He has a valid opinion altough I don't agree with it. Progressive policies tend to work better than conservatives ones when applied to societies that have evolved past certain thresholds but they are not as effective when applied to backward societies.
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
He has a valid opinion altough I don't agree with it. Progressive policies tend to work better than conservatives ones when applied to societies that have evolved past certain thresholds but they are not as effective when applied to backward societies.
But if they still believe in the same cause, they will carry on.
He doesn't have a point. these people can't not be reasoned with, political pressure is going to do nothing.
His only point is terrorism has won and Corbyn is running away scared.
We reasoned with some in PIRA.
Isn't even remotely the same.
We also can't totally cut ISIS finances. They control an area the same size as surrounding countries and forcing the population in that area to pay extremely high taxes to them. They in effect have their caliphate and the money that brings with it.
We can certainly do more to reduce their finances.
You know IS belief we're in the end times and they want to bring about the apocalypse yeah? Not quite the same as wanting an united Ireland.
There's not really a common ground with IS to negotiate with them.
Only real option is to deal with them militarily and help secure the area for the local government forces. And yes they won't be able to completely crush the believes, only education will ever achieve that but that won't happen in my lifetime.
No, the idiocy is all yours.
Bombing does destroy their resources, their personal and their finances. You can not say that doesn't help the situation.
How is that relevant to anything?
ISIS are religious nuts, there isn't anything to reason or negotiate over.
Its like trying to 'reason' with the Saudi's over changing their justice system when they believe they're enforcing god's laws and it is other state's justice systems that are flawed.
Did military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya work?
He implied he would negotiate with Assad/Iran, not Isis. It's a valid stance whether you like it or not, it's ridiculous to claim 'bomb em!' is the only option.
Well doing nothing hasn't worked either... and given the numbers killed and territory taken by ISIS it is unlikely to be worse than doing nothing.
Granted they do need to figure out some sort of transition - but whatever plan is implemented in the end (whether we work with Assad or not) will still require ISIS to be removed - the lack of a clear decision in that respect isn't a reason to not bomb them, they'll need to be bombed regardless.
Did it not? How much more land would they have without the bombings? Not that they've had a concentrated bombings as the public will hasn't been there.
It's also again is a totally different situation, we went in on the ground with a regime change and left a vacuumed, so yet another one of your points that can't remotely be compared.
In terms of some goals, yes - Al Quaeda were removed rather quickly from Afghanistan, the further aim to implement regime change was perhaps a waste of time though.
Saddam was removed from power in Iraq fairly rapidly, democratic elections successfully carried out but the failure of the Sunni and Shia to share power is largely down to the current Shia government.
Libya was facing a potential genocide in Benghazi, we didn't start the conflict in Libya and were probably right to step in and prevent that... the fact the place is unstable is besides the point, it was already unstable before we even got involved.
Al Quaeda removed quickly? we were there for 13yrs and still had to leave with the job unfinished, as of today Afghan forces are in a constant struggle against the Taliban and needing help from US air strikes. Most Al Quaeda followers will have now joined ISIS and are stronger than ever operating under a different name.
Yeah it has been deleted.
Your reply to me was that 'someone else killed all those people' with regards to my statistics of hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocents.
I'm not going to reply after this point, because, your in a mindset where you want to see the west as innocent, I get people become patriotic - hell the media is hellbent on 'programming' the public to say what your saying, i.e. anything but the obvious.
But I implor you to think a little more logically here................. I am using Iraq in my examples because were a little further along the timeline there, it is however the same in afgan, syria etc just at different timelines.
In a nutshell:
1) Iraq was led by crazy man Saddam Hussein, not a nice bloke no - HOWEVER because of this Iraq was a relatively stable country, for the people stayed in line and no ISIS/Taliban particularly existed there.
2) Bush/Blairdog made up a story about WMD (tell me, do you honestly believe that as well? despite the whole world laughing at that now)
3) Iraq is invaded, countless innocents die
4) Decade(s) on, the region is unstable, the 'government' there (put in place by the west) is a farce and factually all the oil there is now run and exported by USA businesses, of which some have huge steak holder / owners part owned by......... you guessed it - the Bush family - all facts, go look it up.
5) Invading Iraq has done v v v v little for the locals there, aside from bring a lot of death, sure Hussein was a nutter, many died, but no where near what 'we' have done....................
6) Doing this understandably has caused a lot of eastern folks to hate the west, these folks got a few mates together and they all happen to also be fundamentalist nut jobs - NO im not sympathisingbut the west created 'today'.
7) Ask yourself, prior to 9/11 - perhaps the 90's iraq war, was there any 'muslim nutjobs'........... no ? thought so
You said all those deaths were not caused by us - in a nice way I am saying this, but that is gross ignorance on a massive scale. SURE not every single death...........but MOST are caused as a DIRECT result of the war there........a lot of people die stepping on mines and IED's or caught in cross fire - had WE not invaded, they wouldnt be there, however here is a singular case example of 17 dead from airstrikes in Mosul:
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/a1175
Feel free to browse the database..........The ignorance of people saying 'oh our bombs are so smart they will never hit anyone innocent' is just........beyond ignorance that past me making this informative post, I CBA to reply to - because you will come up with some weird and crazy reply ignoring the fact that dropping bombs even 'smart ones' is ....... as designed..........damn deadly, how come those 17 above died on the 28th Feb this year, 2015 ? why is bombing STILL going on in 2015 in Iraq?
Apply this to Afgan, and Syria and its the same..... the USA wants regime change in Syria for the same reason - oil.
I've studied that page countless times years ago. Your own link shows a graph that when clicked you can differentiate between coalition forces and unknown forces causing the casualties. Your own link shows that a tiny portion of those deaths were attributed to coalition intervention. Further, you cannot say how many deaths would have occurred in already war torn Iraq without any intervention. You're working off a lot of bias presumption and misinterpretation of data.
It also bothers me that so many people judge Blair and Bush as being murderous vile leaders, yet oh it's fine that saddam went on as he did because "he kept the peace". Hypocrisy, it's a common trait in people of similar mindsets.
You evidently have no comprehension of the situation in Iraq, pre and post gulf war.
yes, they were removed very quickly
that would be the regime change aspect...
like I said:
Nothing will change, they'll be back with a different name once the bombs have stopped and the countries are in rubble.
Remember hearts and minds? It was a good idea but hard to stick to when bombs destroy whole houses.
You don't need to brainwash people with religious doctrine to make them hate the countries dropping the bombs. Concentrate on our own security instead, target leaders important objectives with bombs.
In ten years time they won't just control a country but a whole region, what we going to bomb then?
Nothing will change, they'll be back with a different name once the bombs have stopped and the countries are in rubble.
Remember hearts and minds? It was a good idea but hard to stick to when bombs destroy whole houses.
You don't need to brainwash people with religious doctrine to make them hate the countries dropping the bombs. Concentrate on our own security instead, target leaders important objectives with bombs.
In ten years time they won't just control a country but a whole region, what we going to bomb then?
i never learnt at school dont know much but this rings true circles i know go round and roud
Remember hearts and minds? It was a good idea but hard to stick to when bombs destroy whole houses.
You don't need to brainwash people with religious doctrine to make them hate the countries dropping the bombs. Concentrate on our own security instead, target leaders important objectives with bombs.
In ten years time they won't just control a country but a whole region, what we going to bomb then?
i never learnt at school dont know much but this rings true circles i know go round and roud
ref libya and arab spring uprisings these nations were begging for western intervention and support. We are damned if we do damned if we dont.
might have very well been a uprising for good reason but it was hijacked by jihadists...this goes for syria too.
i think this is going to be a bloody mess and is only going to get worse, i dont see any other real alternatives though.