|
| Thread: The Middle East thread |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 · NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted October 13, 2014 02:41 PM |
|
|
The Middle East thread
We need something to talk about in the OSM and there's consistently stuff happening in this region. Some initial thoughts:
How can IS be stopped?
Should the Syrian government be overthrown?
Is Iran a threat to Western interests?
Should Palestine be recognized as an independent state?
Is Egypt ever going to become a democracy?
Is Kurdistan becoming an independant state, atleast in northern Iraq?
Why is the Turkish government cracking down on the Kurds?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 05:33 PM |
|
|
The real question is SHOULD IS be stopped, western meddling has screwed things up enough, hell there's speculation that it was the power vacuums that were created by western interference that allowed such groups to be formed and to consolidate themselves.
Personally, don't interfere if you don't know what you're doing. Ooh IS has to be destroyed because they like to chop people's heads off and enjoy murdering people from a wide range of nationalities. Right, so what are the ramifications? Well it will cost money, and we don't actually know if what we're doing will work. I hate how IS is labeled as a "direct threat", how come their a direct threat to us? They hate humanity? They hate Christianity? Why? How come they're not a direct threat to Japan, or India? Because they don't mindlessly meddle or form crusades.
Rash action in the middle-east is not only costly but can have negative consequences, for example as I understand ISIS is against Iran. (not that I have anything against Iran per-se, but the media sure portrays them as "bad eggs") So if we destroy the enemies of our enemies, then ....right.
It's likely that IS is just a beast set loose by America, one it can no longer control, I mean America doesn't really have much ethics when funding organisations to conduct their wars for them. *cough* Contras *cough*
Don't go telling me that a group of radicals managed to rout Iraqi personnel and then seize all their assets without a serious support /cache of heavy arms from one of the western powers. (pointed my finger at US, but just likely speculation on my part)
Knee deep in recession and they want us to pay for a war, I mean seriously? All this talk of cutting back and we're all in this together while they're off blowing millions/billions on blowing people up, which not only is likely to not solve anything, but it is very likely to just end up stirring a ****ing hornet's nest? Who in their right mind would opt for this? It's not IS we should be fighting, they dare take us into another war and by god the heads of these traitors will decorate London bridge. (-.-)
It's not a matter of should we, or ethics. We CAN'T! 17 trillion god damn dollars in debt US! Really does feels like they just want to blow **** up before they fold and commit collective suicide. That's usually the course of action for peeps that are through the floor (by that I mean they're in the grooound) in debt with no hope of ever repaying it.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Doomhammer
Known Hero
Smasher of pasties
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 05:45 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
The real question is SHOULD IS be stopped, western meddling has screwed things up enough, hell there's speculation that it was the power vacuums that were created by western interference that allowed such groups to be formed and to consolidate themselves.
Personally, don't interfere if you don't know what you're doing. Ooh IS has to be destroyed because they like to chop people's heads off and enjoy murdering people from a wide range of nationalities. Right, so what are the ramifications? Well it will cost money, and we don't actually know if what we're doing will work. I hate how IS is labeled as a "direct threat", how come their a direct threat to us? They hate humanity? They hate Christianity? Why? How come they're not a direct threat to Japan, or India? Because they don't mindlessly meddle or form crusades.
Rash action in the middle-east is not only costly but can have negative consequences, for example as I understand ISIS is against Iran. (not that I have anything against Iran per-se, but the media sure portrays them as "bad eggs") So if we destroy the enemies of our enemies, then ....right.
It's likely that IS is just a beast set loose by America, one it can no longer control, I mean America doesn't really have much ethics when funding organisations to conduct their wars for them. *cough* Contras *cough*
Don't go telling me that a group of radicals managed to rout Iraqi personnel and then seize all their assets without a serious support /cache of heavy arms from one of the western powers. (pointed my finger at US, but just likely speculation on my part)
Knee deep in recession and they want us to pay for a war, I mean seriously? All this talk of cutting back and we're all in this together while they're off blowing millions/billions on blowing people up, which not only is likely to not solve anything, but it is very likely to just end up stirring a ****ing hornet's nest? Who in their right mind would opt for this? It's not IS we should be fighting, they dare take us into another war and by god the heads of these traitors will decorate London bridge. (-.-)
It's not a matter of should we, or ethics. We CAN'T! 17 trillion god damn dollars in debt US! Really does feels like they just want to blow **** up before they fold and commit collective suicide. That's usually the course of action for peeps that are through the floor (by that I mean they're in the grooound) in debt with no hope of every repaying it.
Totally agree, well said Tsar 
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 05:57 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
it was the power vacuums that were created by western interference that allowed such groups to be formed and to consolidate themselves.
i wholeheartedly agree. it was the meddling that caused this uprising. the only way to truly destroy isis, is to wipe out everyone who could potentially join a similar ideal. and that can never happen unless everyone in the world is on board.
which means, that that will never happen anyway. keep pushing people, and they will push back.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 06:02 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
How come they're not a direct threat to Japan, or India? Because they don't mindlessly meddle or form crusades.
I think this is far too simplistic an explanation.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 06:11 PM |
|
|
I think Tsar is mostly right. The popularity of anti-Western militant organizations is the result of a century of Western imperialism in the Middle East. One of the many problems with intervention is that trying to quash these kinds of movements creates new ones, as civilians die and livelihoods are ruined.
On the other hand, it goes without saying that IS is evil, though that doesn't necessarily mean that there should be military intervention against it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 06:41 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
I think Tsar is mostly right. The popularity of anti-Western militant organizations is the result of a century of Western imperialism in the Middle East. One of the many problems with intervention is that trying to quash these kinds of movements creates new ones, as civilians die and livelihoods are ruined.
I think the influence of our culture has more to do with it than you think.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 06:57 PM |
|
|
US meddling and western interference is in itself not a problem but it has been done incompetently for decades. The straight lines that were drawn, inconsiderate of tribal affiliations, and are used as borders after WW1 and WW2 are the source of most ethnic tensions not just in the middle-east but in eastern europe and africa as well. The british are responsible for the middle-east and the french for east-europe. Africa is even worse off on this front getting the smug superior treatment of both of them.
The wests intention was probably to usher in democracies across the whole world so that the established powers could maintain their top status but that needed the disposal/corruption of the despots/dictators/ruling families. Eastern europe was easily corrupted and robbed of most of their wealth when the wall fell. The only thing africa got was indifference so they festered into the horrid state they were in untill China finally started to invest in them a couple of years back.
The middle east had oil so robbing them of their natural resources takes longer. Those who were easily corrupted live like princes today. Those who resisted got the Saddam treatment. Going to war as many times as it takes, no matter how many lives it takes. The problem with this approach is that long wars need lots of weapons. So the west either had to sell their own enemies the weapons or let the Russians do it. The capitalist mentality won out ofcourse.
Things aren't helped by the bipolar sunni/shia powerplays between Saudi Arabia/Quater/UAE and Iran. Iran just made a crutial mistake to develop the A-bomb 50 years too late getting them an almost North-Korea-like pariah status instead of a respected/feared international military presence. Now the sunni "alliance" is making sure to establish their influence in the region(through religious war) to have several nations to supress like the US does with the carribeans and latin america, and western europe with eastern europe and Russia with the balkans and neighbouring states. Same as Turkey and China to be honest.
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 07:01 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 19:06, 13 Oct 2014.
|
Tsar:
1. Yes, the West is partially to blame for the emergence of IS. By leaving Iraq and Syria in a power vacuum, they allowed these extremist groups to rise to power. Troops should not have left Iraq and the Syrian government should either have been supported, or quickly overthrown. The half-ass job the West did in Syria was the worst possible solution.
2. A jihadist state indoctrinating whole generations to hate the West IS a threat to the EU and US, but also to allies in the region.
3. It's just as important to defend the human rights of those people living in the region, as it is important to defend the human rights of people living in the EU and US. Human rights are universal. It would be a crime against humanity to let this Nazi Germany of our time persist.
mvass said:
On the other hand, it goes without saying that IS is evil, though that doesn't necessarily mean that there should be military intervention against it.
So we should do nothing to stop an organization that supporters mass murder, religious coercion and slavery?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 08:51 PM |
|
Edited by kayna at 20:55, 13 Oct 2014.
|
One thing I remember about the war in Iraq - Afghanistan was when I watched Pay Per View ads and one of them was about a cricket match. A CRICKET MATCH between Pakistan and India. Pay per view never show that kind of stuff, usually. Was for 22.95 $ or something. We were shock and awe ( carpet bombing ) the crap out of them and now we had CRICKET matches on pay per view because WE CARE about Islam, Muslims, the Middle East, aka -them-.
I'm sure they would've showed us an Iraq - Afghanistan cricket match if there was a working cricket field somewhere at that time. Had to settle with Pakistan - India.
And now, it is time to talk about THE MIDDLE EAST because WE CARE about them.
Let's carpet bomb Iran because we care about them. Going in there on foot would result in too many casualties on the US side anyways. Let's intervene on a military scale as often as possible because we care about them. Let's add in one or two more righteous questions ( like the Palestinian state ) to add a little confusion. Then lets go back to LOVING the MUSLIMS !
LET US HELP THEM BECAUSE WE LOVE THEM MUSLIMS, WE LOVE YOU ISLAM! ... And boy am I tempted to say a joke here but I dont think the mods would allow it. It would be an unwelcome insight about the republican sexual nature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:11 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
I think the influence of our culture has more to do with it than you think.
It is perhaps a contributing factor, but it'd be much harder to inspire people to go to war just over cultural influence. They may not like porn and McDonald's, but how many would be willing to take up arms against them? But if your relatives have been killed by drones or soldiers, had their houses destroyed, etc, then motivating you to fight is much easier.xerox said:
So we should do nothing to stop an organization that supporters mass murder, religious coercion and slavery?
Who is "we"? It's possible that it'd be a good idea for some pro-human rights militia to organize itself and go fight IS, similarly to the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War, though there are still persuasive reasons why even that's probably a bad idea. But while I agree that human rights are universal, that only means that we should respect them, not that we should go out of our way to protect them - we shouldn't violate them ourselves, but we have no obligation to protect others. In particular, taxpayer dollars should be used to protect taxpayers, not strangers in foreign countries. Otherwise, taxation would be no different from theft.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:14 PM |
|
|
So libertarian principles only apply to white men in America. I see.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:19 PM |
|
|
Not at all. IS is certainly violating the human rights of individuals. However, that doesn't mean that taxpayer dollars should be used to provide them with free defense. That would be objectionable for the same reason that welfare, government health care, etc, are objectionable.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
kipshasz
Undefeatable Hero
Elvin's Darkside
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:35 PM |
|
|
the whole conflict in the middle east is just to control the dope.
biggest flow of opiates comes from that region.
simple stuff really. religion, democracy, all that good crap comes down to only one thing. the fight for control of the dope industry there.
____________
"Kip is the Gavin McInnes of HC" - Salamandre
"Ashan to the Trashcan", "I got PTSD from H7. " - LizardWarrior
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:48 PM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Not at all. IS is certainly violating the human rights of individuals. However, that doesn't mean that taxpayer dollars should be used to provide them with free defense. That would be objectionable for the same reason that welfare, government health care, etc, are objectionable.
Why should taxpayer dollars only provide Americans with defense of their individual rights? If libertarian principles are universal, the night-watch man state should defend these universally. People's rights are not lesser because they happened to be born in a county where these are not respected.
Another solution, which does not involve tax payers' money, is free immigration.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
cleglaw
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 09:54 PM |
|
Edited by cleglaw at 22:16, 13 Oct 2014.
|
IS cant be stopped unless an effective secular revolutionary movement happens in Turkey. This is simple as that. Will it include kurdish people? I dont know, but i guess its too late for them to be in after all those terrorism acts PKK did over the passing years.
It will take time, but im possitive about a secular revolution. Gezi was just a start point, and this is not over yet. I strongly believe we, the secular people of Turkey, will achieve victory over extremist islamists in upcoming few years, and when it will happen, it will effect all middle east. I hope we have enough time to do this. An upcoming war and IS treats towards Turkish people, what worries me. We need time to organise people in here and get rid of this AKP government.
My english is not good enough to tell more. But let me say few things: Ours & american government, they are direct responsibles of all murders IS did for months. They are the responsibles of this armed IS marching towards kurds and turkish borders, i have no doubt of that.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 10:35 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Why should taxpayer dollars only provide Americans with defense of their individual rights? If libertarian principles are universal, the night-watch man state should defend these universally. People's rights are not lesser because they happened to be born in a county where these are not respected.
Another solution, which does not involve tax payers' money, is free immigration.
If there were a global night watchman state with jurisdiction over all the territory on Earth, and funded by people everywhere, it would have the duty to protect people regardless of where they live. But we don't have a global state of any kind - instead, we have a patchwork of more local states, with limited territorial jurisdictions, different taxpayers, and therefore different areas in which their duties apply. The military of the US should protect the US, the military of China should protect China, and so on. Americans aren't paying for the Chinese military, so they're not entitled to protection by it, just like the Chinese aren't entitled to protection by the American military. The same principle applies here.
I do agree about immigration, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:11 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:19, 13 Oct 2014.
|
You claim libertarian principles are universal, yet you are not prepared to enforce these globally. The people who are being oppressed by IS are not going to get their rights enforced by the Iraqi government. Should we just leave them to their fate then? Is that a libertarian cause? Should we sacrifice global liberty just because people don't want to pay taxes for brown people's rights? To make people suffer and live in slavery just because the principles of liberty seemingly don't extend beyond our own borders? I think they do, and it's why I support making NATO into a global watchman of human rights.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
fuChris
Promising
Supreme Hero
Master to the Speed of Light
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:23 PM |
|
Edited by fuChris at 23:25, 13 Oct 2014.
|
mvassilev] said:
If there were a global night watchman state with jurisdiction over all the territory on Earth, and funded by people everywhere, it would have the duty to protect people regardless of where they live. But we don't have a global state of any kind - instead, we have a patchwork of more local states, with limited territorial jurisdictions, different taxpayers, and therefore different areas in which their duties apply. The military of the US should protect the US, the military of China should protect China, and so on. Americans aren't paying for the Chinese military, so they're not entitled to protection by it, just like the Chinese aren't entitled to protection by the American military. The same principle applies here.
I do agree about immigration, though.
There is a thing called the UN you do realize. It's horribly run and has 5 members with veto power which makes it especially useless though.
Russia and China have used this veto power several times in the past decade, China for finacial gain and neutrality's sake while Russia for pushing it's own agenda, supporting Assad and such.
That leaves the US, UK, and France. Europe has willingly reduced their military while supporting the US militarily by backroom deals and preferential trade relations, thus elevating the US to the role of policeman of the world. It is a very much unwelcome role for the US after the series of back-to-back wars(all lost I might add) and has tried to weasel out of it by arming anything that slightly resembles a potencial ally but it is stuck with this responsibility for better or for worse since noone has been willing to step up for them. Not the arabs, not the europeans, not the chinese and especially not the russians.
So yes, The US army does defend the US and the Chinese army does defend China, and so they should but just because we don't know the specifics does not mean that there is no globally financed packt supporting the US military in these undertakings(western europe surely does).
____________
"Now I am become Chris, the destroyer of worlds." - Robert Oppenheimer.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted October 13, 2014 11:29 PM |
|
Edited by kayna at 23:36, 13 Oct 2014.
|
xerox said:
People's rights are not lesser because they happened to be born in a county where these are not respected.
A good philosophical question, and I agree with that statement. But you're assuming the US has the world's best intentions at heart.
Not the case. Not the case at all.
First, you weight the pros and cons of an intervention. Then, you divide the pros in two categories : the righteous and the immoral reasons. Mainstream media ( and education! ) will give us the good reasons, leaving us to guess-deduce-witness the immoral ones ( usually greed-self interest with no regard to other lives ).
Some people truly believe our mainstream information, some are brainwashed, some pretend because they want to avoid trouble ( up to sheer fear ), some avoid politic discussion altogether all their lives, and some speak out about those immoral things our governments do. If you do so with enough clarity and to enough people, throw a 100 faced die ; if you roll a 1, end up on the black list and be gang stalked for the rest of your life. Otherwise, be called a conspiracy theorist.
When brainwashing the masses, remember to analyze who is listening ; gullible people only needs to hear the good sides ( often living in places where the crime rate is low. Less crime, more gullible people. ) If those listening live troubled lives mingled with many ups and downs ( like military people for example ) or spend a lot of time teaching kids values ( like parents ), try the greater good approach ; tell them most good reasons, insert just one or two immoral reasons, the good reasons "outweighing" the immoral ones. Do not worry about those too fearful to speak a political opinion, they're inconsequential. For the others, compare scholarity, family history, drug usage history, criminal records, etc. Proudly state what you have over others, remain silent about the rest.
And if a lot of snow happened somewhere and its too much to handle, just silence them by filtering the media. Only Americans should have something to say about the matter that is their military interventions in the world, after all.
|
| |
|
|
