I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side.. And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.
My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place. I feel like a broken record
the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..
Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?
Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.
Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?
Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.
rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side.. And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.
My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place. I feel like a broken record
the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..
Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?
Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.
Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?
Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.
rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?
I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side.. And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.
My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place. I feel like a broken record
the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..
Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?
Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.
Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?
Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.
rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?
I will watch this tonight.But to Bens question.I look at each situation on its own merit.And yes I support western involvement as I think this threat left alone would fester and grow,eventually become a real destabilizer in the Middle East and spread thru out Europe.
I say this because there is no way they will allow IS to become a threat to their border regardless of the squabble on the other side.. And I do have the basics Drowned out, a Middle East expert or analyst I am not.
My point regarding the basics wasn't to belittle you (there's that word again)....only to make you question yourself as to whether you feel informed enough to be calling for military support. Do you think having 'the basics' is good enough to be volunteering your military to go to war again, and putting yourself at risk of blowback? People supporting war on 'the basics' is what allowed this entire mess to develop in the first place. I feel like a broken record
the first paragraph....Israel has always had a hostile army on their northern border. So as far as border security goes (as in, an invading army), the IS is no threat to them...or at least is no greater threat than Hezbollah. Israel (and the US) have a history of cozying up to Sunni jihadis - its the Iran/Hezbollah/Assad connection they've wanted destroyed for decades now. They are the biggest benefactors in this entire mess..
Maybe Israel wants this to happen so they can fight Hezbollah and not have them get their hands dirty. Maybe this is why Israel agreed to a cease fire, regroup for the next battle?
Israel does not need to regroup for anything. If they wanted to take over the entire Middle East they could do it by lunch tomorrow.
Probably true, but you can overrun a military, bomb the shit out of country, and retain virtually no control over the population. Israel should know this better than anyone. As bb said - Israel always wins in number of murders bombs dropped, but have they ever broken the will of ANY of their enemies? Does any aggressor?
Drowned,I'm not thin skinned,I didn't take your comment as a shot.In fact I was going to break your balls about something silly,but I was tired and wrong thread,so no issue here.But yes I do think that the "basics" are enough for me to conclude in this here little cluster fuck,that the USA does need continued involvement in stopping the spread of IS.I might not be the authority on every nuanced detail but, I can tell this will only get a lot worse without our involvement.
rr, would you rather the situation get a lot worse with US involvement, or get a lot worse without US involvement? From what I can see, Western intervention is akin to taking someone out of a burning building to put them into another one. Can someone with a more thorough understanding of UN policies, regulations, and power help me comprehend how a regulatory body supposedly in existence to govern complex global scenarios could allow the cycle of self-serving invasions under the guise of 'assistance' followed by regional instability used as pretext for more invasions to have occurred in the first place? Or how they've allowed it to continue if the problems have existed for longer than the UN?
I will watch this tonight.But to Bens question.I look at each situation on its own merit.And yes I support western involvement as I think this threat left alone would fester and grow,eventually become a real destabilizer in the Middle East and spread thru out Europe.
You keep talking about containing the spread of the IS. I haven't checked their numbers but I think someone earlier in the thread put it at 50k? Do you think that is a threat to Europe? If you're talking the ideology of the IS, or about stopping terror attacks....how do you stop that with air strikes and armies? Trying to kill an ideology spawned by violence, with more violence, doesn't stop it's spread - it quickens it...this point has been repeated a million times in discussing how to deal with whichever 'terrorist' group is being called the hitler of the day. 5-10 years later we all lament what a failure it was, and how things got worse but we didn't see it coming; we had the best intentions....we pick a politician to blame and thats about as far as it goes. where is the accountability when our fuck ups cost lives and generations of misery? Who brings justice to us? Besides - WE intentionally destabilized the region. How can our armies be the ones to create stability?
There was a time that people in the west didn't want the US to be world police, and even those who supported 'intervention' dismissed each individual case of aggression as unique and justified. These days it seems like the prevailing attitude accepts this role and the argument is more about aid vs drones vs air strikes vs ground troops, and whether the US acts alone or as part of a coalition. I guess we've just accepted, for some subconsciously, that our 'interests' in these regions, and our fear of (some) extremist religions, justify our involvement in ANY foreign country. Fuck yeah.
Post edited by Drowned Out on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,379
interesting. Saw this link when I was reading another article related to Jack the Ripper being named via DNA evidence....
British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.
Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College said his department has been in contact with a number of British jihadists who want to come back to the UK but fear being jailed.
He said the Government should set up a “deradicalisation programme” for those willing former jihadis, echoing calls by Labour leader Ed Miliband who last month suggested a mandatory programme of deradicalisation for those involved on the fringes of Islamic State.
Professor Neumann, who works at the university’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, told The Times: “The people we have been talking to … want to quit but feel trapped because all the Government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”
One jihadist, claiming to represent 30 others, has contacted the university in the past fortnight to say there is a feeling of disillusionment, as some who travelled to fight against President Assad’s regime in Syria are instead being forced to get involved in fighting among rebel groups.
He said: “It’s not what we came for but if we go back (to Britain) we will go to jail. Right now, we are being forced to fight – what option do we have?”
So, what do you guys think of this? Not something I had considered or thought about when news of western jihadis came to light. Not sure what I think yet.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.
Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College said his department has been in contact with a number of British jihadists who want to come back to the UK but fear being jailed.
He said the Government should set up a “deradicalisation programme” for those willing former jihadis, echoing calls by Labour leader Ed Miliband who last month suggested a mandatory programme of deradicalisation for those involved on the fringes of Islamic State.
Professor Neumann, who works at the university’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, told The Times: “The people we have been talking to … want to quit but feel trapped because all the Government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”
One jihadist, claiming to represent 30 others, has contacted the university in the past fortnight to say there is a feeling of disillusionment, as some who travelled to fight against President Assad’s regime in Syria are instead being forced to get involved in fighting among rebel groups.
He said: “It’s not what we came for but if we go back (to Britain) we will go to jail. Right now, we are being forced to fight – what option do we have?”
So, what do you guys think of this? Not something I had considered or thought about when news of western jihadis came to light. Not sure what I think yet.
I certainly wouldn't trust these people coming back. I think 30 years in prison is a gift to these people if they truly want to stop fighting. Making a decision to fight for a terrorist organization isn't one of those decisions that can be easily remedied. To me, 30 years in prison is a gift versus being forced to stay in a war zone. I don't know why any sympathy is owed to these individuals.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
rr, I'm eager to hear your response to Drowned Out's comment above.
It would be so nice to believe that we in the Western world could aspire to halt regional injustices and atrocities without a hidden agenda. Since you've stated that an understanding of the 'basics' is enough to support or oppose intervention, the 'basics' seem very transparent and far from ambiguous: we witness and amplify the significance of a threat (not dissimilar to your statement that ISIS poses a threat not only to Iraq, not only to the Middle East, but as far as Europe and the US as well), we use it as pretext to invade with the behind-the-scenes objective of maintaining or attaining control over lucrative industries such as oil by weakening governing bodies, we 'fear' the loss of that control as regional sectarian powers begin to rise as they witness inherent injustices, we wait until their observations lead to frustration and anger and turn into actionable radicalism, and then we use that as a brand new pretext for invasion or intervention.
If I believed the goals of Western powers were noble and in the interest of humanity at large, I would agree with you and would fully support our intervention. But history presents a contrary story, and at what point do we adamantly refuse to support this horrific cycle where costs of war are measured in dollars (or, more appropriately, billions or trillions of dollars) and not lives?
Setting aside what could be considered a conspiracy that the almighty dollar governs Western powers' decisions, it is impossibly hard to deny the fallacious rhetoric as provided by Western media that we must destroy ____ to bring stability to a region. That is a perfect example of circular logic: the regional powers exist as a byproduct of self-serving interventionist actions, and are used to justify self-serving interventionist actions. So while we may not be supporting ISIS by entering the region to destroy them, it seems to me that we are supporting the creation of their inevitable replacement.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
So how come countries in the region don't deal with ISIS?
It does say that they want Sunni majority nations to help the cause....
….I’m glad to see that they want to follow the money trail to fight the IS.....makes sense and looking for support from Sunni-majority nations shows at least some modicum of forethought….but I have my doubts that this is anything more than lip service considering it is Sunni majority nations that are the source of funding they want to go after… NATO is increasingly becoming world police. They recently announced that they’re stockpiling weapons in Poland, putting together a multi-national force ready for quick response against Russia, and planning massive war games to prepare….who knows if this is just old-school cold war posturing, or if they are actually planning for something big happening. Russia hasn’t shown aggression to justify this buildup. Seems like NATO is getting ready for some serious shit on a couple of different fronts.
I find it concerning that every single article or video segment I see about the IS recently makes mention of these radicalized western citizens coming home. It seems like this has just become a ‘thing’ over the last couple of weeks, when fighting in Syria and Iraq has been going on for years now, and the IS in Iraq issue has gone on for a few months. Did all these westerners just jump on board in the last few weeks? Doesn’t make sense to me. Why is this being tagged to every story now? Hate to use Alex Jones terminology……but I feel like we’re being set up for a ‘false flag’…..Maybe I’m just paranoid….the 9/11 anniversary coming up never helps….but there are a few recent news reports that make me concerned about a new ‘terror attack’ (false flag?) on the West: - 11 commercial jets missing in Libya….been missing for weeks (months?), but we just heard about it when rebels posted pics online of them standing on one of the planes. - A container of cesium 137 went missing in Kazakhstan a week or so ago. Fell off a truck. Ok. - On Sept.10 there is a net neutrality protest planned….the idea is to slow the internet down to the point that it will give everyone a taste of what it will be like to use a two-tiered system….I don’t know much about this, but imagine the amount of suspicious shit that could be covered up by, or blamed on internet failure, during a terror attack?
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road. I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable. I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away. Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen. And I am aware of the money trail here.
Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road. I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable. I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away. Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen. And I am aware of the money trail here.
Not a problem, rr!
Honestly, I'm not sure that since the inception of the era of modern globalization (and by that I mean it takes us hours, and not days, weeks, or months to get halfway around the world) that we've opted not to intervene in global conflicts which we have interests in. Because of this, there is sparse information to suggest what will come of a hands-off approach. There are, however, mountains of evidence which suggest what will come of a hands-on (or hands-in) approach: we've all seen the outcome, and it's not pretty.
To be completely frank, I believe that Western leadership betrays its own people when it neglects to consider the certainty of retribution from negatively affected parties, as it deploys its militaristic forces abroad and fights for its own economic interests. I think now is a time to enter the unknown and let this play out like it used to: without our meddling.
As far as your comment about political suicide: maybe we need to embrace one-term maximums, because as I've stated too many times to count here - if people are acting in ways that serve anything but our innate humanistic tendencies, they ought to reconsider. Fuck political suicide, the people we surrender our voices to ought to be thinking about lives and quality of lives as imperative to protect - independent of political boundaries. I refuse to believe that any other metric comes close in its significance.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Ben,been out all weekend sorry for late response.I don't disagree with you and Drowned Out on this being a circular situation,and I agree the actions we impose now in the region will most likely bite us in the ass a little down the road. I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable. I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away. Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen. And I am aware of the money trail here.
Not a problem, rr!
Honestly, I'm not sure that since the inception of the era of modern globalization (and by that I mean it takes us hours, and not days, weeks, or months to get halfway around the world) that we've opted not to intervene in global conflicts which we have interests in. Because of this, there is sparse information to suggest what will come of a hands-off approach. There are, however, mountains of evidence which suggest what will come of a hands-on (or hands-in) approach: we've all seen the outcome, and it's not pretty.
To be completely frank, I believe that Western leadership betrays its own people when it neglects to consider the certainty of retribution from negatively affected parties, as it deploys its militaristic forces abroad and fights for its own economic interests. I think now is a time to enter the unknown and let this play out like it used to: without our meddling.
As far as your comment about political suicide: maybe we need to embrace one-term maximums, because as I've stated too many times to count here - if people are acting in ways that serve anything but our innate humanistic tendencies, they ought to reconsider. Fuck political suicide, the people we surrender our voices to ought to be thinking about lives and quality of lives as imperative to protect - independent of political boundaries. I refuse to believe that any other metric comes close in its significance.
I'm all for one term max.Always thought it would fix a lot of the bs,and put people back in control.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,379
Someone remind what our "interests" here are again? National security type or corporate?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
President Barack Obama plans to address the nation on the threat posed by ISIS extremists -- telling NBC News the U.S. will “hunt down" the terrorists "wherever they are.”
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
My point is that withdrawal and decreasing involvement were small spikes in a long timeline of imperialist actions that resulted in the IS....it definitely isn't the starting/failing point.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what is driving his decisions. I think he's steered by the MIC; intelligence agencies, and the pentagon, more than any polls, when it comes to foreign policy...hell, he's more influenced by Israel on FP than the public. And it's corp interests on domestic policy. I think very few political decisions are made based on public opinion. Blaming Obama is wasted energy. I don't say that because I think he's any better or worse than any puppet before or after him.
Have to laugh at the line in idris's link, in which Obama says he will work with Syrian rebels to fight the IS. Is that not where the bulk of the IS came from? Turkey has catalogued arms confiscated from the IS and found that much of it was destined for the FSA. The never ending war on terror; fighting ourselves.
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
it is as much a result of our presence as it is a result of our withdrawal.
t is as much a result of our presence as it is a result of our withdrawal.
Yup. And increased presence means increased recruitment for the IS. People seem to forget that Obama didn't withdraw voluntarily; Iraqis voted against an extension to the occupation and made the US leave.
Hasn't every single intervention in the region shown that it will get worse WITH our involvement?? The only difference is tax dollars spent and whose lives are lost. I value all lives the same, but I don't support shipping lives around the world to be lost in conflicts that don't involve them. In addition, our depleted uranium shells will kill more innocent children than IS ever will, or even could. Have you not seen birth defect and cancer rates from Baghdad?
Here's the problem - use Saddam Hussein as an example - he was keeping all the "bad guys" in check (so to speak). But, he was slaughtering his own citizens to do so. So, we just let him run amok, so that the other bad guys are "kept in check?" I'm not saying he was directly related to this, just making a point. Decisions are not so easy. Do we get the bad guy we know, or leave him and decide on balance his atrocities are better (ha, ha) than the atrocities we MAY be left with if we allow him to keep the ones we don't know about in check? (And is that really the end result, or do they just end up doing his bidding in some way, shape or form?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
Again....this post makes it sound like a foregone conclusion that US interests trump the interests of the actual residents of the area - you didn't mention them once. Do WE get the bad guy WE know.....the atrocities WE may be left with if WE allow him.... what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I'm not saying we should have done anything to Hussein. I was just posing the issue. And, it's not an easy decision.
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
) First time I've ever been accused of presidential thinking..... The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle. So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission. After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention? Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
What I was saying is - up until this point he has made no choices. Now he's making a choice b/c it's so damned obvious what public perception is (given the beheadings). He is a leader with no leadership qualities. He is a product of our culture - do what the polls tell you to do. That is no way to lead. These are tough decisions. Leaders make them and don't wait for the repercussions of their indecision.
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
It's all propaganda. Fkn news is blowing this shit up to enrage the masses.
And it's working. Sky is falling. Sky is falling. Arab countries need to take care of this. It's not our job to fix the world.
To blame Obama is nuts. The hate was created long ago.
Obama is giving a speech tonight on his strategy to defeat ISIS ... is it wise to just tell the world, including ISIS, what said strategy is?
Political talk. The republicans salivate every time another beheading happens so Obama's gotta counter to keep the sheep corralled in his pen versus getting all scared and running towards the wolves(corporations/republicans).
Here's the strategy : air strikes including going into Syria, build Iraqi capabilities, no American boots on the ground(wink wink).
He'll talk tough saying how grave ISIS is so dems don't look weak.
All really sad. Media is so effective at getting the sheep to shudder. Those evil doers. Killers. Ewwwwww. Run hide in central USA.
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There was a time that people in the west didn't want the US to be world police, and even those who supported 'intervention' dismissed each individual case of aggression as unique and justified. These days it seems like the prevailing attitude accepts this role and the argument is more about aid vs drones vs air strikes vs ground troops, and whether the US acts alone or as part of a coalition. I guess we've just accepted, for some subconsciously, that our 'interests' in these regions, and our fear of (some) extremist religions, justify our involvement in ANY foreign country. Fuck yeah.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/british-jihadists-want-to-come-home-after-regretting-going-to-fight-for-is-9713427.html
Mark Blunden
Published: 05 September 2014
Updated: 16:49, 06 September 2014
British jihadi fighters have contacted a London university to say they regret travelling to Syria and Iraq to join Islamist fundamentalists.
Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College said his department has been in contact with a number of British jihadists who want to come back to the UK but fear being jailed.
He said the Government should set up a “deradicalisation programme” for those willing former jihadis, echoing calls by Labour leader Ed Miliband who last month suggested a mandatory programme of deradicalisation for those involved on the fringes of Islamic State.
Professor Neumann, who works at the university’s International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence, told The Times: “The people we have been talking to … want to quit but feel trapped because all the Government is talking about is locking them up for 30 years.”
One jihadist, claiming to represent 30 others, has contacted the university in the past fortnight to say there is a feeling of disillusionment, as some who travelled to fight against President Assad’s regime in Syria are instead being forced to get involved in fighting among rebel groups.
He said: “It’s not what we came for but if we go back (to Britain) we will go to jail. Right now, we are being forced to fight – what option do we have?”
So, what do you guys think of this? Not something I had considered or thought about when news of western jihadis came to light. Not sure what I think yet.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
http://www.freep.com/article/20140905/NEWS07/309050189/NATO-Islamic-State-Iraq
So how come countries in the region don't deal with ISIS?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/09/05/islams-theology-of-life-is-stronger-than-isis-cult-of-death/?sr=sharebar_facebook
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
It would be so nice to believe that we in the Western world could aspire to halt regional injustices and atrocities without a hidden agenda. Since you've stated that an understanding of the 'basics' is enough to support or oppose intervention, the 'basics' seem very transparent and far from ambiguous: we witness and amplify the significance of a threat (not dissimilar to your statement that ISIS poses a threat not only to Iraq, not only to the Middle East, but as far as Europe and the US as well), we use it as pretext to invade with the behind-the-scenes objective of maintaining or attaining control over lucrative industries such as oil by weakening governing bodies, we 'fear' the loss of that control as regional sectarian powers begin to rise as they witness inherent injustices, we wait until their observations lead to frustration and anger and turn into actionable radicalism, and then we use that as a brand new pretext for invasion or intervention.
If I believed the goals of Western powers were noble and in the interest of humanity at large, I would agree with you and would fully support our intervention. But history presents a contrary story, and at what point do we adamantly refuse to support this horrific cycle where costs of war are measured in dollars (or, more appropriately, billions or trillions of dollars) and not lives?
Setting aside what could be considered a conspiracy that the almighty dollar governs Western powers' decisions, it is impossibly hard to deny the fallacious rhetoric as provided by Western media that we must destroy ____ to bring stability to a region. That is a perfect example of circular logic: the regional powers exist as a byproduct of self-serving interventionist actions, and are used to justify self-serving interventionist actions. So while we may not be supporting ISIS by entering the region to destroy them, it seems to me that we are supporting the creation of their inevitable replacement.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
….I’m glad to see that they want to follow the money trail to fight the IS.....makes sense and looking for support from Sunni-majority nations shows at least some modicum of forethought….but I have my doubts that this is anything more than lip service considering it is Sunni majority nations that are the source of funding they want to go after…
NATO is increasingly becoming world police. They recently announced that they’re stockpiling weapons in Poland, putting together a multi-national force ready for quick response against Russia, and planning massive war games to prepare….who knows if this is just old-school cold war posturing, or if they are actually planning for something big happening. Russia hasn’t shown aggression to justify this buildup. Seems like NATO is getting ready for some serious shit on a couple of different fronts.
I find it concerning that every single article or video segment I see about the IS recently makes mention of these radicalized western citizens coming home. It seems like this has just become a ‘thing’ over the last couple of weeks, when fighting in Syria and Iraq has been going on for years now, and the IS in Iraq issue has gone on for a few months. Did all these westerners just jump on board in the last few weeks? Doesn’t make sense to me. Why is this being tagged to every story now? Hate to use Alex Jones terminology……but I feel like we’re being set up for a ‘false flag’…..Maybe I’m just paranoid….the 9/11 anniversary coming up never helps….but there are a few recent news reports that make me concerned about a new ‘terror attack’ (false flag?) on the West:
- 11 commercial jets missing in Libya….been missing for weeks (months?), but we just heard about it when rebels posted pics online of them standing on one of the planes.
- A container of cesium 137 went missing in Kazakhstan a week or so ago. Fell off a truck. Ok.
- On Sept.10 there is a net neutrality protest planned….the idea is to slow the internet down to the point that it will give everyone a taste of what it will be like to use a two-tiered system….I don’t know much about this, but imagine the amount of suspicious shit that could be covered up by, or blamed on internet failure, during a terror attack?
Obama has taken the tact of NOT making decision so he doesn't get a bad rap. Personally, I'd rather have a leader that is willing to make decisions than one that is worried about what others might think of him. It's obvious this board prefers the opposite - inaction over action - you can't be blamed if you don't make a choice (though by NOT making a choice, as Neil Pert would say - you have, in fact, made a choice).
what gives you the right to play god in the region? Fixing your past fuck ups? Remember the US built Saddam up, provided him with the means to take out his own citizens..then when he no longer served a purpose, we took him down. Al Qaeda, same shit. Maliki, same shit. The IS, same shit. When does it end? We just keep putting the evil we know in power, then taking them out because we're too stupid to figure out another way? I don't buy it. It's intentional.
I also think that the snippets we see on the evening news of Americans getting their domes lopped off bring this to the forefront for the American public and put our politicians in a position where we demand they do something.It would be political suicide not too.So the issue really is what response is justified and will the future repercussions be tolerable.
I don't think the west is 100% to blame for the formation of these groups.In fighting between sects,Power hungry megalomaniacs, and just plain greed also come to play.I do get what you guys are saying but a hands off approach is not going to make them go away.
Although this "terrorist group of the moment" has not yet started attacks against civilians in big population centers of Europe and here in the states,I do fear they are not far off and that's what we don't want to see happen.
And I am aware of the money trail here.
Honestly, I'm not sure that since the inception of the era of modern globalization (and by that I mean it takes us hours, and not days, weeks, or months to get halfway around the world) that we've opted not to intervene in global conflicts which we have interests in. Because of this, there is sparse information to suggest what will come of a hands-off approach. There are, however, mountains of evidence which suggest what will come of a hands-on (or hands-in) approach: we've all seen the outcome, and it's not pretty.
To be completely frank, I believe that Western leadership betrays its own people when it neglects to consider the certainty of retribution from negatively affected parties, as it deploys its militaristic forces abroad and fights for its own economic interests. I think now is a time to enter the unknown and let this play out like it used to: without our meddling.
As far as your comment about political suicide: maybe we need to embrace one-term maximums, because as I've stated too many times to count here - if people are acting in ways that serve anything but our innate humanistic tendencies, they ought to reconsider. Fuck political suicide, the people we surrender our voices to ought to be thinking about lives and quality of lives as imperative to protect - independent of political boundaries. I refuse to believe that any other metric comes close in its significance.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
As for the playing god argument - there are impacts to us of what happens in other parts of the world.
Is that you, Barack?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/exclusive-obama-deliver-major-address-isis-vows-hunt-down-extremists-n197456
The thing is, with Hussein....as you say, he kept a lid on things....but he kept a lid on things because of our funding and support. Who knows what the country/region would be like now without our meddling. Our involvement has always tipped the balance of power to whichever side we want it to. They could have found their way to lasting peace decades ago if we'd been honest trade partners and not overlords.
People call for regional governments to get involved....but when they say that, of course they mean only OUR allies. If it was Iran or Syria or Russia who went in to Iraq to stop ISIS, would everyone (anyone?) be ok with that?
Terror and economics are the IS's only potential direct impacts on us, right? Terrorist groups can't be stopped with bombs and armies. The collateral damage and the degraded standard of living will always continue that cycle.
So ultimately, consciously or not, we support our govt's actions because we don't want our lifestyles disrupted by the economic impacts of destabilization in our resource supply chain. There is nothing altruistic about that...in fact it's immoral and disgusting....but at least youre not trying to sell me on a humanitarian mission.
After reading idris's article, it appears you and obomba are pretty much on the same page....happy days!
Edit: ok maybe not the same page. Reading into your comments. I assume you support intervention?
Re-reading your post....(this goes with what I was saying earlier)...were you inferring that that Obama was not making a choice if he decides not to intervene? What were his choices, then? Aid, drones, air strikes, or ground forces? Declining to intervene (inaction as you derogatorily put it), is not even an option any longer?
I am not supporting one way or the other at this time. I do think it's too little too late (so I guess I am an interventionalist in general). What I will say is our withdrawal and decreasing involvement has resulted in this.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what is driving his decisions. I think he's steered by the MIC; intelligence agencies, and the pentagon, more than any polls, when it comes to foreign policy...hell, he's more influenced by Israel on FP than the public. And it's corp interests on domestic policy. I think very few political decisions are made based on public opinion. Blaming Obama is wasted energy. I don't say that because I think he's any better or worse than any puppet before or after him.
Have to laugh at the line in idris's link, in which Obama says he will work with Syrian rebels to fight the IS. Is that not where the bulk of the IS came from? Turkey has catalogued arms confiscated from the IS and found that much of it was destined for the FSA. The never ending war on terror; fighting ourselves.
TV talk. "Taking over". "Strict Sharia law". "Islamic state". Gads. What will we do.
Republicans are drooling.
They're just humans people. Yeah they suck but aren't freakin zombies with superhuman powers.
Fuck.
And it's working. Sky is falling. Sky is falling. Arab countries need to take care of this. It's not our job to fix the world.
To blame Obama is nuts. The hate was created long ago.
Here's the strategy : air strikes including going into Syria, build Iraqi capabilities, no American boots on the ground(wink wink).
He'll talk tough saying how grave ISIS is so dems don't look weak.
All really sad. Media is so effective at getting the sheep to shudder. Those evil doers. Killers. Ewwwwww. Run hide in central USA.