of whack.

This is why I supported Ron Paul.

He firmly believes in a non-intervention policy, his critics from both sides were quick to label him as an isolationist. Our interventionist policies are the cause of much of the problems around the world, including having a large hand in what happens in the middle east.

We arm one country with planes to attack another country that we gave tanks to. We arm "rebels" in countries like Libya and Syria, but then when they use those weapons to attack our "friends" we call them terrorists. Our politicians steal from people in this country via the taxation system to send the funds to essentially arm these groups while it directly harms innocent people.

So yeah, I am very strongly saying that we should have never stuck our f-ing noses in it to begin with.

Here is a question for you: Let's say the US never went to war in Iraq. The US had no hand in the power vacuum in Iraq. Would you support the US's involvement in helping those civilians stuck in the mountains?

The Mountain.

Yazidis Weren’t Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions
State Dept Tries to Credit US With Solving Phony Problem
by Jason Ditz, August 13, 2014

The 40,000 Yazidis stranded on the mountain. That was the pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, as set out by President Obama last Thursday. The air war was commenced, and officials were talking up sending ground forces for “rescue” operations as recently as this afternoon.

But a funny thing happened when the US “advisers” got to Mount Sinjar. There weren’t 40,000 starving Yazidis stranded there. In fact, the indications are that there never were, and the Pentagon quickly dropped the “rescue” plan.

What happened? It turns out there were Yazidis already living on the top of the mountain, and while there were some refugees who fled up there, the humanitarian crisis was never what it was made out to be, and an influx of Kurdish PKK fighters from Syria quickly broke the overblown siege.

The Pentagon is trying to manage the narrative by simply saying the rescue mission “appears unnecessary,” but the fact that it was used to start a US war remains, and the State Department is doubling down, trying to spin the lack of a crisis as vindication of the war.

“President said we’re going to break the siege of this mountain, and we broke that siege,” bragged Brett McGurk on Twitter, neglecting to mention that the siege was largely mythical in the first place. The Pentagon wasn’t nearly so daring as to take credit for solving a crisis that didn’t exist.

Instead, the Pentagon is combing the countryside of northwestern Iraq, where their former casus belli was before it so rudely evaporated, and looking for other crises that they might use as a justification for continuing and escalating the war.

Officials seem to be totally ignoring the obvious question: where the false story of a massive Yazidi crisis came from in the first place. In that regard, there are no easy answers, though the obvious beneficiaries of the new US war are the Kurdish Peshmerga, which are suddenly getting flooded with Western arms to fight ISIS, and eventually, to fuel their secession.

The administration just seems grateful that they got an excuse to start a war they’ve been chomping at the bit for, and even if the excuse didn’t exactly pan out, they’ll quickly find another.

news.antiwar.com/2014/08/13/yazidis-werent-stranded-pentagon-looks-for-other-missions/

smfh.....
and normally rational people were ready to start dropping bombs over this. Really wish people would stop trusting the fucking media, and our governments

I agree with you,
definitely some ulterior motives going on for them to reference these people as all refugees needing help.

But these ISIS fuckers are still killing innocent people. They still need to be addressed. Hopefully the Kurds can turn them back but from everything I read, ISIS is gaining more resources and leverage with every city they overtake.

mickeyrat

Heres the deal. WW2 has been over since 45. We STILL have bases in both Germany and Okinawa. We arent leaving. We never do.
Hell Gitmo wax seized from Spain in 1890's? Guess what, still there.

lolobugg

mickeyrat said:

Heres the deal. WW2 has been over since 45. We STILL have bases in both Germany and Okinawa. We arent leaving. We never do.
Hell Gitmo wax seized from Spain in 1890's? Guess what, still there.

you speak the truth, sir

JimmyV

I'm unclear why some a

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

Sixty years? I would say the ethnic, religious and tribal rivalries in that region date back much further than that.

I do think ISIS needs to be stopped, yes. My position has remained the same for eleven years. There was never a reason to invade back in 2003, yet invade we did. We broke that country and, yes, we do bare a responsibility to the people there. I don't think we can ever truly leave because I don't think the problems can ever truly be fixed, but ISIS can be rolled back. And it should be.

We can argue about past interventions and whether or not the US should have gotten involved. In most instances I think we are going to agree that the answer is no. Not this time, though. Not when it is happening in a vaccum created by what I believe to be the worst foreign policy blunder of my lifetime. This time the answer is yes.

My 60 years comment was in reference to what could be considered the beginning of the current US foreign policy in the middle east – when they sponsored a coup in Iran….and also to the Arab-Israeli war, which began a series of conflicts over pipelines and resources. The US has not stopped manipulating the regional politics since, and have been trying to cripple Iran since the shaw was overthrown, esp since it’s government began following an Islamic system in the late 70’s.
I’ve got to say….I definitely haven’t always agreed with you, but I’ve always found you pretty reasonable….so I’m shocked to hear you calling for permanent occupation of Iraq. I’m shocked to see you aligning with hawks like McCain and Graham, and thinktanks like the RAND corporation.
What you’re not acknowledging is that every time we bomb any group over there, it creates another power vacuum – this didn’t just happen in Iraq. We for the most part dismantled Al Qaeda….we dismantled Ghaddafi’s regime, we attempted to dismantle Syria’s….and ISIS is the result. Who will rise up in their place? This situation is an engineered one – it is definitely not an accident or mistake. We are allying with our enemies’ enemies, regardless of the potential threat to our future, because sectarian violence and internal strife benefits us. Balkanization, divide and conquer, call it what you will….We are running both sides of this conflict, by design, to weaken the powers of the region.

I'm not calling for permanent occupation. I'm saying that there are consequences to the foolish action we undertook in 2003. We are left with two choices: walk away and let monsters like ISIS roll through and butcher the people, or to stay involved and be seen as the oppressing overlords. Neither choice is good, but when the end result of the former is children being drawn and quartered, I have to look at the latter as being the lesser of two evils. I hope there does come a day when we can walk away and allow Iraq to stand on its own. I just cannot look at what is happening there and conclude that today is that day.

I realize it may be a no-win situation, and if it is, my vote is to eliminate those who would butcher children in the name of religion.

JimmyV

Idris said:

The Mountain.

Yazidis Weren’t Stranded, Pentagon Looks for Other Missions
State Dept Tries to Credit US With Solving Phony Problem
by Jason Ditz, August 13, 2014

The 40,000 Yazidis stranded on the mountain. That was the pretext for US military intervention in Iraq, as set out by President Obama last Thursday. The air war was commenced, and officials were talking up sending ground forces for “rescue” operations as recently as this afternoon.

But a funny thing happened when the US “advisers” got to Mount Sinjar. There weren’t 40,000 starving Yazidis stranded there. In fact, the indications are that there never were, and the Pentagon quickly dropped the “rescue” plan.

What happened? It turns out there were Yazidis already living on the top of the mountain, and while there were some refugees who fled up there, the humanitarian crisis was never what it was made out to be, and an influx of Kurdish PKK fighters from Syria quickly broke the overblown siege.

The Pentagon is trying to manage the narrative by simply saying the rescue mission “appears unnecessary,” but the fact that it was used to start a US war remains, and the State Department is doubling down, trying to spin the lack of a crisis as vindication of the war.

“President said we’re going to break the siege of this mountain, and we broke that siege,” bragged Brett McGurk on Twitter, neglecting to mention that the siege was largely mythical in the first place. The Pentagon wasn’t nearly so daring as to take credit for solving a crisis that didn’t exist.

Instead, the Pentagon is combing the countryside of northwestern Iraq, where their former casus belli was before it so rudely evaporated, and looking for other crises that they might use as a justification for continuing and escalating the war.

Officials seem to be totally ignoring the obvious question: where the false story of a massive Yazidi crisis came from in the first place. In that regard, there are no easy answers, though the obvious beneficiaries of the new US war are the Kurdish Peshmerga, which are suddenly getting flooded with Western arms to fight ISIS, and eventually, to fuel their secession.

The administration just seems grateful that they got an excuse to start a war they’ve been chomping at the bit for, and even if the excuse didn’t exactly pan out, they’ll quickly find another.

news.antiwar.com/2014/08/13/yazidis-werent-stranded-pentagon-looks-for-other-missions/

We talk a lot about media bias here. It may be the one thing on this board I would say most of us are willing to agree is a huge problem in today's world. With that in mind, I will point out that antiwar.com has a HUGE fundraising appeal right at the top of its homepage, and doesn't draw any donations by framing a story in terms its readership does not to hear. Media bias can take many different forms.

The siege was "largely" mythical. (Largely, but not entirely.)

The administration "just seems grateful" there was an excuse to restart hostilities. (Really? They seem grateful?)

While I am sure there are media accounts overstating the situation there, this particular piece seems to be deliberately understating it. Let's not swallow it word for word just because we may want to agree with it.

Idris

This new military intervention was based on a massive humanitarian crisis that needed attention, That massive humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, that came from U.S. Advisors.

That's the point.

Yet we are still gunning for Iraq because at the end, its about protecting our imperialistic ways/interests.

That is probably why the author said that "just seems grateful" cause it gave them an excuse to do what they've apparently wanted to do for a while.

end of story.

Idris

JimmyV said:

I'm unclear why some a

Drowned Out said:

JimmyV said:

Sixty years? I would say the ethnic, religious and tribal rivalries in that region date back much further than that.

I do think ISIS needs to be stopped, yes. My position has remained the same for eleven years. There was never a reason to invade back in 2003, yet invade we did. We broke that country and, yes, we do bare a responsibility to the people there. I don't think we can ever truly leave because I don't think the problems can ever truly be fixed, but ISIS can be rolled back. And it should be.

We can argue about past interventions and whether or not the US should have gotten involved. In most instances I think we are going to agree that the answer is no. Not this time, though. Not when it is happening in a vaccum created by what I believe to be the worst foreign policy blunder of my lifetime. This time the answer is yes.

My 60 years comment was in reference to what could be considered the beginning of the current US foreign policy in the middle east – when they sponsored a coup in Iran….and also to the Arab-Israeli war, which began a series of conflicts over pipelines and resources. The US has not stopped manipulating the regional politics since, and have been trying to cripple Iran since the shaw was overthrown, esp since it’s government began following an Islamic system in the late 70’s.
I’ve got to say….I definitely haven’t always agreed with you, but I’ve always found you pretty reasonable….so I’m shocked to hear you calling for permanent occupation of Iraq. I’m shocked to see you aligning with hawks like McCain and Graham, and thinktanks like the RAND corporation.
What you’re not acknowledging is that every time we bomb any group over there, it creates another power vacuum – this didn’t just happen in Iraq. We for the most part dismantled Al Qaeda….we dismantled Ghaddafi’s regime, we attempted to dismantle Syria’s….and ISIS is the result. Who will rise up in their place? This situation is an engineered one – it is definitely not an accident or mistake. We are allying with our enemies’ enemies, regardless of the potential threat to our future, because sectarian violence and internal strife benefits us. Balkanization, divide and conquer, call it what you will….We are running both sides of this conflict, by design, to weaken the powers of the region.

I'm not calling for permanent occupation. I'm saying that there are consequences to the foolish action we undertook in 2003. We are left with two choices: walk away and let monsters like ISIS roll through and butcher the people, or to stay involved and be seen as the oppressing overlords. Neither choice is good, but when the end result of the former is children being drawn and quartered, I have to look at the latter as being the lesser of two evils. I hope there does come a day when we can walk away and allow Iraq to stand on its own. I just cannot look at what is happening there and conclude that today is that day.

I realize it may be a no-win situation, and if it is, my vote is to eliminate those who would butcher children in the name of religion.

as opposed to those who would butcher children for Imperialism.

and again, even if the U.S. Didn't touch Iraq for a decade, its legacy of death will still be felt from all the chemicals we dropped over Iraq.

and now you want the U.S. To go back in to save children,

too late for that.

JimmyV

Idris said:

This new military intervention was based on a massive humanitarian crisis that needed attention, That massive humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, that came from U.S. Advisors.

That's the point.

Yet we are still gunning for Iraq because at the end, its about protecting our imperialistic ways/interests.

That is probably why the author said that "just seems grateful" cause it gave them an excuse to do what they've apparently wanted to do for a while.

end of story.

When you say that the massive humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, you are saying that stories like this are untrue:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/friend-flees-horror-isis

I remain unconvinced of that, but you are free to say "end of story" and put your blinders back on. It is always easy to sniff out media bias when we disagree with what is being reported. The challenge comes in recognizing bias when it reinforces what we already do believe, or what we want to be true.

The fact remains that antiwar.com is dependent on the donations of its readers to remain in business. Speaking as someone who works in fundraising, I assure you the golden rule is to never alienate or offend your donor base. Antiwar.com is not alone in this practice. We have no problem pointing to bias at FOX or MSNBC and are not wrong to do so. By the same token the piece you linked to was written with a particular audience in mind and framed in such a way that they would easily accept what it said.

But, by all means, just say "end of story" without giving it a second thought.

Idris

jimmyV, how many kids in the U.S. Needs help? Food? medicine? Too many! But its very magnanimous of you to want to help Iraqi kids.

I say, lets help our people here first. Deal with our house, then worry about others.

But again, its not about helping Iraqi kids, its about protecting our interests, and what better excuse than to use 'helping kids'.

Idris

JimmyV said:

Idris said:

This new military intervention was based on a massive humanitarian crisis that needed attention, That massive humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, that came from U.S. Advisors.

That's the point.

Yet we are still gunning for Iraq because at the end, its about protecting our imperialistic ways/interests.

That is probably why the author said that "just seems grateful" cause it gave them an excuse to do what they've apparently wanted to do for a while.

end of story.

When you say that the massive humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, you are saying that stories like this are untrue:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/friend-flees-horror-isis

I remain unconvinced of that, but you are free to say "end of story" and put your blinders back on. It is always easy to sniff out media bias when we disagree with what is being reported. The challenge comes in recognizing bias when it reinforces what we already do believe, or what we want to be true.

The fact remains that antiwar.com is dependent on the donations of its readers to remain in business. Speaking as someone who works in fundraising, I assure you the golden rule is to never alienate or offend your donor base. Antiwar.com is not alone in this practice. We have no problem pointing to bias at FOX or MSNBC and are not wrong to do so. By the same token the piece you linked to was written with a particular audience in mind and framed in such a way that they would easily accept what it said.

But, by all means, just say "end of story" without giving it a second thought.

I'm not saying stories like that are untrue, whats wrong with you?

I said that this MASSIVE humanitarian crisis does not seem to exist, (not in the way the U.S. had many believe)

and that was the excuse given for new attacks on Iraq.

at the same time apparently being so upset about kids being killed in Iraq, but silent on the cancers and birth defects we have caused, and will continue to happen for generations to come.

Idris

and I encourage people to research for themselves the legacy we have left in Iraq. Depleted Uranium and what it has done, is doing and will continue to do. We care about kids, let's fix that. That if anything will kill groups like ISIS. Not bombs.

rr165892

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

The goal is to not have another 9/11 ever happen again.That is the point.If it does happen those who are responsible should be dealt with swiftly.Anyone who funded them,The govts that supported and armed(yes I know sometimes we have armed the same in the past) and trained them also.
If it happens on American soil then The American people will mandate action,The Pres will have full support of both parties in House and Senate,and have overwhelming pressure to react with more then just a measured response.
Why not let the UN deal with it you say?Ewww the world police! They for the most part can't handle the "Get your hands dirty stuff".Properly.
I don't call for Arab or Muslim blood,I would call the Organizations who did this head.Is that what you think I'm getting at?Some anti Arab,Anti Muslim reverse Jihad? If they are fundamentalist then they don't speak for the peaceful members of that religion.There are lots of Arabs.Plenty are our friends and don't want part of this kind of crap.
The whole Suni/Shite thing is there own internal squabble.I just know you can't force your religion on others and expect things to go well.
So if you don't care what happens,don't watch the news,and feel we are creating the monster then what is your stance in this Isis group.Do you understand and support them in there quest for taking over the Middle East ?
Your well versed on history and politics of the region,I know from convos we had back on some older threads(PJ play Israel I think,if I'm wrong I'm sorry) That you sympathize with a lot of the people in that region.I mean if you don't care ,why worry so much about who we(the west) are tangling with.It sounds almost like you think we the West are the Bad guys and at fault for everything.

Man...you admit openly that we have funded and armed groups like this...but call for the countries who do the same to be punished with 'more then (sic) a measured response'...why are they not entitled to do the same? Because you have the bigger stick? You're essentially calling for perpetual conflict...you might not be suggesting an anti-arab/Muslim reverse jihad, but you seem to think continuing our past/current failed policies is the way forward – which is a continued war and 'pre-emptive strikes' against any Islamic power structure that threatens the interests of the US, Israel, and their regional allies. The thing you’re missing in your call for more than a measured response levied at any government who funded or trained these people is that you would be calling for the bombing of the the US and her allies! ) ISIS was created, funded, directed, and armed indirectly by the US, directly by their allies. Trained in Jordan and Turkey. So I guess we will be bombing ourselves and our 'friends' after the next terrorist attack. Again, you’re suggesting knee-jerk, reactionary responses, echoing the same calls coming from the government and their presstitute propagandists.

What do I think of the IS? I think they’re lunatics. I think anyone brainwashed to kill over religion is a ‘sick fuck’….that includes muslims, jews, buddhists, and not only the rapture loving Christians, but the millions of easter/Christmas Christians and atheists in the West who support war in the middle east because of conditioned fear of Islam. Using violence to stop them is not going to change anything.
I never said I didn’t care, and that comment drives me nuts…it’s like the people who tell me I’m giving up on or enabling drug addicts for supporting legalization of all drugs….just because I support a different approach to the problem doesn’t mean I care any less than you do….I think supporting unconditional humanitarian aid, maybe defensive tactics from a regional or international peacekeeping force, and a hands off policy, is the better way to help these people in the long term. You mock the UN, calling them ineffective – when the US is again largely responsible for how ineffective it is, and for making it the norm to ignore the will of the rest of the world….you laugh at the ‘world police’, yet have no problem taking on that role yourself….good ol’ western megalomania.

No, I don’t watch tv news shows….I read in-depth reporting about these issues, books, and scholarly documents, separate from the emotional blackmail and uninformed soundbytes forced on us by the mainstream. Idris and I have already mentioned in this thread why the West ARE the bad guys, more often than not, in the middle east. We kill innocent people to protect our interests in other countries, then cry bloody murder when the same happens to OUR people, ON THEIR SOIL.

So many angles here.Yeah we indirectly armed lots of players here.Good guys one minute,terrorists the next.I get that.We whore our arms and everyone is a taker.
I don't think we need to put our nose into every little squirmish around the world,that we agree on,But the ones that rise to a certain level of disgusting not only need our intervention but as a superpower with the means,we have an obligation to be there for those that can't.
For the situations that do require a big stick,I think a hard hit early is a great way to start it.
I did not think Iraq was the right target the first time.But we have a responsibility now

rr165892

rr165892 said:

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

The goal is to not have another 9/11 ever happen again.That is the point.If it does happen those who are responsible should be dealt with swiftly.Anyone who funded them,The govts that supported and armed(yes I know sometimes we have armed the same in the past) and trained them also.
If it happens on American soil then The American people will mandate action,The Pres will have full support of both parties in House and Senate,and have overwhelming pressure to react with more then just a measured response.
Why not let the UN deal with it you say?Ewww the world police! They for the most part can't handle the "Get your hands dirty stuff".Properly.
I don't call for Arab or Muslim blood,I would call the Organizations who did this head.Is that what you think I'm getting at?Some anti Arab,Anti Muslim reverse Jihad? If they are fundamentalist then they don't speak for the peaceful members of that religion.There are lots of Arabs.Plenty are our friends and don't want part of this kind of crap.
The whole Suni/Shite thing is there own internal squabble.I just know you can't force your religion on others and expect things to go well.
So if you don't care what happens,don't watch the news,and feel we are creating the monster then what is your stance in this Isis group.Do you understand and support them in there quest for taking over the Middle East ?
Your well versed on history and politics of the region,I know from convos we had back on some older threads(PJ play Israel I think,if I'm wrong I'm sorry) That you sympathize with a lot of the people in that region.I mean if you don't care ,why worry so much about who we(the west) are tangling with.It sounds almost like you think we the West are the Bad guys and at fault for everything.

Man...you admit openly that we have funded and armed groups like this...but call for the countries who do the same to be punished with 'more then (sic) a measured response'...why are they not entitled to do the same? Because you have the bigger stick? You're essentially calling for perpetual conflict...you might not be suggesting an anti-arab/Muslim reverse jihad, but you seem to think continuing our past/current failed policies is the way forward – which is a continued war and 'pre-emptive strikes' against any Islamic power structure that threatens the interests of the US, Israel, and their regional allies. The thing you’re missing in your call for more than a measured response levied at any government who funded or trained these people is that you would be calling for the bombing of the the US and her allies! ) ISIS was created, funded, directed, and armed indirectly by the US, directly by their allies. Trained in Jordan and Turkey. So I guess we will be bombing ourselves and our 'friends' after the next terrorist attack. Again, you’re suggesting knee-jerk, reactionary responses, echoing the same calls coming from the government and their presstitute propagandists.

What do I think of the IS? I think they’re lunatics. I think anyone brainwashed to kill over religion is a ‘sick fuck’….that includes muslims, jews, buddhists, and not only the rapture loving Christians, but the millions of easter/Christmas Christians and atheists in the West who support war in the middle east because of conditioned fear of Islam. Using violence to stop them is not going to change anything.
I never said I didn’t care, and that comment drives me nuts…it’s like the people who tell me I’m giving up on or enabling drug addicts for supporting legalization of all drugs….just because I support a different approach to the problem doesn’t mean I care any less than you do….I think supporting unconditional humanitarian aid, maybe defensive tactics from a regional or international peacekeeping force, and a hands off policy, is the better way to help these people in the long term. You mock the UN, calling them ineffective – when the US is again largely responsible for how ineffective it is, and for making it the norm to ignore the will of the rest of the world….you laugh at the ‘world police’, yet have no problem taking on that role yourself….good ol’ western megalomania.

No, I don’t watch tv news shows….I read in-depth reporting about these issues, books, and scholarly documents, separate from the emotional blackmail and uninformed soundbytes forced on us by the mainstream. Idris and I have already mentioned in this thread why the West ARE the bad guys, more often than not, in the middle east. We kill innocent people to protect our interests in other countries, then cry bloody murder when the same happens to OUR people, ON THEIR SOIL.

So many angles here.Yeah we indirectly armed lots of players here.Good guys one minute,terrorists the next.I get that.We whore our arms and everyone is a taker.
I don't think we need to put our nose into every little squirmish around the world,that we agree on,But the ones that rise to a certain level of disgusting not only need our intervention but as a superpower with the means,we have an obligation to be there for those that can't.
For the situations that do require a big stick,I think a hard hit early is a great way to start it.
I did not think Iraq was the right target the first time.But we have a responsibility now.

And a side note,who calls articles scholarly documents.Lol
Printed word can still be very Biased.

rr165892

Sorry for double post on edit

Drowned Out

rr165892 said:

And a side note,who calls articles scholarly documents.Lol
Printed word can still be very Biased.

Thanks, tips.
Who? Universities...and google....but why would I have expected you to know that?
http://scholar.google.ca/
edit: I was referring to papers written for universities as a thesis or dissertation ...in depth papers that require citations and peer review. Yes, they can be biased, but there is much less room for opinions and sensationalism.

rr165892

Drowned Out said:

rr165892 said:

And a side note,who calls articles scholarly documents.Lol
Printed word can still be very Biased.

Thanks, tips.
Who? Universities...and google....but why would I have expected you to know that?
http://scholar.google.ca/

Dont get your Maple leaf Panties in a wad.I meant in regular conversation.

Drowned Out

rr165892 said:

Dont get your Maple leaf Panties in a wad.I meant in regular conversation.

hey now....let that water run off the back of your leather stars n bars....
what would you call them in regular conversation? )
Why do I have the trial scene from Idiocracy in my head right now? ... ‘he talks like a faaag’
I'm totally calm. Just figured a hard hit early was a good way to start.