|
News: US and allies now bombing ISIS in Syria
Member Since: 5/14/2007
Posts: 25,912
|
Good. ISIS is doing too much.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 18,738
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rentboy
No I think you are.
Sad truth is most Americans are extremely ignorant about whats really going on regards foreign policies. They get confused. When asked if America should fight terrorists of course theyll say yes. Its all about how you phrase a question. When you look at poll results that cover the issue the results are very schizophrenic. Which goes back to the confusion.
So no, his approval ratings are not about how he handles ISIS. For most Americans I would think that issue is way down the list because they dont even have the full facts. Heck, Im sure most dont even know what ISIS stands for.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5786980.html
|
Did you even read the article you posted?
Quote:
Three quarters of Americans favor continuing airstrikes against the terrorist group, a new CNN/ORC polls finds, and 83 percent agree with providing humanitarian aid to those fleeing the violence. A 61 percent majority oppose sending ground troops to fight in Iraq or Syria, which Obama has ruled out.
|
The poll released Monday shows that Americans favor:
-- Additional airstrikes against ISIS (76% favor, 23% oppose)
Obama to outline ISIS strategy Is Obama foreign policy cautious or weak? Intel Chair: Obama needs endgame on ISIS
-- Military aid to forces fighting ISIS (62% favor, 37% oppose)
-- Providing humanitarian aid to people fleeing ISIS (83% favor, 16% oppose)
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/08/politics/cnn-poll-isis/
Most people do NOT know what ISIS stands for, but the fact remains that they have gotten out of hand and we need to be there. If you disagree, provide a better solution.
Otherwise chill with the kumbaya i'm-so-progressive nonsense.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
If this post wasnt so sad, I would laugh at it.
Ok, lets forget about the medieval times and look into a more recent history. What about Rwanda? Im sure you are now asking what about it and running to google it to pretend that you know what Im talking about.
In 1994 started in Rwanda a serie of slaughters which resulted into the (almost not publicised) second bloodiest genocide of the 20th century after holocaust.
What seems at first sight as a tribal conflict was in reality a religious conflict between extreme roman catholics from Hutu tribe against moderate christian groups and moslims from other but also their own tribe, leading to the slaughter of almost 1 million people.
Now ask yourself, are the roman catholic extremists from Rwanda better than moslim extremists? Or than the buddhist extremists who massacred a moslim village a few months ago in Burma?
Do you think you would be able to have a more reasonable diologue with them than with moslim extremists? I dont think so. World is not only black or white darling.
Well, back to ISIS, US has a huge role in their creation, ask yourself why the situation on the middle east has escalated like this. Or what worse can happen if US will continue to back and arm rebels in Syria to fight ISIS (just like when US established and armed Taliban when they fought USSR in the 70s).
A small example:
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-...istian-village
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/...rent-Occasions
|
I'd laugh at this arrogance if I weren't so used to it from virtually any post you make on ATRL. Slight irony in the posting of an examiner article on ATRL, but nonetheless.
Conjecture to the last by you in the highlighted part (maybe you should have Googled a little further!) That's like saying the troubles in Northern Ireland are religion routed, religion is a consequence of ethnicity in this instance. Coincidently, didn't America get berated for not intervening during the genocide in '94? Guess it was okay to utilize the world's most advanced military to clean up world problems then, but now the US should be overly criticized for it.
What should be done then by the West at large - nothing is it? ISIS should take full control of Iraq and Syria and possibly any other country they can quickly seize? The people who are being killed should suffer as a result of superpower inaction in Rwanda? We live in the time of Muslim extremism, where more are killed in the name of their ******** than other religions so I stand by what I say and don't attempt to whitewash (semi-punny) religion into other situations (that have sinced long concluded) in order to attempt to be PC or seem liberal. If ISIS want to literally seize power under terrorism, the West should respond.
EDIT: Also just for the record, I abhor all religions.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 18,738
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty
What should be done then by the West at large - nothing is it? ISIS should take full control of Iraq and Syria and possibly any other country they can quickly seize? The people who are being killed should suffer as a result of superpower inaction in Rwanda? We live in the time of Muslim extremism, where more are killed in the name of their ******** than other religions so I stand by what I say and don't attempt to whitewash (semi-punny) religion into other situations (that have sinced long concluded) in order to attempt to be PC or seem liberal. If ISIS want to literally seize power under terrorism, the West should respond.
|
They never provide solutions, I don't know why ask.
My friend told that if they enter his country, Lebanon, they would be literally ****ed because they don't have the infrastructure to retaliate against it all. I hope this is stopped soon because they are spreading across the region like a virus.
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 34,957
|
I don't know what to say!
I hope my friends and relatives will make it out alive ...
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 11/14/2008
Posts: 24,988
|
I agree with the poster that mentioned, in war, there are no true winners. No matter the good intentions that are originally had, there are still unfortunate losers (innocent bystanders) in all of this. However, sitting by and doing nothing, allows more lives to pass, day-by-day. I get it, not everyone are in favor of war and the air strikes, but instead of condemning and putting down the US for the actions, we and OUR MIDDLE EASTERN ALLIES seen fit, WHAT PROGRESSIVE STEPS AND SOLUTIONS DO YOU RECOMMEND we take?
This isn't a Utopian world where peace and harmony reigns supreme. It's a world of corruption, ignorance, hate, delusion, violence and fear; BUT there are also just as many good. I rather adapt the mindset of being PROACTIVE than REACTIVE. Normally, I'm not a pro-war kind of person, but even I know at times, it's necessary. We're dealing with terrorists ladies and gentlemen. Well connected and ever growing terrorists. Do we send Goodwill Ambassadors in faith to negotiate and come to amicable terms? Let's keep it 100, do you honestly think things would work out? We're not dealing with a nation, but a group of deadly individuals. No, the beheading of two Americans wasn't what solely led to the air strikes, it was a culmination of events and threats that led to it. It just feels that some here, on both sides, are jumping in and giving their opinions without reviewing the events that led to this unfortunate course of action.
FOR THE RECORD: It was the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates that participated in the strikes.
---
Side note: People, CEASE and DESIST with the flamebait and personal insults of other members. Learn to intelligently convey your opinion, while keeping an open mind that others may not be receptive to those said opinions.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 8,763
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rusty
I'd laugh at this arrogance if I weren't so used to it from virtually any post you make on ATRL. Slight irony in the posting of an examiner article on ATRL, but nonetheless.
Conjecture to the last by you in the highlighted part (maybe you should have Googled a little further!) That's like saying the troubles in Northern Ireland are religion routed, religion is a consequence of ethnicity in this instance. Coincidently, didn't America get berated for not intervening during the genocide in '94? Guess it was okay to utilize the world's most advanced military to clean up world problems then, but now the US should be overly criticized for it.
What should be done then by the West at large - nothing is it? ISIS should take full control of Iraq and Syria and possibly any other country they can quickly seize? The people who are being killed should suffer as a result of superpower inaction in Rwanda? We live in the time of Muslim extremism, where more are killed in the name of their ******** than other religions so I stand by what I say and don't attempt to whitewash (semi-punny) religion into other situations (that have sinced long concluded) in order to attempt to be PC or seem liberal. If ISIS want to literally seize power under terrorism, the West should respond.
EDIT: Also just for the record, I abhor all religions.
|
Call me arrogant all you want, you cant question the al-Duvair massacre of christians by FSA, its well documented, but stayed largely ignored by western media and guess why? Because it were US allies who did it. Similarly with Sadad massacre of christians and many others and the motive behind it is obviously religious cleansing. Yes, religious, hun. Just like in Rwanda when they masacred thousands of their own Hutu people just because their ideology and religion was different (maybe you should have googled a little bit further).
Those who have berated US for not intervening the events in Rwanda are probably too used to see USA acting like the self-proclaimed policy of the world and getting involved in almost every military conflict, but only when there is something to take advantage of or gain from it. Rwanda was just not important enough from geopolitic or economic point of view for US, so they ignored it. But thats good, because its none of US business. Its UN who should prevent events like that from happening, and they clearly failed to act in time. But at least UN is impartial and isnt causing more problems in the countries they actually intervene in, unlike US who are always acting in their own interest, which can be very different from what is in the best interest of the country they intervene in and its people.
And ISIS is US problem because its the direct result of their very own actions. If you havent paid attention or its too complicated for you to understand, im not saying that there shouldnt be taken an action against ISIS. Im only saying that everyone who wants to fight ISIS should be very cautious to not cause even more problems in the area. To support and arm an uncontrollable rebel army in Syria whose large part is cooperating with extremist groups including Al-Qaeda, a rebel army which has committed several massacres and war crimes recently and whose people continue to change the sides and are joining ISIS is incredibly irresponsible from US and can result in creation of yet another extremist organisation even worse than ISIS, just like it happened in the past.
If you want to have a discussion about politics and world affairs, try to open your mind first, because all I hear from you is hatred directed at muslims and islam, but dont forget that mostly muslim civilians living in Syria and Iraq are the ones suffering right now in this conflict.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/13/2012
Posts: 32,832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rentboy
Oh Lord you've fallen hook line & sinker for the goverments propaganda. Just show a viral video of a beheading and suddenly war is justified.
As for forcing extreme ideas on people: have you watched any of those evangelistic Christian TV channels on American TV? Now thats scary. Millions brainwashed.
|
It was not a beheading, before those they were exterminating the Christians and the yazidis in Iraq, oppressing the population by banning schools, and god knows what else...
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/25/2012
Posts: 30,317
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
Call me arrogant all you want, you cant question the al-Duvair massacre of christians by FSA, its well documented, but stayed largely ignored by western media and guess why? Because it were US allies who did it. Similarly with Sadad massacre of christians and many others and the motive behind it is obviously religious cleansing. Yes, religious, hun. Just like in Rwanda when they masacred thousands of their own Hutu people just because their ideology and religion was different (maybe you should have googled a little bit further).
Those who have berated US for not intervening the events in Rwanda are probably too used to see USA acting like the self-proclaimed policy of the world and getting involved in almost every military conflict, but only when there is something to take advantage of or gain from it. Rwanda was just not important enough from geopolitic or economic point of view for US, so they ignored it. But thats good, because its none of US business. Its UN who should prevent events like that from happening, and they clearly failed to act in time. But at least UN is impartial and isnt causing more problems in the countries they actually intervene in, unlike US who are always acting in their own interest, which can be very different from what is in the best interest of the country they intervene in and its people.
And ISIS is US problem because its the direct result of their very own actions. If you havent paid attention or its too complicated for you to understand, im not saying that there shouldnt be taken an action against ISIS. Im only saying that everyone who wants to fight ISIS should be very cautious to not cause even more problems in the area. To support and arm an uncontrollable rebel army in Syria whose large part is cooperating with extremist groups including Al-Qaeda, a rebel army which has committed several massacres and war crimes recently and whose people continue to change the sides and are joining ISIS is incredibly irresponsible from US and can result in creation of yet another extremist organisation even worse than ISIS, just like it happened in the past.
If you want to have a discussion about politics and world affairs, try to open your mind first, because all I hear from you is hatred directed at muslims and islam, but dont forget that mostly muslim civilians living in Syria and Iraq are the ones suffering right now in this conflict.
|
You get it
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/5/2014
Posts: 1,395
|
Well, so long as we help provide aid to those fleeing the violence, then I'm for it. ISIS is getting way too crazy.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 797
|
NOT @ y'all dragging the U.S. as if "and allies" isn't in the OP and title. Bombing a terrorist group in a country known for violence against their own people > being attacked by a terrorist group in the country that is the foundation for your country's economy.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bríseis
Call me arrogant all you want, you cant question the al-Duvair massacre of christians by FSA, its well documented, but stayed largely ignored by western media and guess why? Because it were US allies who did it. Similarly with Sadad massacre of christians and many others and the motive behind it is obviously religious cleansing. Yes, religious, hun. Just like in Rwanda when they masacred thousands of their own Hutu people just because their ideology and religion was different (maybe you should have googled a little bit further).
Those who have berated US for not intervening the events in Rwanda are probably too used to see USA acting like the self-proclaimed policy of the world and getting involved in almost every military conflict, but only when there is something to take advantage of or gain from it. Rwanda was just not important enough from geopolitic or economic point of view for US, so they ignored it. But thats good, because its none of US business. Its UN who should prevent events like that from happening, and they clearly failed to act in time. But at least UN is impartial and isnt causing more problems in the countries they actually intervene in, unlike US who are always acting in their own interest, which can be very different from what is in the best interest of the country they intervene in and its people.
And ISIS is US problem because its the direct result of their very own actions. If you havent paid attention or its too complicated for you to understand, im not saying that there shouldnt be taken an action against ISIS. Im only saying that everyone who wants to fight ISIS should be very cautious to not cause even more problems in the area. To support and arm an uncontrollable rebel army in Syria whose large part is cooperating with extremist groups including Al-Qaeda, a rebel army which has committed several massacres and war crimes recently and whose people continue to change the sides and are joining ISIS is incredibly irresponsible from US and can result in creation of yet another extremist organisation even worse than ISIS, just like it happened in the past.
If you want to have a discussion about politics and world affairs, try to open your mind first, because all I hear from you is hatred directed at muslims and islam, but dont forget that mostly muslim civilians living in Syria and Iraq are the ones suffering right now in this conflict.
|
RE: the bold part: Extremists, in the personal sense, not Muslims at large. I have a blanket hatred for religion at large, they're all mass delusion. The rest: America is so terrible, they should never intervene in situations unless it's saving Europe's balls in the 40s. If you want to believe what happened in Rwanda wasn't ethnically motivated that's your prerogative, but it makes it no less false. Religion was a consequence of the ethnicity, not the driving force behind the genocide. I don't care about debating this without you because you're half redundant and half self-serving to the point of missing the point of this thread - US/allies targeting muslim extremist idiots who are committing atrocities.
I stand by the fact that as a ridiculously wealthy country America and the rest of the rich Western, army-ready nations should step in when religious nutjobs seize control of countries. I said already the US' involvement in Iraq was the central reason for a less stable Iraq today and so a more simply obtainable piece of land for ISIS. I don't doubt American intervention in the middle-east since 2001 has been problematic for the region - but this is where we are. We don't live in a world of do-overs, we live in a world of right now - either the West intervenes to prevent a genocide or it happens and rich-country citizens who opposed US action get to feel smug for feeling like the US is finally stopping their role as the world's superpower in a military sense. Regardless of past mistakes, the US should and is leading Western allies to prevent the ISIS eradication of hundreds of thousands. America can "sit one out" when there isn't an extermination at stake, though it'll once again fall to America as the bad guy for allowing it to happen then, not the rest of the Western world. And here are words to live and die by from your comment:
"Its UN who should prevent events like that from happening, and they clearly failed to act in time."
Story of the UN's entire lifecycle, along with the EU. Sometimes you need action, regardless of anyone's cynicism about American ideals in war. Opening a paragraph with ******** like "maybe it's too difficult for you to understand" = maybe take the pole out of your ass, the arrogance glasses off and recognize the victims of ISIS matter more than your opinion. America, and the Western allies agree. Go back to living in a fictitious world where wars are entirely just and big meanie America just doesn't come to the table when it comes to any world events. I'm sure the people who may need help would love the same treatment from other rich nations like the EU that Yugoslavia got in the 90s - absolutely none. Atrocity after atrocity in a nation falling apart into subsections right on Europe's doorstep and the EU stood back and said "whatever." They deserve that Nobel Peace Prize as much as Obama. It Nato (US and UK lead) without the UN's approval to finally restrain fighting.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 16,371
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Maiko
They never provide solutions, I don't know why ask.
My friend told that if they enter his country, Lebanon, they would be literally ****ed because they don't have the infrastructure to retaliate against it all. I hope this is stopped soon because they are spreading across the region like a virus.
|
Of course they don't, because there is no other solution. America is far from perfect, but people act like we live in a world where military action from the West is never needed. Time to put down the weed and look outside!
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/31/2012
Posts: 1,230
|
How does America have the money to bomb countries everyday? Seriously? Everytime I watch the news they are bombing something or at war. I always hear about their debts and economy declining. So many homeless and poor in America and yet money is spent like this? Thank god I'm not American.
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/22/2010
Posts: 3,722
|
those defending ISIS and comparing it to christianity 1000 years ago... really? I've seen it all. You should be banned.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/30/2012
Posts: 5,537
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Synchronicity
How does America have the money to bomb countries everyday? Seriously? Everytime I watch the news they are bombing something or at war. I always hear about their debts and economy declining. So many homeless and poor in America and yet money is spent like this? Thank god I'm not American.
|
Quantitative easing and seemingly infinite possible debt because the dollar is the world currency
I don't know where you live but if it's in Europe our future isn't looking much brighter in terms of debt and economic decline (unless you're Swedish or Swiss).
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 2,534
|
Quote:
Originally posted by bullshizzlen
Bomb 'em
Sometimes unfix-able problems (ISIS) just need to be taken care of to prevent greater threats in the future. There's always the chance it could backfire and the U.S could be hit harder but honestly I feel like there's no more time to deal with ignorance like the entirety of the ISIS and if I was in charge, I'd bomb the hell out of them SOONER than Obama.
|
Hiroshima the **** outta them!!
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/12/2010
Posts: 9,704
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/12/2010
Posts: 9,704
|
No one is taking this issue seriously enough.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 5,381
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Synchronicity
How does America have the money to bomb countries everyday? Seriously? Everytime I watch the news they are bombing something or at war. I always hear about their debts and economy declining. So many homeless and poor in America and yet money is spent like this? Thank god I'm not American.
|
War stimulates the economy, which in turn, makes $
But anyway, yeah, ISIS need to be stopped. People can say it's not the US and allies problem, but if ISIS are allowed to expand as they currently are; the thread the pose to the west is very real.
|
|
|
|
|