[QUOTE=X_Sam;49124513]WW3 isn't going to erupt from this, right? I live with a lot of fear-mongering right-wing extremists, and my mind is going crazy right now due to it.[/QUOTE]
More like another mid-20th century proxy war. We don't like ISIS and neither does Russia but Putin is backing Assad and needs a Mediterranean port. Meanwhile the USA dislikes Assad for a myriad of reasons (Allied with Russia, human rights record, and a source of instability in the region), so while we support anti-government secularists, Russia has been bombing the guys we support. Both of us are against ISIS because they're a threat to the peace of all powerful nations (Russia and America alike), but we're shooting at each other's guys
Obama and Putin have met for talks after this attack and are most likely attempting to achieve some kind of bargain where putin keeps his mediterannean port, but Assad is ousted for a more popular secularist and the Ba'athists are banned.
There's the opinion around that people like Assad and Saddam were instrumental in the peace of the region but the reality is that this region is steeped in deep sectarian conflicts that Saddam and Assad only repressed. Instead of resolving them on a political level (since free speech doesn't exist in these countries), they boiled to the point where they are at now. The issue is that nobody in the ME identifies as Iraqi, Syrian, etc., but rather as part of their own little tribal groups and races and religious sects. Hence the argument for a unified and independent Kurdistan (a group that gets shit on every single round of ME flare up).
I think it's a long long war about education, standards of living, and infrastructure. If you provide the infrastructure and capability for tribal groups to move beyond their neighborhood, there's a likely chance of inter-cultural exchange. Problem is it took Europe like 1000 years to do this.
Of course, the military option is always on the table. Politicans call it a last resort, but that's because it's politically unwise to invade the middle east at this point in American politics. The military option is really the only option against terrorist groups but the way we conduct the subjugation of an entire country is the real issue. The US is very good at toppling regimes, then using our soldiers as martial law occupying peace keepers, but the problem is that we never really leave the country any better than we found it. Obviously, building an entire subcontinent's infrastructure up is costly, but it is possible (South Korea is an example of this; America bombed it to rubble and rebuilt it. It is the fastest growing economy today and one of the wealthiest and most secular nations).
But all this is going to revolve around Russia, I think. As is stands, the combined free world has the capability to bomb every Islamic extremist back to the middle ages. America or Russia alone can do this. Politically, however, we need Russia to focus more on the long term stability of the region and less on its ability to ship oil and natural gas around the world. Putin is a master of PR, so it's difficult to tell how genuine he's been after this Paris attack, but the fact that he was pictured sitting down with Obama and National Security Advisor Susan Rice is promising (at the very least, dialogue has been established, but the G20 makes Putin a captive audience, so he's forced to at least be seen with Obama).
I think Putin and Obama both have an interest in seeing Assad removed. A less cruel leader that is still sympathetic to Russian Oil exports can provide stability for the region as well as benefit the Russian economy. Another issue might be separating Syria from Ukraine as well.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123392]Proof for this?[/QUOTE]
you need proof of the claim that ISIS will kill a lot of people if people don't do anything about it?
wow
Why do people think that ISIS will somehow cause WW3. There's literally no country in the world that doesn't think they're absolute turds, there's nothing to fight about.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49123461]you're welcome to bring up examples of history which are completely unrelated to this conflict, I mean, by this logic we should just march some red coats against ISIS because that worked in the Napoleonic war
how many times has military intervention got to fail in that region before we learn from it - because it sounds like we've been at this game for decades [B]and we're still being hit by terrorists.[/B]​[/QUOTE]
Terrorists of all shapes and sizes.
To say we haven't fucked terrorist organizations up is stupid. Al-qaeda is a shadow of its former self, and most if not all of the members in it have been replaced due to us killing em all off.
You say we are still being hit by terrorists.
No shit, do you know how many fucking organizations there are in the world? Not just Isis, there are assloads. We will never kill them all. But we can damn sure wipe out as many as we can.
About the retaliation thing, France has been bombing ISIS since September 2014. Their aircraft carrier has been ordered to be around that area since January 2015. These new bombings are just part of the whole bomb-ISIS campaign. But they are the biggest ones as of yet I've read.
Either way, good riddance.
This was a nice thing to wake up to. Go get them! :happy:
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49123311]You are trying to frame this as some kind of heroic lets kill ISIS thing. Its not. Its retaliation and revenge.
If they were serious about fighting ISIS they would need to commit ground forces and put take and hold strategy in place. Bombing will bloody ISIS' nose but ultimately they can recruit more guys, rebuild and, upon pointing at the damage/dead civilians, say "The west did this to you"[/QUOTE]How many fucking times do I have to say this? "Boots on the ground!!!" is a stupid, [B]STUPID[/B] way to handle this for a variety of reasons and I have written paragraphs and paragraphs on this board regarding why. I've also written far, far more than that elsewhere but I'll just break it down for you [I]again:[/I]
1. It's a waste. Counterproductive. There are already ground forces there and they'll still be there when this is all done; what those forces do not have is Western air power, something we (the West) are really good at providing.
2. Every time non-Muslim, secular, Western troops show up in the Middle East to fight religious warriors indigenous to the area we're suddenly inundated with opposing fighters, insurgents, rebels, etc. far more than there were originally. Why? Read the above again, very carefully, specifically the parts about "secular" showing up to fight "religious."
3. Their apocalyptic, self-destructive narrative has us, the unholy enemy, arriving to fight them. Playing into and supporting that narrative greatly escalates that conflict, it is a bad idea.
4. Refusal to engage them on the ground robs them of both recognition as a "worthy" opponent and recognition as a credible military threat; they are not a state and do not deserve the conventional war only possible between warring states.
5. Letting local forces claim victory undermines global Islamic extremism and instills solidarity and unity among the locals.
[B]Bottom line: bombing the living shit out of the daeshbags while denying them the glorious death they've fetishized is the [U]best[/U] [U]course[/U] [U]of[/U] [U]action.[/U][/B]
A good terrorist is a dead, burning terrorist.
Keep up the good work France, though I recommend shoving up 10 additional bombs for safe measure. Don't be afraid to shove in more than that if you're still unsure.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49125309][B]Bottom line: bombing the living shit out of the daeshbags while denying them the glorious death they've fetishized is the [U]best[/U] [U]course[/U] [U]of[/U] [U]action.[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
So basically ignore them and let them continue killing civilians not only in Syria and the middle east but also the rest of the world until they get bored and go away?
ok
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;49125393]So basically ignore them and let them continue killing civilians not only in Syria and the middle east but also the rest of the world until they get bored and go away?
ok[/QUOTE]
Did you even read what he said? Like, even read the first 3 fucking words? Like the third word is literately "bombing"
Jezus fuck
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;49125393]So basically ignore them and let them continue killing civilians not only in Syria and the middle east but also the rest of the world until they get bored and go away?
ok[/QUOTE]
Please learn to read.
why do some people in this thread think killing them is a bad thing? these savages won't stop until we end them. sure, it could be the only thing they know to do, poverty and such, but its the choice they made. why people think retaliation and the killing of people who deserve it for reasons other than collateral damage is beyond me. you cant say they're human and should be treated like one when they aren't doing the same and chances are if you were facing a member of isis, it would be you looking at him from the ground with a gun to your face.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;49125393]So basically ignore them and let them continue killing civilians not only in Syria and the middle east but also the rest of the world until they get bored and go away?
ok[/QUOTE]
hahah gotem dude
[QUOTE=Strontboer;49125412]Did you even read what he said? Like, even read the first 3 fucking words? Like the third word is literately "bombing"
Jezus fuck[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kahgarak;49125450]Please learn to read.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49125485]hahah gotem dude[/QUOTE]
Oh. Wait. Okay I think I misinterpreted, I figured it was sarcasm at first. And I took in the initial bit about boots on the ground being counterproductive as being anti-war. My bad! :hammered:
[QUOTE=SonicHitman;49125485]why do some people in this thread think killing them is a bad thing? these savages won't stop until we end them. sure, it could be the only thing they know to do, poverty and such, but its the choice they made. why people think retaliation and the killing of people who deserve it for reasons other than collateral damage is beyond me. you cant say they're human and should be treated like one when they aren't doing the same and chances are if you were facing a member of isis, it would be you looking at him from the ground with a gun to your face.
hahah gotem dude[/QUOTE]
I assume you mean me as one of those people?
I'm fine with ISIS people dying, I suspect just killing them won't solve the issue of radical islam though. I'm not fine with citizens dying, I suspect killing them will make the problem of radical islam worse.
People want revenge. There are people here who, out of anger, mandate the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. That shows anger and revenge aren't reliable motives for what will be a deadly conflict.
You can't fight an ideology with bullets. You need to make it unviable and ridiculous to stop people supporting it. Look what happened with the nazis, they're still around but for the most part inert and everyone assumes the person who supports nazism is also the person who has something wrong with them.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49125522]
You can't fight an ideology with bullets. You need to make it unviable and ridiculous to stop people supporting it. Look what happened with the nazis, they're still around but for the most part inert and everyone assumes the person who supports nazism is also the person who has something wrong with them.[/QUOTE]
I can't say I disagree with your point but the Nazis aren't a very good example. If they had remained in power or won the war people in Germany may have had a very different opinion on them. We didn't just make following the Nazis look like a bad idea while the Nazis were still relevant and in power. You can't deny at least part of the reason people in Germany are so adverse to the Nazis other than mass genocide is because following them resulted in getting bombed back to the stone age.
Winning over the hearts of the general populace is something you do after fighting ends or (preferably) before conflict starts. Not during it.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49122806]Hurray for more murder and killing![/QUOTE]
Doesn't count as murder if they aren't people
[QUOTE=Anderan;49125572]I can't say I disagree with your point but the Nazis aren't a very good example. If they had remained in power or won the war people in Germany may have had a very different opinion on them. We didn't just make following the Nazis look like a bad idea while the Nazis were still relevant and in power. You can't deny at least part of the reason people in Germany are so adverse to the Nazis other than mass genocide is because following them resulted in getting bombed back to the stone age.
Winning over the hearts of the general populace is something you do after fighting ends or (preferably) before conflict starts. Not during it.[/QUOTE]
You are right it needed a catalyst. They didn't decide the nazis were worse because the allies provided more firepower, they decided the nazis were worse because they were presented with a viable alternative.
West germany got what is arguably the best of capitalism, an excess of the stuff they want, jobs, self respect; they also got jubilee from their war debts. East germany got... something... better than nazism... After the unification germany emerged a strong, independent, proud, moderate country. We (east and west) provided something better than nazism: jobs, pride, money, economy, stability, independence, happiness, culture, inclusiveness.
this is pretty much the song that is playing in my head
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7fnlJ60RO8[/media]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49125633]You are right it needed a catalyst. They didn't decide the nazis were worse because the allies provided more firepower, they decided the nazis were worse because they were presented with a viable alternative.
West germany got what is arguably the best of capitalism, an excess of the stuff they want, jobs, self respect; they also got jubilee from their war debts. East germany got... something... better than nazism... After the unification germany emerged a strong, independent, proud, moderate country. We (east and west) provided something better than nazism: jobs, pride, money, economy, stability, independence, happiness, culture, inclusiveness.[/QUOTE]
They weren't provided with a viable alternative until the Nazis were reduced to the point of being nonviable. Ethics aside the Nazis were perfectly viable to the majority of Germans. True it wasn't because the allies "provided more firepower" it was because the Nazis lost militarily.
[QUOTE=Anderan;49125650]They weren't provided with a viable alternative until the Nazis were reduced to the point of being nonviable. Ethics aside the Nazis were perfectly viable to the majority of Germans. True it wasn't because the allies "provided more firepower" it was because the Nazis lost militarily.[/QUOTE]
Germany was defeated after ww1 and their ideology (based off prussian militarism) remained strong. That is sufficient proof that winning a war alone doesn't defeat and ideology. In the absence of a better ideology people will just stick with what they have. Germany only became germany today because we helped them regain national pride and in doing so proved the liberal democratic way was the better one.
But yes, maybe military victory was necessary. I think the cold war might be a change in ideology where military victory wasn't necessary but lots of russians think it was a disaster so support for the previous ideology is still strong, so its not a perfect comparison.
Japan is another example of ideological change but they also were forgiven their war debts and received a load of investment and commitment from the US, making them a relatively influential economic country providing a source of national pride and stability.
An example of military dominance not brining about ideological shift might be Afghanistan. Feudalism (with warlords instead of lords) had been the way before (the taliban operated this way) and is the way afterwards.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49125668]Germany was defeated after ww1 and their ideology (based off prussian militarism) remained strong. That is sufficient proof that winning a war alone doesn't defeat and ideology. In the absence of a better ideology people will just stick with what they have. Germany only became germany today because we helped them regain national pride and in doing so proved the liberal democratic way was the better one.[/QUOTE]
True, winning the war alone wasn't enough, and frankly I never said it was, to remove the ideology but the only way to have prevented the Nazis from raising to power was to... well prevent them from ever becoming viable. Once they were presented as a viable route it was too late. ISIS is similar in this, presenting a viable alternative alone isn't enough because they have no reason to try it. It's only after it's proven that it is no longer viable to people have any reason to give the alternatives any chance.
Everything you've argued for is true, but it's a decade too late. It would be like telling someone with lung cancer to stop smoking. Yea it's a good idea and necessary for long term health, but you've got to deal with the tumor before you can really think about that.
If anyone want the un-edited source :
[video=youtube;c4HuUjMUcQs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4HuUjMUcQs[/video]
[QUOTE=agentfazexx;49122776]Your 72 male virgins await you, ISIS[/QUOTE]
Is this what they actually believe in? I thought they get 72 [I]female[/I] virgins when they die, but is it not specified?
Let's give them goats.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49125668]Germany was defeated after ww1 and their ideology (based off prussian militarism) remained strong. That is sufficient proof that winning a war alone doesn't defeat and ideology. In the absence of a better ideology people will just stick with what they have. Germany only became germany today because we helped them regain national pride and in doing so proved the liberal democratic way was the better one.
But yes, maybe military victory was necessary. I think the cold war might be a change in ideology where military victory wasn't necessary but lots of russians think it was a disaster so support for the previous ideology is still strong, so its not a perfect comparison.
Japan is another example of ideological change but they also were forgiven their war debts and received a load of investment and commitment from the US, making them a relatively influential economic country providing a source of national pride and stability.
An example of military dominance not brining about ideological shift might be Afghanistan. Feudalism (with warlords instead of lords) had been the way before (the taliban operated this way) and is the way afterwards.[/QUOTE]
Germany was defeated in WW2 as well, militarily. How many Nazis do you see sticking around today? Japan was defeated Militarily as well. You can defeat someone with military might and then do all of this philosophical ideology bullshit change you're on about. It doesn't have to he one or the other.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49125309]
[B] daeshbags [/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Stealing this
[editline]16th November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;49126349]Germany was defeated in WW2 as well, militarily. How many Nazis do you see sticking around today? Japan was defeated Militarily as well. You can defeat someone with military might and then do all of this philosophical ideology bullshit change you're on about. It doesn't have to he one or the other.[/QUOTE]
What made it different in Japan and Germany is that we assisted in a huge rebuilding and reeducation campaign.
More or less in Iraq we just handed it to what is now the current government and did not much past it.
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;49122806]Hurray for more murder and killing![/QUOTE]
As much as how SH can get bloodthirsty, this is so 1980's children's TV that it hurts. That's G.I. Joe logic right there. To faintly quote a Robot Chicken sketch, "Alright, all you gotta do is shoot them in the leg. Leave them alive to have them retreat back to base and start again. Why does this gun shoot actual bullets and not lasers?"
Violence is ugly, and it's a gamble that could lead into retaliation, but what other options do we have?
[QUOTE=Pvt. Martin;49123213]What else are you supposed to fucking do then? Just stand around and wait for ISIS to attack London? Berlin? Rome? Moscow?
No, you don't, you use the technology and connections the great nations of this world has built up over the course of thousands of years to do one thing.
Destroy these assholes so we can play with our smartphones and robots in peace.
[editline]15th November 2015[/editline]
This just wasn't a small assault on a magazine company, Paris was a big planned thing. 150 lives are gone, and hundreds more were injured.
The high horse is dead, been dead since WWI. innocent civvies getting killed in the crossfire sucks balls always, but sometimes you can't help these things.[/QUOTE]
There's no "high horse". It's logic that the only way to stop them from attacking us is to not give them reasons to do so. It's deplorable that people are celebrating this move as "a solution". This just feeds the endless cycle of revenge.
Remember how middle east wasn't full of extremist groups wanting the destruction of western nations before it was turned into a battlefield by foreign superpowers?
[QUOTE=Talishmar;49126682]There's no "high horse". It's logic that the only way to stop them from attacking us is to not give them reasons to do so. It's deplorable that people are celebrating this move as "a solution". This just feeds the endless cycle of revenge.
Remember how middle east wasn't full of extremist groups wanting the destruction of western nations before it was turned into a battlefield by foreign superpowers?[/QUOTE]
Yes, nevermind how Al Qaeda is nothing now because of the efforts that were put into destroying it.
Let's just sit back and do nothing or try to reason out with them, lol.
[QUOTE=kweh;49126791]Yes, nevermind how Al Qaeda is nothing now because of the efforts that were put into destroying it.
Let's just sit back and do nothing or try to reason out with them, lol.[/QUOTE]
AL Qaeda still exists (if you acknowledge them as 1 group rather than a coalition of groups which is arguably more correct). The reason we don't hear that much (we still hear about them) is that one of their "splinter groups" got big. Al Queda in iraq aka ISIS. Al Queda is still active in yemen, central and south asia, africa and the middle east.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
