The Islamic State Thread

[Space_Chief]

Um, his Republican guard set all the oil fields on fire. How old were you when that happened?

Wasn't that when they were losing the war? That was a response to the war.

No. The history of Kuwait was go way back further than that.

I see it's a contentious topic, I don't really want to go into:

The ancient civilizations of Sumer and Babylon originated in Mesopotamia (the Greek word for "between rivers"), near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now Iraq. Modern day Kuwait began in the eighteenth century as a small village on the Persian Gulf. "Kuwait," the word for "small human settlement," was so named by Iraqi rulers of that era. Throughout the nineteenth century and up to World War I, Kuwait was a "Qadha," a district within the Basra Province, and it was an integral part of Iraq under the administrative rule of the Ottoman Empire

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

 

[Space_Chief]

Stratfor has a (free) article about the ISIS offensive and forces opposing it.
http://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/iraqi-forces-have-blunted-militant-offensive
One has to provide an email address to view it.

 

[Lightscribe]

It is pretty much the answer. It's nice to quote people who have interests in interfering there issuing post hoc justifications.

USA, like everyone else, should have a non-interventionist foreign policy. Only intervention should be authorised by Congress and should follow all Constitutional procedures. It should also be on behalf of legitimate parties and can be preceeded by way of mutual protection/assistance pacts which will be well known to all. Treaties such as between Taiwan and USA are good examples. Everyone knows where everyone stands.

Yes, quoting others is what we do here. You can stick your head in the sand. Others won't.

...

Calvin Coolidge’s Warning

At another time of great uncertainty about America’s proper role in the world, President Calvin Coolidge warned the nation to follow neither the Progressive internationalism of Woodrow Wilson nor the counterpoised isolationism.[5] In his 1925 Inaugural Address, he said, “It will be well not to be too much disturbed by the thought of either isolation or entanglement of pacifists and militarists.” Instead, Coolidge advised, America should maintain “such a military force as comports with the dignity and security of a great people.”

Faced with mounting pressure to withdraw America from its traditional role of leading in the cause of liberty, Coolidge recognized and celebrated the beneficial role America had played abroad: “We have made great contributions to the settlement of contentious differences in both Europe and Asia. But there is a very definite point beyond which we cannot go. We can only help those who help themselves.” With the full array of foreign policy tools, Coolidge noted, “Our program is never to oppress, but always to assist.”[6]

This tradition of an independent and strong American foreign policy committed to standing for freedom and peace abroad is in keeping with early U.S. foreign policy. America was the leading country in the world supporting the cause for republican self-government for the Latin American republics in 1821, Greece in 1823, and Hungary in 1848. Thomas Jefferson, who coined the phrase “entangling alliances with none,” committed American troops in a military coalition with England, Sweden, and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in order to fight the Barbary Pirates and protect American commerce. Jefferson and the rest understood these actions to be consistent with America’s interpretation of the “Law of Nations,” which the Constitution grants the U.S. government the power to define and enforce. America’s character—its interests and principles—invigorated America’s prudent engagement abroad, which has proven to be an indispensible good throughout most of our history.

For Coolidge, it was clear that both strict noninterventionism and militarism fell outside the traditional current of American foreign policy going back to the Founding Fathers, not least because both exclude the central role of prudence in applying America’s principles to the circumstances at hand. Soon after Coolidge’s warnings, however, and in reaction to Woodrow Wilson’s equally dangerous internationalism, Americans did fall for an isolationist doctrine under the mantle of noninterventionism in the late 1930s and early 1940s; its disastrous effects culminated in the uncontested rise of Hitler’s Germany and the attack on Pearl Harbor.[7]

Truly Traditional Foreign Policy

Americans today must not embrace the doctrine of noninterventionism. This imprudent commitment to remain disengaged diminishes the importance of military preparedness and weakens America’s ability to leverage its power in support of freedom. It is solidly outside the American foreign policy tradition. Unambiguously, the Founders made clear to the world that America mattered abroad. When attacked, America has vigorously defended itself. Other times, the United States has had the opportunity to prudently advance the cause of liberty abroad and has done so—at times by leveraging its military power.

Those who want to advance a traditional American foreign policy should call the isolationist doctrine of “noninterventionism” what it is: a return to the naïve and dangerous isolation warned against by President Coolidge.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...t-the-right-way-to-think-about-foreign-policy

Seems Obama is doing it right.

The president said any US military involvement, which would not involve ground troops and would not take place for several days, was destined to fail unless the Iraqi government committed to addressing the deep-rooted divisions that are threatening to tear the country apart.

“We can’t do it for them. And in the absence of this type of political effort, short-term military action, including any assistance we might provide, won’t succeed,” he said. “The United States is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis that gives us some assurance that they’re prepared to work together.”

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...ict-Thread?p=12861031&viewfull=1#post12861031

This last article is very interesting and should be read in full.

Over the course of history, the myth of isolationism has snuck its way into increasing popularity and belief, evolving into the current paradigm and school of thought that is non-interventionism or non-interference. A number of politicians in the U.S. today wish to switch U.S. foreign policy to this framework. Ron Paul, a devoted non-interventionist, has been notorious for his inaccurate claims that the U.S. has been subject to terrorist attacks because of the many U.S. bases throughout the world. According to this belief, if the U.S. followed a non-interventionist policy, 9/11 would have never happened.

Yet Paul and others who subscribe to this view have serious facts to wrestle with. First is that these other nations, such as Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, that are very much non-interferers in our modern world, are also subject to terrorist attacks. These countries are not "occupiers," in Ron Paul's parlance, but somehow they fall subject to attacks nonetheless. Secondly, the U.S. leaving its bases and involvement in Beirut as well as Somalia after suffering losses in attacks and conflicts has only encouraged radical Islamists rather than caused them to cease. In the theoretical framework of non-interventionists, this should have appeased those wishing to visit harm upon America.

In light of 9/11, however, it is highly probable that radical Islamists had already been at war with the U.S. since before any base went up in Beirut or Somalia. Said Islamists would sooner declare a fatwa than accept a withdrawal of troops. In the specific cases mentioned above, the U.S., in their eyes, was perceived to lack the resolve to fight after lives were lost and the stakes were raised.

The power-projection that the U.S. possesses is what aids so greatly in protecting America, freedom, and democracy throughout the world. If the U.S. withdraws its troops everywhere, it sacrifices an important role in shaping the world in a positive way. This does not mean that interference is always the answer, however, It requires good judgment and prudence to choose from the forms, quantity, and variations of statecraft. This includes the "use of assets or the resources and tools (economic, military, intelligence, [and] media)"3.

...

The modern world is globalized, connected, and increasingly dangerous. The U.S. should be careful but not timid, while being willing to engage oppression and tyranny whenever and wherever they may appear. Circling the wagons would be unjust for freedom, democracy, and humanity everywhere. Missed opportunities and failed attempts have happened in Somalia, Rwanda, Iran, Bosnia, and most recently in Iraq with the Christians. Responsibility, good judgment, and a resolve to learn and adapt to new challenges -- not the neutrality of non-interventionism -- should be characteristic of the U.S.'s foreign policy stance.

To sit back and watch genocide occur is of the same neutrality that led to Hitler's rise to power. As Elie Wiesel said, "[n]eutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." A belief in practicing non-interference is indicative of the appeasement which Reagan warned about; it is perilous, and just as foolish as devastating an economy and weakening a country from within.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_myth_and_danger_of_non-interventionism.html

 

[bgotapen]

Only way out for syria is give assad a lot men and materiel. In Iraq they will need to find one of saddams commanders and get them to group up a fighting force.

The fighting will be brutal, thousands will die and a lot of rebels will be executed with no trail. The only route to true peace, if they take bagdad it is over.

I do not think Iraq's army has the resolve to fight, they lost so much in 2 days. Most soldiers abandoned post or just surrendered. That is not a fit fighting force...

 

[The_Assimilator]

USA, like everyone else, should have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

"Non-interventionist foreign policy", what a load of crock. Maybe that was applicable in 1900, when countries were still isolated and separate. But today's world is different; the nation-state is dead, everyone is interdependent on everyone else, and only fools think they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend that things occurring on the other side of the world, will never affect the piece of land they're currently residing on. The 9/11 attacks are perhaps the best example of this.

On the contrary, what the world needs now - more than anything - is a global force that exists precisely to intervene in and resolve conflicts quickly, by any means possible; the United Nations is not and never will be that force. The United States is the closest to what is needed, but their insistence on being "the good guys" severely curtails their effectiveness. We don't NEED "good guys", we need guys who do what is necessary to get results - and if that means scorched earth tactics and nukes instead of "winning hearts and minds" (aka things that don't work), so be it. To quote a famously successful admiral, "The measure may be thought bold, but I am of the opinion the boldest are the safest."

 

[Lightscribe]

ISIS is not Al Qaeda though.

Where do you think they get their cash from?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...is-in-Iraq?p=12862491&viewfull=1#post12862491

 

[Space_Chief]

"Non-interventionist foreign policy", what a load of crock. Maybe that was applicable in 1900, when countries were still isolated and separate. But today's world is different; the nation-state is dead,

Explain why the nation state is dead? It seems nationalism is alive all over Europe, as Scots seek independence, the Northern Irish refuse to join the Irish Republic, Basques seek their own homeland, Ukrainians and Crimeans seek greater autonomy, Yugoslavia split up, while elsewhere: nationalism is re-surging in China, Japan is seeking ways to change their non-militarist constitution and their PMs visit the Yasukuni Shrine, etc.

everyone is interdependent on everyone else, and only fools think they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend that things occurring on the other side of the world, will never affect the piece of land they're currently residing on. The 9/11 attacks are perhaps the best example of this.

One can never say never but for the most part events in the ME have not effected us down here, except when the West intervenes and the oil price goes up. But there can be many reasons for a high oil price. OPEC can also control it. What is clear is that the West can't afford to play world policeman and that is causing economic instability and driving our own currency down here down, while making life harder for ordinary Americans too.

On the contrary, what the world needs now - more than anything - is a global force that exists precisely to intervene in and resolve conflicts quickly, by any means possible; the United Nations is not and never will be that force. The United States is the closest to what is needed, but their insistence on being "the good guys" severely curtails their effectiveness. We don't NEED "good guys", we need guys who do what is necessary to get results - and if that means scorched earth tactics and nukes instead of "winning hearts and minds" (aka things that don't work), so be it. To quote a famously successful admiral, "The measure may be thought bold, but I am of the opinion the boldest are the safest."

That's just a lot of assertion. The world needs less of this now that we no longer have the USSR and the PRC is more content on making business than spreading Communism. There are still trouble spots the worst one being North Korea and since now even the Chinese are against the NKs, things are looking up. Countries which want the West, such as Eastern Europe and Japan, Taiwan and SK are more then welcome to have mutual pacts with the US/NATO. Those who don't, well that's up to them.

However, we're in one of the safest periods in world history. We don't have the USSR with their nukes pointing at us and as said the Chinese are not interested in spreading Communism. However, shipping more of the worlds' production to them is emboldening them and perhaps instead of making war, the West should focus on returning more production to the West.

 

[Space_Chief]

Yes, quoting others is what we do here. You can stick your head in the sand. Others won't.



Seems Obama is doing it right.



This last article is very interesting and should be read in full.

Read in full and found not to be convincing.

What is clear is that the West's intervention in Iraq has turned a reasonably safe and prosperous country into a hell hole. Afghanistan is also failed as once the West leaves the Taliban will probably take over.

 

[Space_Chief]

And more Islamist refugees will be sent to Europe. That can only lead to positive results as these people find themselves not being able to assimilate into the culture there.

Best is to get out of the Middle East. Do business with them. Sure. Sell them F14s. Sure. If they plot to make war, send some cruise missiles. That's all. Get all those soldiers out of there.

I'm sure that Lithuania and Poland would love to get those Afghan and Saudi US soldiers. The Lithuanians and Poles are not going to blow up the NYC in response although there may be more Kowalskis in the US afterwards.

 

[Solarion]

Always a crisis somewhere. Lucky I have popcorn. You guys like popcorn? Grab a seat.

 

[Necuno]

Always a crisis somewhere. Lucky I have popcorn. You guys like popcorn? Grab a seat.

View attachment 125395

I prefer 3D glasses. Do you have some?

 

[snoopdoggydog]

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting US Economic Growth

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

As a teenager in the 1970s, I heard talk about the desirability of rebuilding the Tappan Zee Bridge. Now, a replacement is scheduled to open no earlier than 2017, at least — provided that concerns about an endangered sturgeon can be addressed. Kennedy Airport remains dysfunctional, and La Guardia is hardly cutting edge, hobbling air transit in and out of New York. The $800 billion stimulus bill, in response to the recession, has not changed this basic situation.

Today the major slow-growing Western European nations have very little fear of being taken over militarily, and thus their politicians don’t face extreme penalties for continuing stagnation. Instead, losing office often means a boost in income from speaking or consulting fees or a comfortable retirement in a pleasant vacation spot. Japan, by comparison, is faced with territorial and geopolitical pressures from China, and in response it is attempting a national revitalization through the economic policies of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

Ian Morris, a professor of classics and history at Stanford, has revived the hypothesis that war is a significant factor behind economic growth in his recent book, “War! What Is it Good For? Conflict and the Progress of Civilization From Primates to Robots.” Morris considers a wide variety of cases, including the Roman Empire, the European state during its Renaissance rise and the contemporary United States. In each case there is good evidence that the desire to prepare for war spurred technological invention and also brought a higher degree of internal social order.

Another new book, Kwasi Kwarteng’s “War and Gold: A 500-Year History of Empires, Adventures, and Debt,” makes a similar argument but focuses on capital markets. Mr. Kwarteng, a Conservative member of British Parliament, argues that the need to finance wars led governments to help develop monetary and financial institutions, enabling the rise of the West. He does worry, however, that today many governments are abusing these institutions and using them to take on too much debt. (Both Mr. Kwarteng and Mr. Morris are extending themes from Azar Gat’s 820-page magnum opus, “War in Human Civilization,” published in 2006.)

Yet another investigation of the hypothesis appears in a recent working paper by the economists Chiu Yu Ko, Mark Koyama and Tuan-Hwee Sng. The paper argues that Europe evolved as more politically fragmented than China because China's risk of conquest from its western flank led it toward political centralization for purposes of defense. This centralization was useful at first but eventually held China back. The European countries invested more in technology and modernization, precisely because they were afraid of being taken over by their nearby rivals.

But here is the catch: Whatever the economic benefits of potential conflict might have been, the calculus is different today. Technologies have become much more destructive, and so a large-scale war would be a bigger disaster than before. That makes many wars less likely, which is a good thing, but it also makes economic stagnation easier to countenance.

There is a more optimistic read to all this than may first appear. Arguably the contemporary world is trading some growth in material living standards for peace — a relative paucity of war deaths and injuries, even with a kind of associated laziness.

We can prefer higher rates of economic growth and progress, even while recognizing that recent G.D.P. figures do not adequately measure all of the gains we have been enjoying. In addition to more peace, we also have a cleaner environment (along most but not all dimensions), more leisure time and a higher degree of social tolerance for minorities and formerly persecuted groups. Our more peaceful and — yes — more slacker-oriented world is in fact better than our economic measures acknowledge.

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Follow him on Twitter at @tylercowen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html

 

[Lightscribe]

Read in full and found not to be convincing.

What is clear is that the West's intervention in Iraq has turned a reasonably safe and prosperous country into a hell hole. Afghanistan is also failed as once the West leaves the Taliban will probably take over.

No problem. With your head in the hole, all your external threats will disappear...promise...

Those countries failed because they are not willing to work together. Read that piece from Obama again. Yes, there is seemingly more problems in countries like that, after pot lid holders leave, yet, that is the people of the countries, favoring their own kind, at the expense of others. Sound familiar? It's eternal. The best those that can help, can do, is to assist to try and create a stable society.

Explain why the nation state is dead? It seems nationalism is alive all over Europe, as Scots seek independence, the Northern Irish refuse to join the Irish Republic, Basques seek their own homeland, Ukrainians and Crimeans seek greater autonomy, Yugoslavia split up, while elsewhere: nationalism is re-surging in China, Japan is seeking ways to change their non-militarist constitution and their PMs visit the Yasukuni Shrine, etc.

You say people are getting all nationalist everywhere...but the USA must withdraw from the world...leaving the weak to be devoured, by the new nationalists/imperialists? Interesting.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...eligion-by-communists?p=12764433#post12764433

https://www.google.com/search?q=new+chinese+imperialism&gws_rd=ssl

One can never say never but for the most part events in the ME have not effected us down here, except when the West intervenes and the oil price goes up. But there can be many reasons for a high oil price. OPEC can also control it. What is clear is that the West can't afford to play world policeman and that is causing economic instability and driving our own currency down here down, while making life harder for ordinary Americans too.

The USA is begged to be the policeman. It's character. It's nature. The reason the world runs there. To have freedom of expression and choice.

That's just a lot of assertion. The world needs less of this now that we no longer have the USSR and the PRC is more content on making business than spreading Communism. There are still trouble spots the worst one being North Korea and since now even the Chinese are against the NKs, things are looking up. Countries which want the West, such as Eastern Europe and Japan, Taiwan and SK are more then welcome to have mutual pacts with the US/NATO. Those who don't, well that's up to them.

Interesting that you try to argue a case for a US non-interventionist foreign policy, whilst also downplaying the Russian and Chinese threats.

Never mind your "nationalism is re-surging" statements above, whilst you try to argue a case for a US non-interventionist foreign policy...

Is that you, putin?

However, we're in one of the safest periods in world history. We don't have the USSR with their nukes pointing at us and as said the Chinese are not interested in spreading Communism. However, shipping more of the worlds' production to them is emboldening them and perhaps instead of making war, the West should focus on returning more production to the West.

Safest periods in history..? Thanks for the laugh! (See the links above, again.)

As for your "perhaps instead of making war, the West..." Hahaha!

 

[Space_Chief]

No problem. With your head in the hole, all your external threats will disappear...promise...

Or they'll never be actual threats to begin with. Note that actual local threats need not imply global threats.

Those countries failed because they are not willing to work together. Read that piece from Obama again. Yes, there is seemingly more problems in countries like that, after pot lid holders leave, yet, that is the people of the countries, favoring their own kind, at the expense of others. Sound familiar? It's eternal. The best those that can help, can do, is to assist to try and create a stable society.

Well that's the point. Countries which can work together will ask for support, those which can't should not have foreigners impose their version of reality imposed on them, especially out of touch foreigners. There will always be resistance and they will be seen as an occupying force, unless the people want them there. You need to get that. America overthrew the yoke of the British. They would not tolerate the Redcoats.

You say people are getting all nationalist everywhere...but the USA must withdraw from the world...leaving the weak to be devoured, by the new nationalists/imperialists? Interesting.

I didn't say the Basques or the Northern Irish or the Scots were a threat. Sometimes nationalism is a threat, sometimes it's a defense against oppression from outside. However I never precluded all forms of aid, if people want aid, they can ask for it. You know like how ex-Eastern European countries joined NATO because they WANTED TO JOIN NATO.

It's also funny because many of these countries have been US allies before. Didn't Pulaski create the US Cavalry and Kosciuszko build West Point?

The USA is begged to be the policeman. It's character. It's nature. The reason the world runs there. To have freedom of expression and choice.

The USA is not begged to be world policeman. It has been a good policeman at times and we're thankful for it. However when anyone imposes by force their own way of doing things, people will resent and it's in the human nature to rise up. That leads to more war and suffering for everyone involved.

But by all means LightScribe if you're such a pro-war guy, go and enlist. Go to war yourself.

Interesting that you try to argue a case for a US non-interventionist foreign policy, whilst also downplaying the Russian and Chinese threats.

Russian threat is contained, it's called NATO. And as said that its members want the US presence there. China can only be strengthened by an overstretched US military which is also bankrupt. Involvement in the ME is stupid. But if you find Russia and China so dangerous then those ME soldiers need to go to the Pacific and Eastern Europe.

Never mind your "nationalism is re-surging" statements above, whilst you try to argue a case for a US non-interventionist foreign policy...

Is that you, putin?

Oh please. Like you'd know. Like Soviet tanks actually killed any of your people.

Safest periods in history..? Thanks for the laugh! (See the links above, again.)

Yes. You must be a teenager or something. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Berlin Blockade? The Vietnam War?

LOL.

I'm actually pro US. I want the US to become stronger and aid in a co-operative fashion those who want their aid, but the process has to be two way. And I'm also for moral reasons against wars which can lead to suffering and death of innocents. But you, you seem like you don't really care. A few more drone strikes? It's OK. They're just Arabs or Afghans or Pakis or Blacks.

 

[Alan]

Race card played. Argument going that badly hey :erm:

 

[Lightscribe]

Or they'll never be actual threats to begin with. Note that actual local threats need not imply global threats.

Sure. If that's you want to believe. As I said, I'll stick to my opinion.

Well that's the point. Countries which can work together will ask for support, those which can't should not have foreigners impose their version of reality imposed on them, especially out of touch foreigners. There will always be resistance and they will be seen as an occupying force, unless the people want them there. You need to get that. America overthrew the yoke of the British. They would not tolerate the Redcoats.

Yes, invading, "US boots on the ground" style, does create problems with the local populations. That does not mean the USA must just withdraw their troops from around the world and leave people to sort out their own issues. People do ask for help and get it. People do pay the US to have US troops on their soil. Nothing wrong with that.

I didn't say the Basques or the Northern Irish or the Scots were a threat. Sometimes nationalism is a threat, sometimes it's a defense against oppression from outside. However I never precluded all forms of aid, if people want aid, they can ask for it. You know like how ex-Eastern European countries joined NATO because the WANTED TO JOIN NATO.

Yep, so the US is paid to be on some countries' soil and helps those who want protection from nationalists/terrorists/dictators. No problem there.

The USA is not begged to be world policeman. It has been a good policeman at times and we're thankful for it. However when anyone imposes by force their own way of doing things, people will resent and it's in the human nature to rise up. That leads to more war and suffering for everyone involved.

https://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+begged+the+united+states+for+help&gws_rd=ssl

Yes, they need to be careful how they go about offering their help. No problem there.

But by all means LightScribe if you're such a pro-war guy, go and enlist. Go to war yourself.

I was there at 17, thanks. Chatting worldviews in the Union Buildings at 22.

Russian threat is contained, it's called NATO. And as said that its members want the US presence there. China can only be strengthened by an overstretched US military which is also bankrupt. Involvement in the ME is stupid. But if you find Russia and China so dangerous then those ME soldiers need to go to the Pacific and Eastern Europe.

The Russian threat is not contained.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...communists?p=12767759&viewfull=1#post12767759

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...communists?p=12786291&viewfull=1#post12786291

Nor China. https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+aggression+&gws_rd=ssl

Involvement in the ME is being proactive and the ME says it needs help. Yes, when not needed in the ME, troops can help up North. So, no problem there.

Oh please. Like you'd know. Like Soviet tanks actually killed any of your people.

Oh, soviet tanks killed your people? Condolences.

Yes. You must be a teenager or something. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Berlin Blockade? The Vietnam War?

LOL.

I'm actually pro US. I want the US to become stronger and aid in a co-operative fashion those who want their aid, but the process has to be two way. And I'm also for moral reasons against wars which can lead to suffering and death of innocents. But you, you seem like you don't really care. A few more drone strikes? It's OK. They're just Arabs or Afghans or Pakis or Blacks.

No, I read about those events. Being older, does not make you smarter. As you mention, you're "also for moral reasons against wars which can lead to suffering and death of innocents." Thus you are making the mistake of thinking that the ones asked to come help, makes the situation worse, by helping to save lives.

War is terrible. Some wars are needed. I do care. I spend a lot of time typing.

I do not have such disdain for people, of a particular nationality or race. Only for those that oppress and kill for a worldview, I do not agree with. Even then, I would also prefer to be able to change their worldview, if possible, without war. Of course, that's almost impossible.

 

[Space_Chief]

Sure. If that's you want to believe. As I said, I'll stick to my opinion.

Yes, invading, "US boots on the ground" style, does create problems with the local populations. That does not mean the USA must just withdraw their troops from around the world and leave people to sort out their own issues. People do ask for help and get it. People do pay the US to have US troops on their soil. Nothing wrong with that.

It depends. It may actually be beneficial to withdraw all troops from around the world for the Americans. But I'd take a middle of the way approach and say, where they are wanted and paid, they can come, except they don't always want to do that.

Yep, so the US is paid to be on some countries' soil and helps those who want protection from nationalists/terrorists/dictators. No problem there.

Naive view. You seem to automatically think nationalism is bad per se.

https://www.google.com/search?q=iraq+begged+the+united+states+for+help&gws_rd=ssl

Yes, they need to be careful how they go about offering their help. No problem there.

I was there at 17, thanks. Chatting worldviews in the Union Buildings at 22.

The Russian threat is not contained.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...communists?p=12767759&viewfull=1#post12767759

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...communists?p=12786291&viewfull=1#post12786291

OMW! A South African who is an expert on Russia.

Involvement in the ME is being proactive and the ME says it needs help. Yes, when not needed in the ME, troops can help up North. So, no problem there.

It most definitely is a problem as troop deployments take a long time. And when you're overstretched you're SOL'ed.

ME presence is not necessary for US security or safety. You do know that soldiers who are unwanted are hated? Right?

Oh that's right you can't relate, never having a foreign occupation force on your territory.

Oh, soviet tanks killed your people? Condolences.

Spare me your fake condolences.

No, I read about those events. Being older, does not make you smarter. As you mention, you're "also for moral reasons against wars which can lead to suffering and death of innocents." Thus you are making the mistake of thinking that the ones asked to come help, makes the situation worse, by helping to save lives.

Oh Crikey someone with a chip on his shoulder. I'm not that old. It's telling you have no qualms about killing and suffering of innocent people i.e. collateral damage. Sick.

War is terrible. Some wars are needed. I do care. I spend a lot of time typing.

Very few wars are needed and I think you don't really think war is all that terrible. The Iraqi one was not needed and did more harm than good. More peaceful means could have been pursued still. If your family suffered, you'd not be so coy about it, then again I don't know.

I do not have such disdain for people, of a particular nationality or race. Only for those that oppress and kill for a worldview, I do not agree with. Even then, I would also prefer to be able to change their worldview, if possible, without war. Of course, that's almost impossible.

You do appear to have it through your war mongering. You're very nonchalant about the use of force in the world especially on those Untermenschen.

I don't think more military action is better. It's not an issue of just defeating Hitler. Note that Germany is still under occupation. That may be keeping peace, but the Germans do have a history and have similar culture to that of the West. Democracy can occur there.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and so on have a different view of democracy. Forcing what the West considers democratic, especially with the libertine ways of the West, as seen by the Muslims, is not going to work. Messing around there is just causing suffering for those people.

 

[Lightscribe]

It depends. It may actually be beneficial to withdraw all troops from around the world for the Americans. But I'd take a middle of the way approach and say, where they are wanted and paid, they can come, except they don't always want to do that.

Agreed then, the USA should maintain troops where asked and paid for.

Naive view. You seem to automatically think nationalism is bad per se.

No, but it can turn nasty and expansionist fast. At least you agree with the concept of USA troops, where asked and paid for, around the world.

OMW! A South African who is an expert on Russia.

There are many experts here, if they have read the Crisis in Ukraine and 3rd Rome threads.

It most definitely is a problem as troop deployments take a long time. And when you're overstretched you're SOL'ed.

ME presence is not necessary for US security or safety. You do know that soldiers who are unwanted are hated? Right?

Oh that's right you can't relate, never having a foreign occupation force on your territory.

My answer was to indicate that you agreed to USA troops, in other countries...as in "So, no problem there." No need to get into the logistics.

Yes, the opposition to whoever got the US troops into a country, would stir the hate.

Yes, the Russians and Cubans had a hard time here, hey?

Spare me your fake condolences.

Was not fake.

Oh Crikey someone with a chip on his shoulder. I'm not that old. It's telling you have no qualms about killing and suffering of innocent people i.e. collateral damage. Sick.

Fake condolences, chip on shoulder, no qualms about killing innocent people, sick... Interesting. Couldn't you think of more insults? Pssst...I'm the one that insists on protecting the innocents...

Very few wars are needed and I think you don't really think war is all that terrible. The Iraqi one was not needed and did more harm than good. More peaceful means could have been pursued still. If your family suffered, you'd not be so coy about it, then again I don't know.

So, you agree that some wars are needed. I do think war is terrible. I also think it is needed to protect the innocent and weak, remember? I'm not coy about it. It's called being realistic, as opposed to emotional.

You do appear to have it through your war mongering. You're very nonchalant about the use of force in the world especially on those Untermenschen.

I don't think more military action is better. It's not an issue of just defeating Hitler. Note that Germany is still under occupation. That may be keeping peace, but the Germans do have a history and have similar culture to that of the West. Democracy can occur there.

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and so on have a different view of democracy. Forcing what the West considers democratic, especially with the libertine ways of the West, as seen by the Muslims, is not going to work. Messing around there is just causing suffering for those people.

War mongering? Nonchalant about use of force? I say USA must not get into a non-interventionism mode, that they must continue to protect the weak and innocent, that there's no problem with their troops on foreign soil, if the people asked for help and pay for it. You agreed.

Yes, The ME is a place that should only be helped with proxies. No Boots on the ground. So, no problem, you agree, except for the insults...

 

[Grant]

Photos released of Iraq 'mass execution'

Sunni rebels in Iraq have posted pictures on Twitter apparently showing their fighters killing many Shia soldiers.

The pictures, posted over the weekend, purport to show scores of captured Iraqi soldiers being killed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who wrested control of cities and towns in northern Iraq last week.
The images show masked fighters loading the captives onto trucks before forcing them to lie face-down in a shallow ditch with their arms tied behind their backs. The final pictures show the bodies of the captives soaked in blood after being shot.
A caption on one of the pictures suggested that the victims - believed to be security personnel - were punished for fighting Sunnis. The Twitter account where the pictures were posted was suspended hours later.

The ISIL and associated Sunni rebel forces have taken control of large territories in Iraq in the last week, plunging the country into crisis and increasingly splitting communities along sectarian lines
A diplomatic source in Baghdad told Al Jazeera that the pictures were authentic but the number of soldiers executed could not be verified.

Chief military spokesman Lieutenant-General Qassim al-Moussawi also confirmed the photos' authenticity and said he was aware of cases of mass murder of captured Iraqi soldiers in areas held by ISIL.
He told Associated Press that an examination of the images by military experts showed that about 170 soldiers were shot to death.
US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the ISIL fighters' claim of killing the Iraqi troops "is horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that those terrorists represent".
She added that a claim that 1,700 were killed could not be confirmed by the US.

On Friday, UN human rights chief Navi Pillay warned against "murder of all kinds" and other war crimes in Iraq, saying the number killed in recent days may run into the hundreds.
She said in a statement that her office had received reports that fighters rounded up and killed Iraqi soldiers as well as 17 civilians in a single street in Mosul.
Her office also heard of "summary executions and extrajudicial killings" after ISIL and associated groups overran Iraqi cities and towns, she said.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/iraq-mass-execution-photos-201461622725264258.html

 

[lived666]

Graphic images of massacre

Islamist group ISIS shows images of massacre of hundreds of captured Iraqi soldiers.

I assume not real Muslims

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...soldiers-after-taking-Speicher-base-in-Tikrit

One picture shows army personal cowering while men from the Al-Qaeda linked ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) aim Ak-47 assault rifles at them.

Others show dozens of men lying down in a muddy ditch while a firing squad stands behind them.

Iraqi military spokesman Lt Gen Qassim al-Moussawi confirmed the pictures authenticity although they have yet to be independently verified.