Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, we need one anyway.

17 (21.8%)

No, we should take that elsewhere and keep this thread as-is.

27 (34.6%)

I don't care, let's see what happens.

34 (43.6%)

Total Members Voted: 75

[LordBucket]

Iran could have been a modern, fully industrialized, semi-secular country by now if we put some effort into it.

They probably would have been anyway with or without our help if we'd simply left them alone. 1940s Iran was remarkably westernized.

You've equated taking action with "being mean."

..well, when that action involves things like rape and torture and overthrowing governments and funding and arming anti-government terrorists and insurrectionists and so forth, yes I think "being mean" is a reasonable, if somewhat euphemistic way of describing that sort of action.

There is no choice between being a jerk and being a flower, there is only the choice in what crushes jihadism.

You do realize that the manner of thinking you're engaging in is exactly the same sort of thinking being used by those you wish to destroy, yes?

IMO we should go back a 100 years.

If you want to go back 100 years, I'm ok with that. I chose 70, rounded up, because the overthrow of democratic government in Iran is one of the stupidest things the US has ever done and there are still people alive to remember it.

No, to start is to take the bait. I won't forget bay12's fondness for hatefacts, listing grievances is "dangerous."

How would you justify your own position without listing things they've done to deserve what you want to do to them?

From where I sit, you sound like a person complaining that it's unfair for someone to point out that you punched them first when justifying why you want to punch them again. Even the CIA has acknowledged that a great deal of terrorism is retaliatory in nature.

Whining and complaning about the past isn't going to change history or solve things.

Ok. That's a legitimate point.

So what do you propose?

Recognizing that our interference has historically been a tremendous contributor to problems over there, how do you propose to interfere without causing more problems?

[smjjames]

Contrary to popular belief, Syria is the result of the West not interfering and letting the Middle East sort our their own affairs.

Mix of both. Syria is the result of western intervention after the Western garrison in Iraq being forced to leave in Iraq allowed the conflict to spread into Syria. You don't destroy a regime without leaving a viable replacement. Iraq had none, Libya had none - and if we'd have succeeded in Syria, there'd be none.

Can't say we didn't try to leave a viable replacement in Iraq, because in Libya, we didn't even try.

Though the deal with Iraq being a power vacuum is complex, starting with Iraq's 'ghost army' which were made up army regiments that didn't even exist, and somehow we failed to see that and thought their army was bigger than it actually was.

[Strife26]

Iraq was a damn corrupt place when I was there, and the Iraqi army were rabbits. You don't try to make a nation state when the state component is lacking.

Keep up the UC with the Kurds, keep up the DA when need be, keep up assassinating fools when it's convenient. Wash the stain of Pax Americana from the hands of the West and keep watching the wheel of time spin. Lord only knows where it'll stop. 

[Vilanat]

Contrary to popular belief, Syria is the result of the West not interfering and letting the Middle East sort our their own affairs.

Mix of both. Syria is the result of western intervention after the Western garrison in Iraq being forced to leave in Iraq allowed the conflict to spread into Syria. You don't destroy a regime without leaving a viable replacement. Iraq had none, Libya had none - and if we'd have succeeded in Syria, there'd be none.

The Sunni insurgency in Syria predates Iraq war by three decades. the difference is that back then the muslim brotherhoodies were isolated (No open border through sympathetic Turkey) and Jihadism didn't turn global because governments could effectively control the flow of information, transportation and communication.

[smjjames]

Whining and complaning about the past isn't going to change history or solve things.

Ok. That's a legitimate point.

So what do you propose?

Recognizing that our interference has historically been a tremendous contributor to problems over there, how do you propose to interfere without causing more problems?

Most of that interference has been either militarily, controlling the territory like a colony (France and England mostly), and political interference (see the Cold War, too many to name here, also maybe Lawrence of Arabia), right?

Instead of trying to outright control things there, we should support the things that would help make them better, and help them with things that they want help with.

Iraq was a damn corrupt place when I was there, and the Iraqi army were rabbits. You don't try to make a nation state when the state component is lacking.

Keep up the UC with the Kurds, keep up the DA when need be, keep up assassinating fools when it's convenient. Wash the stain of Pax Americana from the hands of the West and keep watching the wheel of time spin. Lord only knows where it'll stop. 

UC and DA?

[Loud Whispers]

They probably would have been anyway with or without our help if we'd simply left them alone. 1940s Iran was remarkably westernized.

Of that we are all in agreement.

..well, when that action involves things like rape and torture and overthrowing governments and funding and arming anti-government terrorists and insurrectionists and so forth, yes I think "being mean" is a reasonable, if somewhat euphemistic way of describing that sort of action.

I find jihadists reprehensible for their practice of rape and torture and I find the USA reprehensible for overthrowing the governments from Libya to Iraq and funding terrorists. If your suggestion is that Europe is incapable of fighting the likes of ISIS without America raping Syria and the response is to let ISIS rape Syria instead for the next 70 years - genocide or suicide, take your pick what you want leads to both.

You do realize that the manner of thinking you're engaging in is exactly the same sort of thinking being used by those you wish to destroy, yes?

In knowing your enemy know yourself.

If you want to go back 100 years, I'm ok with that. I chose 70, rounded up, because the overthrow of democratic government in Iran is one of the stupidest things the US has ever done and there are still people alive to remember it.

Yes, and we are all in agreement. Unless you have a time machine we can't go back to that world.

How would you justify your own position without listing things they've done to deserve what you want to do to them?

Because I am not advocating military action because of grievances, I'm doing so because they are a threat who will not cease to be a threat to everyone with apathy.

From where I sit, you sound like a person complaining that it's unfair for someone to point out that you punched them first when justifying why you want to punch them again.

If the fair thing is to let jihadists spill Western blood until they have taken their fill I think I shall decline to do as you say.

Even the CIA has acknowledged that a great deal of terrorism is retaliatory in nature.

All the fighters from Europe left safe countries to kill innocents in Syria. They deserve what comes to them.

Can't say we didn't try to leave a viable replacement in Iraq, because in Libya, we didn't even try.
Though the deal with Iraq being a power vacuum is complex, starting with Iraq's 'ghost army' which were made up army regiments that didn't even exist, and somehow we failed to see that and thought their army was bigger than it actually was.

Some Armenian commentator summed it up quite nicely - removing all the Ba'athists from government, military and administration would be like invading China and removing everyone who was a member of the People's party from government, military and administration. You would get rid of everyone, because you had to be a member to be in any three of those branches. It left Iraq with no state army and created hundreds of thousands of unemployed veterans and officers, whose officers now make up the leadership of Iraq's Islamists.

[LordBucket]

Instead of trying to outright control things there, we should support the things that would help make them better, and help them with things that they want help with.

...for example?

Are you proposing that we stop funding revolutions and terrorists and dictators and instead remove embargoes and give them food aid and internet access?

[smjjames]

They probably would have been anyway with or without our help if we'd simply left them alone. 1940s Iran was remarkably westernized.

Of that we are all in agreement.

..well, when that action involves things like rape and torture and overthrowing governments and funding and arming anti-government terrorists and insurrectionists and so forth, yes I think "being mean" is a reasonable, if somewhat euphemistic way of describing that sort of action.

I find jihadists reprehensible for their practice of rape and torture and I find the USA reprehensible for overthrowing the governments from Libya to Iraq and funding terrorists.

*ahem* The funding terrorists was a Cold War thing, theres all kinds of illogical in hindsight there.

Also, the US wasn't alone in fighting in Libya and it was the Libyans who overthrew it, we just helped.

Instead of trying to outright control things there, we should support the things that would help make them better, and help them with things that they want help with.

...for example?

Are you proposing that we stop funding revolutions and terrorists and dictators and instead remove embargoes and give them food aid and internet access?

That's.... one way to look at it, but honestly, do you really think it's going to be that simple?

As for an example, I'm not sure honestly, there is no simple one size fits all for all the MidEast. Though stop funding dictators would be a start.

[Loud Whispers]

Most of that interference has been either militarily, controlling the territory like a colony (France and England mostly), and political interference (see the Cold War, too many to name here, also maybe Lawrence of Arabia), right?

*Lawrence wanted an independent Arabia, free from Ottomans and just about everyone else really, with the Arabs angry at the Young Turks for betraying muslim values. The subsequent partitioning of the Arabian peninsula however...
I suppose it's similar to how if you crack a magnet down the middle the two halves that perfectly fit nonetheless violently repel each other.

Instead of trying to outright control things there, we should support the things that would help make them better, and help them with things that they want help with.

Indeed. Bolster the Syrian and Iraqi government instead of trying to destroy it, pick one of the regional hegemons like Turkey or Iran and work with them towards building a stable state and Libya well, that one has to be rebuilt. Foreign military support and possibly even occupation could be required.

*ahem* The funding terrorists was a Cold War thing, theres all kinds of illogical in hindsight there.

You think I'm advocating bombing the USA over this or something? That was the age where the British military intelligence published a report saying Islamic terrorism was not likely going to be a threat in the coming years. We have the benefit of hindsight. For all we know Saddam could have caused WWIII by now were he living but hypotheticals are pointless.

Also, the US wasn't alone in fighting in Libya and it was the Libyans who overthrew it, we just helped.

You didn't just help, you won the revolution. 14,000 air strikes utterly dismantled Gaddafi's forces. Destruction was complete, but no one was there to pick up the pieces. That's how Libya went from having no Islamist movements to Libya. Don't think this is just typical eurotrash antiamerican ranting m8, our Prime Minister said he'd be with the Libyans every step of the way and disappeared shortly thereafter.

That's.... one way to look at it, but honestly, do you really think it's going to be that simple?
As for an example, I'm not sure honestly.

It's going to be a long century.

[k33n]

I am cringing in anticipation of people who will say this has nothing to do with religion, and that Europe is somehow at fault.

[ragnar119]

any ideas on how we can combat this?

Step interfering in the Middle East and let them sort out their own affairs.

Wisdom flies from his mouth.

Contrary to popular belief, Syria is the result of the West not interfering and letting the Middle East sort our their own affairs.

Hm strange as a lot of information we have are talking that west  did interfere in syria for some time now.
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-west-saw-isis-as-strategic-asset-b99ad7a29092

http://levantreport.com/2015/08/06/former-dia-chief-michael-flynn-says-rise-of-islamic-state-was-a-willful-decision-and-defends-accuracy-of-2012-memo/

http://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified-u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html

To things like wiki leaks about documents of west different plans how to topple the syrian government
https://www.slantnews.com/story/2015-11-03-assange-syria-and-isis-or-how-the-west-has-learned-the-art-of-double-think

[Loud Whispers]

I am cringing in anticipation of people who will say this has nothing to do with religion, and that Europe is somehow at fault.

Already happened.

Hm strange as a lot of information we have are talking that west  did interfere in syria for some time now.

This is not tinfoil stuff m8 it was international news that we were funding moderates against the Assad regime. Then the moderates started doing things like cutting peoples hearts out and eating them. Then they turned out to not be so moderate :/
Not to mention defections from the few successfully trained to Islamist insurgencies

[smjjames]

Uh, I'd take those sources with a handfull of grains of salt (or was it sand?).......

As LW said, theres no need to go into tinfoil hat territory here to find the West interfering in Syria for some time now.

I am cringing in anticipation of people who will say this has nothing to do with religion, and that Europe is somehow at fault.

Already happened.

Hm strange as a lot of information we have are talking that west  did interfere in syria for some time now.

This is not tinfoil stuff m8 it was international news that we were funding moderates against the Assad regime. Then the moderates started doing things like cutting peoples hearts out and eating them. Then they turned out to not be so moderate :/
Not to mention defections from the few successfully trained to Islamist insurgencies

Not to mention having most of them getting killed or captured.

[ragnar119]

Uh, I'd take those sources with a handfull of grains of salt (or was it sand?).......

Well they sure are better than popular things like CNN and BBC, especially as you have live videos and same info on other media sources (so pick your poison that you trust more,  normally you will not find this on CNN and similar, but surprised its actually on fox news)

[LordBucket]

I find jihadists reprehensible for their practice of rape and torture

Actually it was the US doing the raping and torturing in the example I linked.

I am not advocating military action because of grievances, I'm doing so because they are a threat who will not cease to be a threat to everyone with apathy.

Ok. So, same question I asked smjjames: what do you propose? Stirring up the hornets has not ended well for us previously. And it hasn't ended well for the civilians over there either. If military action is what you want, in order to put an end to what you perceive as a threat...how do you propose to go about that? I already asked this same question several thread pages ago.

How do you do it?

How do you send troops in and selectively identify the people you want to kill, and kill only the people you want to kill? How do you send troops in and kill people without turning their friends and neighbors into jihadists in the process? How do you take military control of a host population without breeding widespread resentment?

How do you accomplish your specific goal without creating more problems in the process?

honestly, do you really think it's going to be that simple?

As for an example, I'm not sure honestly.

Probably not, but "helping them" was your suggestion, not mine. My original proposal was to simply accept that everything we do over there ends badly, write off the losses and stop making it worse. There are atrocities in the world we ignore besides those going on in the middle east.

But if you can find a way to export Mickey Mouse and Disneyland and western culture in general without them being resentful of it, that's probably a good move.

Giving them internet access might be the best thing we could do. Let them see how the rest of the world lives, and the next generation will probably want to give up the old way of doing things.