how long has that russian naval base been in syria? woops forgot that one didn't you. cold war hasn't ended it's the USSR that ended.
What's the alternative to bombing ISIS?
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
how long has that russian naval base been in syria? woops forgot that one didn't you. cold war hasn't ended it's the USSR that ended.
So the consequences of its actions died with it? I think not...
If people are going to blame US Cold War Era foreign policy for things like Al Qaeda, then they should also blame the USSR's foreign policy that led to the US' actions.
I am pro US and everything, but I have to agree with @antihenry on this one. There is no country that either through direct war or proxy war has caused more of the jihad movement and immigration waves we see today than the US.
If only the US would be as ready to accept the waves of refugees created by your wars as you are ready to start these wars and drop the bombs. But as it is now the refugees is mostly left to the rest of the ME, and Europe.
NATO has done it's part as well. The bombing of Libya was the biggest mistake ever. Ol' Daffy was the only one capable of keeping some mode of peace in those areas.
If only the US would be as ready to accept the waves of refugees created by your wars as you are ready to start these wars and drop the bombs. But as it is now the refugees is mostly left to the rest of the ME, and Europe.
NATO has done it's part as well. The bombing of Libya was the biggest mistake ever. Ol' Daffy was the only one capable of keeping some mode of peace in those areas.
That's correct, however it's a bit disingenuous for anyone (not you) to suggest the events that led up to 1970s Afghanistan war and the subsequent US covert support for rebels didn't have anything to do with stopping the spread of communism at the time. The Cold War whether we like it or not, created a series of knock on effects that continue to live with us in the present.
I wonder if @antihenry blames the British, French, and Russian Empires for ISIS, seeing as one of their stated aims is undoing the Sykes-Picot agreement?
So it's that naval base that causes all this terrorist activity. And here I was thinking it was due to regime changes and 'shock and awe' bombings. Let's just get rid of that base and bring peace back to the Middle East.
The truth is that we are all partially responsible, that's why the blame game is stupid.
Since the Cold War ended in 91, then why not give back the bases. Its clear why not, just as its clear why NATO continues to exist and the US continues to operate bases it did during the cold war.
Yes, up to and including the US support for Mujahediin in Afghanistan pretty much any interference by the US was done to stop communism, and good riddance I say, ridiculous political system. But after that US intervention and wars has largely been a clusterfeck. Afghanistan in the 70's ended up as a clusterfeck as well since the Saudis saw fit to come to Afghanistan and enroll the mujahediin in their lovely ideology and give them education in the madrassas.
Amen sir!
how about using it to bring people out of harm's way. they are in crappy little crafts not fit for sea. didn't the russians as the soviets do exactly everything you just listed in the region? FFS get a grip on reality. like I said this goes back to 492 BC.
Better question is: if the cold war ended 25 years ago, why has NATO continued to grow and get closer and closer to Russian borders? You're mentioning one measly base. How many military bases has your country have got all across the globe?
No, we're not all partially responsible. Not for this mess. Is Brazil partially responsible? How about Mongolia? How much of the blame is attributed to them? The blame lies largely at the US doorstep for creating the problem and complicating it tenfold by making one bad move after another, and their NATO allies for either going along with that criminal behavior or even taking part like it happened in Lybia.
Accepting refugees won't solve nothing. Maybe after the ISIS is bombed out of existence, the refugees can go back and start their lives again....hopefully for the better.
Having an authoritarian dictator with nukes on Europe's doorstep who invades and steals land from neighboring countries may have something to do with it. If anything, this has reinforced the need for NATO to not only stay in business, but to grow and expand to deal with Putin.
because after the USSR broke up the countries that they fecked over/oppressed wanted a to be protected against the fascist neo stalinists.
And who are the NATO allies think a little bit, just try?
And the Sykes-Picot Agreement question I asked?
Or is bashing the US just the cool thing to do?
Some true cold-warriors in town. 
keep it going. It is fun to watch.
keep it going. It is fun to watch. You can't say that the countries or what they represent today aren't all responsible when they are all the main members of NATO and are all permanent members of the security council. That's just ludicrous.
Is this double post evidence of a time slip cause by Raoul using and hogging the time machine? You sly CIA misinformationist you.
When they were ruling those countries, they were not safe havens for those terrorists, now they are and thousands of innocent people are dying, and I mean thousands.
As for "those" people, call it whatever you want, but people of that specific region. I am a Muslim myself and I know for certain that my religion does not teach me to do what those people are doing
You can't say that the countries or what they represent today aren't all responsible when they are all the main members of NATO and are all permanent members of the security council. That's just ludicrous.
Iceland
Yes.
At no point was the the internal security of France compromised, no? I mean, apart from all those beheadings, which fizzled out after a few years...
that worked a treat in Somalia after rooting out the ICU.
Good point. Although I would categorize only part of Somalia as a power vacuum. Certain sectors of the country are stable and self-governing.
Not sure I agree about accepting the waves of refugees but certainly a bit of historical knowledge might be useful.
By all means, fight wars but when it's all said and done do what was done in Japan and Germany post WWII; investing in those countries brought them back into the fold peacefully and helped make them upstanding members of the international community.
The alternative, i.e. not investing, or enacting punitive reparations leads to things like ISIS and Nazi Germany.
None of the governments set up during the revolutionary period were functional. There was no legitimate force to fill the gap left by the King's government until Napoleon.
Do that and every single Muslim everywhere will rise up.
Coalition forces did attempt rebuilding projects throughout Iraq and Afghanistan. They were constantly targeted for attack by insurgents.
We lost the political will to remain there and left too soon
You kind of gave the key, investing in the countries and genuinely help them, instead of leave like thieves or share the resources.
I feel like any extreme action will result in it getting worse before it then gets better. Heavy bombing or full scale boots on the ground may end up being the necessary solution to solve this, but in the process I expect we'd see a continued surge in terrorism attempts and attacks in Europe as revenge, kind of like a dying attack from ISIS if they fade.
Problem is, that's not going to completely root out Islamic terrorism. This goes deeper than ISIS, and unfortunately it's going to be nigh on impossible to stop Islamic terrorism in itself for a generation or two, if not more.
Problem is, that's not going to completely root out Islamic terrorism. This goes deeper than ISIS, and unfortunately it's going to be nigh on impossible to stop Islamic terrorism in itself for a generation or two, if not more.
In fact it was a review of three different books all about Angola so I wouldn't be able to say exactly which that story came from. I'll check to see if I can find themThat is truly bizarre.
I suppose you haven't got the name of the book?
You are making my point. The rest is stable because no foreign countries fecked with it. Ethiopia (territory) and to some extend the USA (islamic government) decided that it was a good idea to destabilize the centre, which was controlled by the ICU and fecked everything up (and Eritrea reacted as you´d expect). Well done.
In the 90s Al-Qa'ida type islamists tried to establish themselves in Somalia, but failed because the tribes were too hostile towards them. Some of the accounts about that are actually quite funny. After enough foreign meddling, al-Shabab came out of it. It is not rocket science to understand how these things play out.
You can destroy ISIS, sure, but no foreign actor can solve the underlying conflict. So if you want to create stability over there, you need to occupy it indefinitely. Have fun.
The thing is, once we've wiped out ISIS, we can avoid the same mistake again. We knew about ISIS well before they got big, but disregarded them as insignificant.
Wipe them out, then come down like hell on other groups that pop up to try to take their place while they are still small. Don't let them metastasize.
You can't kill the idea, but you can kill the groups that try and spread it as fast as possible.
Stability is preferred, but I don't think it can ever be achieved. In absence of that, destruction if ISIS is a worthy goal, imo.
Look at these two.That is truly bizarre.
I suppose you haven't got the name of the book?
Visions of Freedom : Havana, Washington, Pretoria and the struggle for Southern Africa. by Piero Gleijeses
Magnificent Beggar Land: Angola since the civil war by Ricardo Soares de Oliveira.
Most likely the first
It feels like we're delaying the inevitable to end this. This won't resolve itself without an international coalition to wipe out ISIS. They won't turn peaceful overnight, with or without anyone fighting them.
Edit - I mean an international coalition of infantry soldiers in Syria of course.
Not saying it's the ideal solution but it might be the only one in the end.
Edit - I mean an international coalition of infantry soldiers in Syria of course.
Not saying it's the ideal solution but it might be the only one in the end.
yeah. just like the destruction of the ICU was a "worthy goal". I can see your point and I am inclined to agree. ISIS is getting destroyed at the moment, so why do something crazy? Destroying ISIS won´t end domestic islamic terrorism anyway. The idea that this territory helps them to plan and execute attacks in europe is a baseless assumption.
I also see this in the context of all the actions in the middle east and neither the USA nor their European allies have learned a thing. For all my criticism towards Obama, it turns out that the institutions around him are full of stupendous maniacs. He probably deserves a bit praise for holding all these idiots at bay. People who are so committed to their own ideology, that they are completely unable to recognize reality. They live in their own bubble of superiority and that any argument, that doesn´t include bombs, is lost.
So could military action against ISIS be sensible, if our governments would be responsible? absolutely. But they are not and the cost of any further escalation will outweigh any potential gain. I just really really really hope, that Russia can wrap that up before Clinton gets into office. She is probably stupid enough to create a "no fly zone" to "protect civilians" and "accidentally" Assad will be toppled. Are you sure that things can´t get any worse? Well, wait for Clinton. She finds a way.
Using that logic, you'd have to go to the reason the Soviet Union was created and then the reason whatever was before that existed and so on. Eventually you work your way back to one common denominator. Humans.