yep,
Loved this band when they first came out. That burning guy on the cover for some reason made me buy the tape. Listened to it and was hooked. What a great band.
A Vietnamese Buddhist monk, burning himself to death in Saigon in 1963 in protest of the murder of Buddhists by the US-backed Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem's regime
Ben's comment: Assad the right person to lead a vendetta against ISIS? I truthfully don't know, because it's so very evident that, with the exception of Israel, there isn't a single country in the Middle East granted global consent for the right to govern their own regions
Is the root of it all.
Sounds like you're promoting humanitarian war in Iraq, bs? Do you support regime change in Syria? If so, by what means?
you mention our partnerships with horrible regimes in the past tense.... what makes you think we are not still doing so? Stating plainly that you're ignoring historical context, then saying I'M missing the point? Lulz
You haven't said a word about our complicity, direct or by proxy, in the rise of Isis, nor commented on whether there are other benefactors of their atrocities. One more Q. Have you read today's headlines about Saudi arabia's new king, and his ties to al Qaeda? What's your take on how to deal with that?
i gotta say i am a little worried that you guys are missing what is happening here.
i feel like collectively, as a country, we have learned nothing from iraq.
don't you see? they are trying to drum up support to have the american people consent to sending in our troops to get sucked into a broader regional conflict. isis is doing the most heinous actions because they know that america, who, no offense, is not hardcore enough to stomach burning prisoners alive. look at the responses of those who watched the video. it was horrible, and it has sickened some, and made all agree that somebody needs to do something. they know that we think we are morally superior to every other country and every other religion, that we would be arrogant enough (again) to invade the lands where isis are right now.
why did fox news show the video?
because fox news was the biggest cheerleader in making the case to go into iraq. fox news is the highest rated network in prime time cable news. that means it is on more televisions than any other network and is reaching the largest number of viewers and it is making a case that "somebody has to do something.....you know....the usa...."
why did cnn, msnbc, cbs, nbc, et al not show the video? because they did not want to elicit an emotional response from the american people to support going to war again without thinking in the long term.
isis is not an american problem.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
What I find odd is that a 15 year old Palestinian boy was burned alive just last summer and it didn't generate as much publicity as this soldiers. That's odd.
the guardian covered it.
so did haaretz.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I am promoting engagement in a war that is already taking place and engagement in a war that the US coalition began but never finished. Throw the responibility for what's going on below wherever you want. I don't really care. I'm for stopping it.
100,000 - 300,000 troops in Iraq now. Pacify it to the 2009 levels using the surge playbook. Annhilate isis, support iraqi government and establish permanent base similar to that in germany and/or japan. People hate the concept of permanent basing but without it a local population will never trust in their security. To quote Bin Laden "people will follow the strong horse". From there the coalition and allied locals will have full access to every neighbouring country and can proceed as necessary. Saudi Arabi can choose at that point to fund extremists or to turn on them. In all likelihood the saudis will turn on their extremists once non-coalition withdrawal is guaranteed. I believe qatar, uae and jordan will do the same. I fully recognize that these countries perpetrate their own injustices and have even benefited from Isis but with time and pressure they will slowly modernize on their own as a free Iraq on their border will be far too contagious. Not every one of these countries must have their goverment overthrown but this can be reevaluated based on levels of cooperation. Syria however is a different story. Free Syrian forces can be vetted and can use iraq for basing under the protection of the coalition. Coalition airpower, firepower and special forces as necessary can help defeat isis and overthrow assad. At the same time the coalition in the south can renew support for the green revolution in Iran. That was the biggest missed opportunity of the last few years but I believe an Iran without the Ayatollah is both achievable and necessary.
None of the above will be easy. Lives will be lost. Money will be spent. Unfortunately that is what's requires to win a war.
I am promoting engagement in a war that is already taking place and engagement in a war that the US coalition began but never finished. Throw the responibility for what's going on below wherever you want. I don't really care. I'm for stopping it.
100,000 - 300,000 troops in Iraq now. Pacify it to the 2009 levels using the surge playbook. Annhilate isis, support iraqi government and establish permanent base similar to that in germany and/or japan. People hate the concept of permanent basing but without it a local population will never trust in their security. To quote Bin Laden "people will follow the strong horse". From there the coalition and allied locals will have full access to every neighbouring country and can proceed as necessary. Saudi Arabi can choose at that point to fund extremists or to turn on them. In all likelihood the saudis will turn on their extremists once non-coalition withdrawal is guaranteed. I believe qatar, uae and jordan will do the same. I fully recognize that these countries perpetrate their own injustices and have even benefited from Isis but with time and pressure they will slowly modernize on their own as a free Iraq on their border will be far too contagious. Not every one of these countries must have their goverment overthrown but this can be reevaluated based on levels of cooperation. Syria however is a different story. Free Syrian forces can be vetted and can use iraq for basing under the protection of the coalition. Coalition airpower, firepower and special forces as necessary can help defeat isis and overthrow assad. At the same time the coalition in the south can renew support for the green revolution in Iran. That was the biggest missed opportunity of the last few years but I believe an Iran without the Ayatollah is both achievable and necessary.
None of the above will be easy. Lives will be lost. Money will be spent. Unfortunately that is what's requires to win a war.
are they an immediate threat to you?
how about we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries for once?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Amazed to see people here suggesting that ISIS are not a threat to us all. Its hardly a secret, these nutjobs have a severe dislike for the western world, left unchecked do you really think they will want to expand their numbers, and their borders just to live in peace away from us and never bother us again? I see they would want to strengthen, impose themselves, and one day become dominant.......when will they have enough land? when will their caliphate be big enough?
Im firmly in the we need to deal with this vermin before they become capable of far more horrific things. Im not generalising either, I really believe this filth left unchecked would be a massive headache in the future. After all we have all heard their aims?
My only hope is the armies of the middle east deal with them, perhaps with our help with strategy etc, and then as some have said the west are not to blame for the death of these people and just maybe there will not be a next generation.
But that leads me back to a question I asked a few days ago, what on earth do you do with the kids who have been trained to slit throats and have actually done so???? Im asking because I haven't a clue.
After Bs post I could feel Drowned was ready to pounce.Well either him or Fuck.But I new the rebuttal was coming.
BB,Drowned, So if Assad takes that path then who reigns him in after?
Glad my convictions are predictable lol
Reigns him in? You make it sound as if he has imperialist aspirations.
If you're talking about brutality toward his own people....you better start a laundry list of countries to 'reign in'
ah that makes that all fine then......lets just let him get on with it and forget the hope for a better more just world one day. Yes these are not our countries, and not our people, but Assad has an horrendous record against his own people in cementing his own power over them. Basically hes a monster, and whilst there are others out there, it doesn't mean we should suddenly retreat and back him.
Some here believe his statements that he would crush IS within 3 days if he was supported by border closures etc, (I Believe that is nothing but a blatant attempt to garner support on the back of international outrage), and I for one don't think theres a cat in hells chance he could do so, but supposing we do allow him to, doesn't that taker Syria back to square one? being led by a nasty indulgent monster with a cretinous human rights record? Its nothing to do with imperialist aspirations. Its everything to do with living in a more humanitarian focused world. Its probably never going to happen, but does that mean no one can try? or do we just look the other way, because theres loads of others doing it?
After Bs post I could feel Drowned was ready to pounce.Well either him or Fuck.But I new the rebuttal was coming.
BB,Drowned, So if Assad takes that path then who reigns him in after?
Glad my convictions are predictable lol
Reigns him in? You make it sound as if he has imperialist aspirations.
If you're talking about brutality toward his own people....you better start a laundry list of countries to 'reign in'
True and we all see the vacuum of power this can leave.Slippery slope indeed.
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
Those who died are justified, for wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
You justify those that died by wearing the badge, they're the chosen whites
So now that everyone seems to agree isis needs to be wiped out in any way shape or form can we put 100,000 - 300,000 coalition troops back into Iraq to support the small american and canadian contingent? We can start there and then work our way through Syria, Libya etc. as necessary. I have been arguing for this for a little while and I'm glad most of you no longer see the defeat of isis as a big lie on the path to western imperialism.
Sorry to disappoint, but I'm still here, and this is not unanimous.
I guess maybe Jordan shouldn't have been providing bases for US soldiers (mercenaries?) to train ISIS militants for the last few years? Or should we call it the FSA since they're fighting Assad? As bb has pointed out - Assad knows his army could destroy the IS if it's supply routes were cut off.
The uprising there has gone on for years now - it is obvious to anyone with a brain that the IS have received a shitload of reinforcements and additional arms from outside the country. It's been claimed since the beginning that Jordan, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia are ALL involved in arming, training, and funding ISIS. Joe Biden openly stated this recently - specifically fingering Turkey.
These countries are allies of the US. So....why do we not see some kind of trade leverage (or at least threats of trade leverage) used to tell them to stop funding/training the IS? What is the impetus behind mere words against these allies, and NO action? Could it be that the IS is in some way achieving goals that the US does not want publicized? Finding conclusive proof of this may not be possible, but former intelligence officers, journalists (both domestic and international), foreign politicians, even IS members themselves have gone on record saying they have knowledge of the US / NATO manipulating both sides of the IS conflict. "accidental" supply/arms drops to the IS in Iraq. "mistakenly" arming groups who almost immediately defected to the IS. Photographic proof of IS reinforcements crossing the Turkey/Syria border in 'aid' trucks. Some of this may be wild-eyed theory, but where there is smoke, there's fire.
I have spoken about western / allied involvement with the IS on this board many times, with little feedback one way or the other...what do you say to these claims, BS? Talk to me about the contradiction of not allowing Assad a fair chance against them, when Syria is the country most able and likely to 'wipe them out', as everyone seems to think is the west's intent? Why is there no talk of 'the lesser of two evils' when it comes to Assad and the IS?
What remains to be seen is what Jordan's role in all of this will be moving forward. Such a fucking mess trying to decipher who is allied with who here, as it seems to change depending on which country we are talking about fighting ISIS in. One thing I do know is that Jordan is a middle eastern US client state.. So ya....not going to back your suggestion of NATO troops on the ground when we can't even figure out who the fucking enemy is, and have done nothing to solve the problem economically nor diplomatically.
This is why Jordan's involvement and anger is a possible turning point,IMO.You have a Muslim based country getting busy.I think this at least adds to the thought that the USA/West isn't just nation building or bombing for oil as many here think.
oooorrrrrr maybe that perception is the whole point to them getting involved. I did mention that they're a US client state, right? I've seen a ton of 'muslim nations furious' headlines in western media today.....would western support for further troop build ups in the middle east not rise if it was believed (whether true or not) that middle eastern countries were looking for help? Has this not been part of the war drum rhythm from the start - Iraq asked for our help against the IS, so by god, we will do our part to help Iraq....it's the least we can do. Right? No question of ulterior motive - its a humanitarian war.
All I know is that people are way too reactionary when it comes to supporting war. Every incident has a bunch of people calling for violent reprisal. We think we have all the facts a day later, and most of the people calling for war have never looked at a perspective outside their fav news channel.
Hmmm,the term war is so blurry now.I still think of WW2 or Nam.Now it's like a muddy mess of former friends are now enemies and vice versa.Those we fight don't wear uniforms or have borders.Support for the lessor of the evils presented is the path of least resistance.
It really is coming down to those who support tolerance and freedoms and those who don't.
Saw a comment about Obama's pullout of Iraq. Ummmm NO. Obama's follow through on a signed Status of Forces agreement from the previous Administration and the US installed Iraqi President related to who would have legal jurisdiction of US soldiers had we stayed. Lets keep the facts please.
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
They were in the process of negotiating a new status of forces agreement. Obama did not get that done and most likely did not want it done. If Obama had it as a priority to stay then they could have stayed. He was against the invasion and thought the troops should come home. Fair enough but this mess is a direct outcome of his willigness to withdraw. If people want to claim the initial invasion was stupid I'm absolutely ok with that but the far larger crime was to leave and let it degenerate into this horror.
Amazed to see people here suggesting that ISIS are not a threat to us all. Its hardly a secret, these nutjobs have a severe dislike for the western world, left unchecked do you really think they will want to expand their numbers, and their borders just to live in peace away from us and never bother us again? I see they would want to strengthen, impose themselves, and one day become dominant.......when will they have enough land? when will their caliphate be big enough?
Im firmly in the we need to deal with this vermin before they become capable of far more horrific things. Im not generalising either, I really believe this filth left unchecked would be a massive headache in the future. After all we have all heard their aims?
My only hope is the armies of the middle east deal with them, perhaps with our help with strategy etc, and then as some have said the west are not to blame for the death of these people and just maybe there will not be a next generation.
But that leads me back to a question I asked a few days ago, what on earth do you do with the kids who have been trained to slit throats and have actually done so???? Im asking because I haven't a clue.
They are a fast growing cancer. Worst thing since that one group in 1930's Germany started to pick up steam. Thankfully, they don't have a good background in engineering or fashion.
They were in the process of negotiating a new status of forces agreement. Obama did not get that done and most likely did not want it done. If Obama had it as a priority to stay then they could have stayed. He was against the invasion and thought the troops should come home. Fair enough but this mess is a direct outcome of his willigness to withdraw. If people want to claim the initial invasion was stupid I'm absolutely ok with that but the far larger crime was to leave and let it degenerate into this horror.
Agree.His Foriegn policy in regards Syria,Libya,And pretty much all of N.Africa and Iraq has been pretty weak.We no doubt have helped create this nonsense.And not just by our actions but our inactions and failure to get dirty when needed.
BS is basically plotting world domination like some b movie villain. The IS has no navy. No Air Force. No nukes. The only [i]immediate[/i] threat they pose to you is loss of hegemony, (unchallenged power and the money flows from that), and isolated (yet likely increasing), terror attacks. The latter of which would probably cease to happen if some of us weren't so obsessed with the former - or blind to the fact that the former is the basis of our actions. The 'savages' can't be left to figure this out... Nope, we're going to continue to re-draw maps as we see fit, as suits our ambitions, consequence for the locals be damned. It's 'our' re-drawing of maps, without much local input, that has led to much of the modern conflict we see there today. So again - history repeats.
To those who fear the spread and ambition of ISIS - what kind of support do you think they would have, esp in regards to attacking the west, if we removed the political motivation? Yes, there may still be a fraction of people 'over there' who would still support using extremist tactics, and twisted versions of religion for control - we can't overcome that there nor here...but I think the IS would lose any popular support they may have if we stopped playing the divide and conquer game and allowed the people in these countries to get back to normal lives. That is, unless you guys believe they hate us for our freedoms and our lifestyles, and not for bombing them repeatedly for decades.
Before we start singing the humanitarian song again, let's head over to the boko haram thread, shall we? 'just because there are others committing atrocities doesn't mean we should do nothing'. We have ZERO moral ground from which to play saviour. We are (rightfully) not trusted and our military involvement will only make things worse. Also - Rr is right about the power vacuum. We oust Assad, a guy who keeps sectarian strife in check, and then what? The same thing that happened in Iraq when we took out the guy who kept sectarian strife in check there. That is how we (deliberately) created this mess in the first place. But lets go trample the current order without a plan (other than the permanent occupation/war BS is calling for) and hope for the best.
Basically, people in this thread are calling for the Bush doctrine to be made eternal - not only against ISIS, but against Assad and any other leader who we deem unworthy by our standards - in order to bring in an order that we DO deem worthy by our standards. I won't argue that our standards may seem more tolerant and righteous (at least on the surface), but again - historical context. We sit here and lament the mistakes we made in Iraq and so many other conflicts, with the benefit of hindsight....we accuse the former administration of ulterior motive, and the media of being lap dogs and helping to mislead the public...yet we somehow think this time is different. From an Iraqi or Syrian point of view - would you accept a leader installed and endorsed by the world power you have seen as your oppressor for decades? Would an American accept this in their own country? Of course not. Why the double standard? because we are exceptional. We are the shining light, the beacon of hope...and anyone who disagrees needs to be shown the light, by whatever means necessary. Same outlook invoked by every empire, every crusade, every megalomaniac....
Just victims of the in-house drive by.
They say jump, you say how high.
And...
No escape from the mass mind rape.
This band was waaaaay ahead of its time- no doubt why they are still relevant not having done much of anything for so long.
They broke up because Zach couldn't think of any more words that rhymed with "fire".
You've used this one here at least once or twice and now it pops in my head every time I listen to Rage... Sleep Now In the Fire now reminds me of you. aaaawwww
i gotta say i am a little worried that you guys are missing what is happening here.
i feel like collectively, as a country, we have learned nothing from iraq.
don't you see? they are trying to drum up support to have the american people consent to sending in our troops to get sucked into a broader regional conflict. isis is doing the most heinous actions because they know that america, who, no offense, is not hardcore enough to stomach burning prisoners alive. look at the responses of those who watched the video. it was horrible, and it has sickened some, and made all agree that somebody needs to do something. they know that we think we are morally superior to every other country and every other religion, that we would be arrogant enough (again) to invade the lands where isis are right now.
why did fox news show the video?
because fox news was the biggest cheerleader in making the case to go into iraq. fox news is the highest rated network in prime time cable news. that means it is on more televisions than any other network and is reaching the largest number of viewers and it is making a case that "somebody has to do something.....you know....the usa...."
why did cnn, msnbc, cbs, nbc, et al not show the video? because they did not want to elicit an emotional response from the american people to support going to war again without thinking in the long term.
isis is not an american problem.
This.
and...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
BS is basically plotting world domination like some b movie villain. The IS has no navy. No Air Force. No nukes. The only immediate threat they pose to you is loss of hegemony, (unchallenged power and the money flows from that), and isolated (yet likely increasing), terror attacks. The latter of which would probably cease to happen if some of us weren't so obsessed with the former - or blind to the fact that the former is the basis of our actions. The 'savages' can't be left to figure this out... Nope, we're going to continue to re-draw maps as we see fit, as suits our ambitions, consequence for the locals be damned. It's 'our' re-drawing of maps, without much local input, that has led to much of the modern conflict we see there today. So again - history repeats.
To those who fear the spread and ambition of ISIS - what kind of support do you think they would have, esp in regards to attacking the west, if we removed the political motivation? Yes, there may still be a fraction of people 'over there' who would still support using extremist tactics, and twisted versions of religion for control - we can't overcome that there nor here...but I think the IS would lose any popular support they may have if we stopped playing the divide and conquer game and allowed the people in these countries to get back to normal lives. That is, unless you guys believe they hate us for our freedoms and our lifestyles, and not for bombing them repeatedly for decades.
Before we start singing the humanitarian song again, let's head over to the boko haram thread, shall we? 'just because there are others committing atrocities doesn't mean we should do nothing'. We have ZERO moral ground from which to play saviour. We are (rightfully) not trusted and our military involvement will only make things worse. Also - Rr is right about the power vacuum. We oust Assad, a guy who keeps sectarian strife in check, and then what? The same thing that happened in Iraq when we took out the guy who kept sectarian strife in check there. That is how we (deliberately) created this mess in the first place. But lets go trample the current order without a plan (other than the permanent occupation/war BS is calling for) and hope for the best.
Basically, people in this thread are calling for the Bush doctrine to be made eternal - not only against ISIS, but against Assad and any other leader who we deem unworthy by our standards - in order to bring in an order that we DO deem worthy by our standards. I won't argue that our standards may seem more tolerant and righteous (at least on the surface), but again - historical context. We sit here and lament the mistakes we made in Iraq and so many other conflicts, with the benefit of hindsight....we accuse the former administration of ulterior motive, and the media of being lap dogs and helping to mislead the public...yet we somehow think this time is different. From an Iraqi or Syrian point of view - would you accept a leader installed and endorsed by the world power you have seen as your oppressor for decades? Would an American accept this in their own country? Of course not. Why the double standard? because we are exceptional. We are the shining light, the beacon of hope...and anyone who disagrees needs to be shown the light, by whatever means necessary. Same outlook invoked by every empire, every crusade, every megalomaniac....
...and this. Well said, gimmie and Drowned Out
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
""Since the Obama pullout a vacuum was left behind and the extremists flooded the zone as predicted. As many have said "The US got out of Iraq as hastily as they got into Iraq". ""
Where do you get your news BS44??? This is factually innacurate. Bush signed the withdrawal and Obama sought extension and was denied.
We're doing exactly what ISIS wants us to do…Terrorizing our own country. Thanks FOX NEWS.
"They put out the tape to cause people to want to engage in a permanent military conflict because so long as there is an international other that they can point to and say this is why your lives suck here, it's because America, it's because they're bombing us, that's why they put it out, and Fox News is putting it out so we will engage in that very military conflict." (5:00)
Comments
Loved this band when they first came out. That burning guy on the cover for some reason made me buy the tape. Listened to it and was hooked. What a great band.
A Vietnamese Buddhist monk, burning himself to death in Saigon in 1963 in protest of the murder of Buddhists by the US-backed Prime Minister Ngo Dinh Diem's regime
Assad the right person to lead a vendetta against ISIS? I truthfully don't know, because it's so very evident that, with the exception of Israel, there isn't a single country in the Middle East granted global consent for the right to govern their own regions
Is the root of it all.
Sounds like you're promoting humanitarian war in Iraq, bs?
Do you support regime change in Syria? If so, by what means?
you mention our partnerships with horrible regimes in the past tense.... what makes you think we are not still doing so? Stating plainly that you're ignoring historical context, then saying I'M missing the point? Lulz
You haven't said a word about our complicity, direct or by proxy, in the rise of Isis, nor commented on whether there are other benefactors of their atrocities.
One more Q. Have you read today's headlines about Saudi arabia's new king, and his ties to al Qaeda? What's your take on how to deal with that?
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/arab-world-unites-in-anger-after-burning-of-jordanian-pilot/ar-AA8ZmcO?ocid=mailsignoutmd
They say jump, you say how high.
And...
No escape from the mass mind rape.
This band was waaaaay ahead of its time- no doubt why they are still relevant not having done much of anything for so long.
i feel like collectively, as a country, we have learned nothing from iraq.
don't you see? they are trying to drum up support to have the american people consent to sending in our troops to get sucked into a broader regional conflict. isis is doing the most heinous actions because they know that america, who, no offense, is not hardcore enough to stomach burning prisoners alive. look at the responses of those who watched the video. it was horrible, and it has sickened some, and made all agree that somebody needs to do something. they know that we think we are morally superior to every other country and every other religion, that we would be arrogant enough (again) to invade the lands where isis are right now.
why did fox news show the video?
because fox news was the biggest cheerleader in making the case to go into iraq. fox news is the highest rated network in prime time cable news. that means it is on more televisions than any other network and is reaching the largest number of viewers and it is making a case that "somebody has to do something.....you know....the usa...."
why did cnn, msnbc, cbs, nbc, et al not show the video? because they did not want to elicit an emotional response from the american people to support going to war again without thinking in the long term.
isis is not an american problem.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
the guardian covered it.
so did haaretz.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN0L828E20150204?irpc=932
100,000 - 300,000 troops in Iraq now. Pacify it to the 2009 levels using the surge playbook. Annhilate isis, support iraqi government and establish permanent base similar to that in germany and/or japan. People hate the concept of permanent basing but without it a local population will never trust in their security. To quote Bin Laden "people will follow the strong horse". From there the coalition and allied locals will have full access to every neighbouring country and can proceed as necessary. Saudi Arabi can choose at that point to fund extremists or to turn on them. In all likelihood the saudis will turn on their extremists once non-coalition withdrawal is guaranteed. I believe qatar, uae and jordan will do the same. I fully recognize that these countries perpetrate their own injustices and have even benefited from Isis but with time and pressure they will slowly modernize on their own as a free Iraq on their border will be far too contagious. Not every one of these countries must have their goverment overthrown but this can be reevaluated based on levels of cooperation. Syria however is a different story. Free Syrian forces can be vetted and can use iraq for basing under the protection of the coalition. Coalition airpower, firepower and special forces as necessary can help defeat isis and overthrow assad. At the same time the coalition in the south can renew support for the green revolution in Iran. That was the biggest missed opportunity of the last few years but I believe an Iran without the Ayatollah is both achievable and necessary.
None of the above will be easy. Lives will be lost. Money will be spent. Unfortunately that is what's requires to win a war.
are they an immediate threat to you?
how about we stop meddling in the affairs of other countries for once?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I feel anyone who has a death punishment for apostasy and advocates it is a moral threat.
Particularly if another country vows to spread that belief.
Im firmly in the we need to deal with this vermin before they become capable of far more horrific things. Im not generalising either, I really believe this filth left unchecked would be a massive headache in the future. After all we have all heard their aims?
My only hope is the armies of the middle east deal with them, perhaps with our help with strategy etc, and then as some have said the west are not to blame for the death of these people and just maybe there will not be a next generation.
But that leads me back to a question I asked a few days ago, what on earth do you do with the kids who have been trained to slit throats and have actually done so???? Im asking because I haven't a clue.
ah that makes that all fine then......lets just let him get on with it and forget the hope for a better more just world one day. Yes these are not our countries, and not our people, but Assad has an horrendous record against his own people in cementing his own power over them. Basically hes a monster, and whilst there are others out there, it doesn't mean we should suddenly retreat and back him.
Some here believe his statements that he would crush IS within 3 days if he was supported by border closures etc, (I Believe that is nothing but a blatant attempt to garner support on the back of international outrage), and I for one don't think theres a cat in hells chance he could do so, but supposing we do allow him to, doesn't that taker Syria back to square one? being led by a nasty indulgent monster with a cretinous human rights record? Its nothing to do with imperialist aspirations. Its everything to do with living in a more humanitarian focused world. Its probably never going to happen, but does that mean no one can try? or do we just look the other way, because theres loads of others doing it?
True and we all see the vacuum of power this can leave.Slippery slope indeed.
Fuck you! I won't do what you tell me!
Hmmm,the term war is so blurry now.I still think of WW2 or Nam.Now it's like a muddy mess of former friends are now enemies and vice versa.Those we fight don't wear uniforms or have borders.Support for the lessor of the evils presented is the path of least resistance.
It really is coming down to those who support tolerance and freedoms and those who don't.
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
They broke up because Zach couldn't think of any more words that rhymed with "fire".
They are a fast growing cancer. Worst thing since that one group in 1930's Germany started to pick up steam. Thankfully, they don't have a good background in engineering or fashion.
Agree.His Foriegn policy in regards Syria,Libya,And pretty much all of N.Africa and Iraq has been pretty weak.We no doubt have helped create this nonsense.And not just by our actions but our inactions and failure to get dirty when needed.
To those who fear the spread and ambition of ISIS - what kind of support do you think they would have, esp in regards to attacking the west, if we removed the political motivation? Yes, there may still be a fraction of people 'over there' who would still support using extremist tactics, and twisted versions of religion for control - we can't overcome that there nor here...but I think the IS would lose any popular support they may have if we stopped playing the divide and conquer game and allowed the people in these countries to get back to normal lives. That is, unless you guys believe they hate us for our freedoms and our lifestyles, and not for bombing them repeatedly for decades.
Before we start singing the humanitarian song again, let's head over to the boko haram thread, shall we? 'just because there are others committing atrocities doesn't mean we should do nothing'. We have ZERO moral ground from which to play saviour. We are (rightfully) not trusted and our military involvement will only make things worse. Also - Rr is right about the power vacuum. We oust Assad, a guy who keeps sectarian strife in check, and then what? The same thing that happened in Iraq when we took out the guy who kept sectarian strife in check there. That is how we (deliberately) created this mess in the first place. But lets go trample the current order without a plan (other than the permanent occupation/war BS is calling for) and hope for the best.
Basically, people in this thread are calling for the Bush doctrine to be made eternal - not only against ISIS, but against Assad and any other leader who we deem unworthy by our standards - in order to bring in an order that we DO deem worthy by our standards. I won't argue that our standards may seem more tolerant and righteous (at least on the surface), but again - historical context. We sit here and lament the mistakes we made in Iraq and so many other conflicts, with the benefit of hindsight....we accuse the former administration of ulterior motive, and the media of being lap dogs and helping to mislead the public...yet we somehow think this time is different. From an Iraqi or Syrian point of view - would you accept a leader installed and endorsed by the world power you have seen as your oppressor for decades? Would an American accept this in their own country? Of course not. Why the double standard? because we are exceptional. We are the shining light, the beacon of hope...and anyone who disagrees needs to be shown the light, by whatever means necessary. Same outlook invoked by every empire, every crusade, every megalomaniac....
(where have all the smileys gone, long time passing)
This.
and...
Where do you get your news BS44??? This is factually innacurate. Bush signed the withdrawal and Obama sought extension and was denied.
ISIS owes Fox News a big Thank You
Especially watch from 2:30 to 3:40.
We're doing exactly what ISIS wants us to do…Terrorizing our own country. Thanks FOX NEWS.
"They put out the tape to cause people to want to engage in a permanent military conflict because so long as there is an international other that they can point to and say this is why your lives suck here, it's because America, it's because they're bombing us, that's why they put it out, and Fox News is putting it out so we will engage in that very military conflict." (5:00)