Yes or we could simply limit things to about 100 years to help contextualize the recent past. That would account for much of what has transpired from the First WW until the present.
What's the alternative to bombing ISIS?
- Thread starter Edgar Allan Pillow
- Start date
Yes or we could simply limit things to about 100 years to help contextualize the recent past. That would account for much of what has transpired from the First WW until the present.
Not just from a physical sense, ISIS holds a pseudo-religious influence covering other countries too. New about people leaving, UK, India and others openly sympathising with them in other countries is common news. They are like a magnet which attracts nutcases from all over and influences where they cannot operate directly. So, yeah...destroying them will have a major impact as in denying extremists an opportunity to gather around and become a bigger nuisance. It's the wait and watch attitude that enabled them to grow big, get an army and bring about large scale destruction...keeping quiet now will only aid them further.
We'll always have religious nutcases everywhere...but imo then operating individually is less of a threat, then them coordinating and getting special training/funds/ideologies from a master group.
As I said before, we do not have a tool for eliminating religious terrorism. Neither do we have a tool to stabilize middle east...but that does not mean we should not fight against obvious bad actors there.
well. I predict, that if the USA ramps up its intervention to fight ISIS, Assad will fall and the consequences will be the implosion of Syria (= an even bigger failed state). I already said this to @Carolina Red, who ignored that point: If ISIS is a genuine threat to us, why not cooperate with Russia to destroy them? Well, the answer is pretty simple and fairly complex at the same time. For the USA it is really not just about ISIS but about the balance of power in the region. The only thing that the USA really hates about ISIS is, that they are so god-damn outspoken about all their heinous actions. If they would be slightly more pragmatic and if they wouldn´t tweet their executions, the whole thing would have played out differently.....
Exactly. Same with Saddam. They were inhumanly nasty creatures, but they kept even nastier creatures at bay.
Do that and every single person everywhere would rise up to be fair.
Gavrilo Princip can melt steal beams
Just seeing this.
So you are saying it's OK to let the local's suffer from dictatorship as long as the other countries are free of threats like ISIS?
Huh?
I am certain Libyans have a merry good time now under their new IS and 234234324 warlords rule, and the Iraqis are just loving the clusterfeck that their nation has become.
Likewise I am certain the Syrians are absolutely delighted with the stability of their country now that they have risen up against Assad.
What us westerners needs to accept is that some places are better of with a dictator, due to tribal differences and geopolitical clusterfecks that we can't begin to comprehend. It might not be the PC thing to say, but it is just the way the cookie crumbles.
That's a double edged sword though - If not for the intervention in Libya, Qaddafi would've slaughtered half the city of Benghazi. His henchmen were within days of reaching the city before the bombing started.
I also reject this idea that "some places" are "better off" with dictators, which is usually advanced by people from the safety and comfort of a Democratic state who don't take into consideration the idea that people in non-Democratic countries might aspire to a similar quality of life.
Well, for one I know that black africans have a horrid time in Libya now. While racial persecution was frowned upon under Gadaffi, also education levels were at the highest for entire Africa, social security were at a unparalleled level for Africa (excluding South Africa) and the society as a whole was very well off. No doubt Gadaffi were a fecktard, but I'd wager that seeing the consequences now both most Libyans and the most of us Westerners would love to have it all undone and the old bastard remain in power.
The problem is that we and our leaders somehow got the impression that we by bombing and interception in a matter of months can bring a democracy that it took us hundreds of years of enlightenment and strugles to achieve to these countries. It is not the case. And that is speaking just on the inhabitants in these countries behalf, let's be realistic and face that foreign policy is as much for our own good as well, and in that matter we have only done matters worse for ourselves with our meddling. We wouldn't have hundreds of thousands of immigrants, many of them economic immigrants and not real refugees, flocking out from the ports of Libya if Gadaffi had remained in power.
And like it or not, I think the Libyans would have been better off.
You must take into account very distinct Tripoli x Benghazi outcomes if Gaddafi had been left to his means. There might have very well been a large scale massacre of the people of Benghazi, and there might've even been significant migration from there to Europe. We don't know, but in that instance I don't think its a very clear "if we hadn't meddled everything would be ok/not as bad".
Possibly in some cases, but I think it's a blanket statement to suggest that all of these countries are universally better under dictators, when dictators can often vary in degrees of punishing and controlling their citizens.
I'd wager that all the countries that have had their dicator removed by the West, that be Iraq and Libya, would have been better off without our meddling. Libya being the most extreme example and one that is widely aknowledged that was a feckup.
Yes, but would the total death toll in Libya have been greater if we let this play out though? I would wager that the death toll from our war, and the shit that went down and is still going down now in the aftermath carries a far heavier price. Both for the West and for Libyans.
Well said!
I dont profess to have a perfect solution, but i don't believe that "scorched earth" and huge civilian casualties are in any way a sensible solution.
I think the only way you can really kill off a guerrilla army is by taking away thier motivation to fight. Killing their family wont do that. Providing jobs and a stable society might.
Maybe you would like to work out a plan to do this then? Because it hasn't exactly worked out great in our two previous attempts.
I would like to counter with, who are we sat up here in our comforts in a Democratic state to decide in a weekend that we will bring Democracy to these states with bombs and meddling, without having the slightest clue about how it will play out?
It might seem like a great idea,
- Remove said dictator
- Support a rebel fraction
- Enter democracy
Well, that might work out on your Real Time Strategy game on your computer, but all empirical evidence from the real world suggests otherwise.
Last edited:
That's a very slippery slope. There are always good things done even by bad people, but it no way balances out the atrocities.
If you google "Good things done by Hitler" you'll find incidents where he did good for Germany or policies which were actually good...but in a wider spectrum, it doesn't matter at all.
I bet the old time slave owners used the same argument. "Our slaves are better fed, clothed and live a better life than in a tribal hut in Africa. So we are the good guys"
Meh!
It's not the same problem. Removing a dictator does not imply the state becomes a democracy...just that we give it an opportunity to become a democracy or at minimum a better leader. You are by default assuming that ISIS would not have come into place if Saddam had been in power...which is a meaningless argument considering many of current ISIS leaders were the same that served in Saddam's military. They would have continued becoming more radical Saddam or not, imo. A "contained megalomaniac" is a paradox. Extremists and people like Saddam will always overreach and eventually we may have been in a situation worse than current if not for the war.
It is also easy to argue for war, when you don´t have a to fear the bombs. People around the world don´t fancy to get their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if these bombs come with nice little american flags. They still kill people. But these are not Americans, so who cares. Expecting them to say thank you after getting fecked is also a bit rich.
America would be the most popular nation in the world, if it would improve the situation in all these countries. "mistakes were made".
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-gallup-international-poll-us-1-threat-world-peace.html
Why don´t they like us? It is a mystery.
It is also easy to argue for war, when you don´t have a to fear the bombs. People around the world don´t fancy to get their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if these bombs come with nice little american flags. They still kill people. But these are not Americans, so who cares. Expecting them to say thank you after getting fecked is also a bit rich.
America would be the most popular nation in the world, if it would improve the situation in all these countries. "mistakes were made".
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/2014-gallup-international-poll-us-1-threat-world-peace.html
Why don´t they like us? It is a mystery.
I don't disagree with that. But having spent 7 years in Iraq and Afghanistan has taught me that people in conflict zones deserve a better life than they have had in recent decades. Nearly all of them would opt to live in the same democratic societies we do if given the chance, but that won't happen as long as they are stuck with their local dictators. The responsibility to help lies with the powerful and wealthy states and societies of the world - and by help I don't just mean military help - it should be primarily economic and development (human security) related.
I don't think that there is any alternative now. The main problem is why we let things come to this. ISIS should be defeated, that is a must.
The other steps should be to terminate any relation with Saudi Arabia (which will hurt the global economy), stop their influence on other countries. Oh, and don't make new wars in Middle East (be it by helping democrat states to defeat dictatorships like the Iraq-Iran war, or by just deciding to destroy best buddies turn to enemy states who are trying to make weapons of massive destruction, despite that they really aren't trying).
I would also support a better control of borders and see what people are we accepting from Middle East. Helping them to integrate instead of making them live in ghetto might help too.
I would also put wahhabism/salafi and any other extreme version of Islam in the same category as nazism. If you support it you either get deported or go to jail.
The other steps should be to terminate any relation with Saudi Arabia (which will hurt the global economy), stop their influence on other countries. Oh, and don't make new wars in Middle East (be it by helping democrat states to defeat dictatorships like the Iraq-Iran war, or by just deciding to destroy best buddies turn to enemy states who are trying to make weapons of massive destruction, despite that they really aren't trying).
I would also support a better control of borders and see what people are we accepting from Middle East. Helping them to integrate instead of making them live in ghetto might help too.
I would also put wahhabism/salafi and any other extreme version of Islam in the same category as nazism. If you support it you either get deported or go to jail.
I'm seeing a lot of this in this thread. I'd be interested to see a death count for Saddam and Assad vs ISIS. I suspect the dictators might have "accomplished" more.
That is not going to work with ISIS
Stalin kept Hitler at bay, so he was a great guy.
Not bombing them?
Seriously though... wars, terror attacks, riots..., they're never committed by individuals. Not really. The individual committing the act is doing so in the name of the "group mind". The only way for these things to stop is for individuals to grow up and realise they're individuals amongst a planet full of individuals.
Seriously though... wars, terror attacks, riots..., they're never committed by individuals. Not really. The individual committing the act is doing so in the name of the "group mind". The only way for these things to stop is for individuals to grow up and realise they're individuals amongst a planet full of individuals.
In places like Raqqa there are very few left. Almost anyone who doesn't support them has long since fled or been weeded out and executed.
Last edited:
yes, they deserve a better lives, but the USA is neither helping nor improving anything. That is the whole point. I am not complaining about the bombing of Germany or Japan, because America helped to create better societies afterwards. The most benevolent reading of the current situation is, that the USA tried to help, but failed miserably. Bush gets usually (rightfully) slaughtered for all his decisions, but I am almost certain, that he actually really thought that he can help the people in Afghanistan and Irak with these wars. That doesn´t excuse anything, but he had (imo) good intentions. Sadly it is completely implausible to make the same claim about Americas current actions in Syria (or many other countries). Neither the well-being of Syrians nor our security are priorities. If the USA would really priorities the well-being of human beings it would act completely different.
Even southern sudan is going to shit. The different groups fought (more or less) together for almost 45 of the last 60 years for their shared independence and once reached the two biggest ethnic groups start to slaughter each other. Heck, even Czechs and Slovaks decided to divorce after the end of the coldwar. It is completely out of question to think that Sunnis and Shia/Alawis are accepting any power-sharing agreement forced on them by foreign powers. They also won´t be able to agree on any peaceful plan to separate. As bad as it is, one side will win and I agree that it shouldn´t be the Jihadis. By now any nation that supports these rebels is prolonging the war and the carnage. America is very well aware of that because that is precisely their plan at the moment in Syria.
What's the ETA on ISIS doing that?
Free hugs, chocolates, and rainbows
That would depend on the intensity and effectiveness of the education/propaganda campaign and how soon it starts.
If you say so
The problem is not ISIS itself . If the money is good you will always find nutters who will want to play war . And its not just the nutters that will join , the hopeless and unenployed will also pick up the gun . So the suply of arms is unlimited if the money is right and the target is a destabilised area .
Fisrt kill the money supply , the USA's greatest ally , Saudi Arabia . Its just a joke what that backwards savage country gets away with . ISIS suply , Yemen , 9/11 , building moschees around the word and promoting radicalism , just to name a few .
After that kill off the 'internal' money supply (oil) and cripple the marketing department . Its a joke again , for example Twitter , bans Milo for a movie review (not politicaly correct) but lets daesh savages post beheadings .
After this is all done i think you dont need any more intervention , let the local power , backed by its people deal with them .
The main problem is not isis , the main question is who is benefitting from all this ? Why can saudi arabia do what it does ? Why is Assad suddenly a bad tirant after he choose a alternative gas pipe ?
Purge the ones that put money and power above lives and call the shots .
The problem is there is no power who could do this .
Fisrt kill the money supply , the USA's greatest ally , Saudi Arabia . Its just a joke what that backwards savage country gets away with . ISIS suply , Yemen , 9/11 , building moschees around the word and promoting radicalism , just to name a few .
After that kill off the 'internal' money supply (oil) and cripple the marketing department . Its a joke again , for example Twitter , bans Milo for a movie review (not politicaly correct) but lets daesh savages post beheadings .
After this is all done i think you dont need any more intervention , let the local power , backed by its people deal with them .
The main problem is not isis , the main question is who is benefitting from all this ? Why can saudi arabia do what it does ? Why is Assad suddenly a bad tirant after he choose a alternative gas pipe ?
Purge the ones that put money and power above lives and call the shots .
The problem is there is no power who could do this .
Bit harsh, great band imo.
Stop giving them weapons. Stop training them. Etc. Also a cut down on the promotion of violence. It's glamorized in film/media too much.
I'm of the opinion that without a higher order to aspire to/impress/be influenced by (even if they aren't receiving direct orders from them), the domestic terrorists won't be quite as ready to actually do anything.
I think the supposed power of IS and the 'brotherhood' aspect is spurring people on. Plus there's the obvious propaganda spread by them.
I think if all this was pretty much gone, the 'hype' would die down and we'd see it having an affect on those in Europe.
What happened to the Swedish feminist FM who refused to deal with the Saudis? She was awesome.
Education and jobs, idle hands are the devils workshop, same goes for European based Muslims as well as integrating them better, we are all the same after all we want to mean something.
Security experts estimate that ISIS are turning their attentions to terrorist attacks because everyday they are losing ground in their Middle Eastern territories.
I tend to think that this year will be relatively rough in Western Europe regarding terrorists attacks but over the next few years we will see ISIS fade from significance.
I still think that terror attacks in the name of Islam will continue longer term but much less frequently.
I tend to think that this year will be relatively rough in Western Europe regarding terrorists attacks but over the next few years we will see ISIS fade from significance.
I still think that terror attacks in the name of Islam will continue longer term but much less frequently.
When you say "we give it an opportunity to become a democracy or at minimum a better leader" who exactly are you talking about? Who's given "we" the right to decide what leader should run the country in question, let alone invade it and force a regime change?
As for Saddam's military being a part of ISIS, of course it's a direct resut of the US invasion and the war that followed. There'd be no ISIS to begin with, if it wasn't for the mindless US warmongering in the Middle East. And they aren't doing it to spread democracy, it's an excuse for idiots. Here's a hint.
https://www.salon.com/2016/03/29/we...lkerson_condemns_military_industrial_complex/
Last edited: