LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
Ah but that's the point isn't it? Which innocent people?
Well so far we have had two journalists and an aid worker publicly executed. Not to mention the tens of thousands of others killed by these terrorists.
36 journoes killed so far in 2014 through various methods, according the CPJ (committee to protect journalists).
Where've you been?
LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
Ah but that's the point isn't it? Which innocent people?
Well so far we have had two journalists and an aid worker publicly executed. Not to mention the tens of thousands of others killed by these terrorists.
36 journoes killed so far in 2014 through various methods, according the CPJ (committee to protect journalists).
Where've you been?
I'm not really interested in semantics.
The world has a problem at large with these terrorists and the problem needs to be resolved.
Unless you have a better solution the only way to deal with them is to eliminate them.
End of story.
LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
People get slaughtered everywhere all the time. It's impossible to involve yourself in every single conflict in terms of personnel and money. We will never and cannot understand how the Middle East works. These are issues that are culturally entrenched and have been since day dot. You can't just go in with your Western Imperialism ideals (such as our ideologies and democratic processes) and expect these countries to just function afterwards. I mean I can't say I like dictatorships, but who's to say these countries need western style democracy? It doesn't necessarily work everwhere. Yeah I'm sure life is ■■■■ under these dictators, but look what happens afterwards (e.g. Egypt), the situation worsens. We need to just stay the fark out. As already stated if this was not oil related no one would give to farks. Money trumps all whether we like it or not.
LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
Ah but that's the point isn't it? Which innocent people?
Well so far we have had two journalists and an aid worker publicly executed. Not to mention the tens of thousands of others killed by these terrorists.
36 journoes killed so far in 2014 through various methods, according the CPJ (committee to protect journalists).
Where've you been?
I'm not really interested in semantics.
The world has a problem at large with these terrorists and the problem needs to be resolved.
Unless you have a better solution the only way to deal with them is to eliminate them.
End of story.
Sorry which terrorists in particular?
The US? Boko Harum? Israel? Janjaweed? South Sudan liberation mob? Palestine? Russia? Chechnyans? There's like a dozen wars on at the moment.
Someone had reasons for publicising those videos.
LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
People get slaughtered everywhere all the time. It's impossible to involve yourself in every single conflict in terms of personnel and money. We will never and cannot understand how the Middle East works. These are issues that are culturally entrenched and have been since day dot. You can't just go in with your Western Imperialism ideals (such as our ideologies and democratic processes) and expect these countries to just function afterwards. I mean I can't say I like dictatorships, but who's to say these countries need western style democracy? It doesn't necessarily work everwhere. Yeah I'm sure life is **** under these dictators, but look what happens afterwards (e.g. Egypt), the situation worsens. We need to just stay the fark out. As already stated if this was not oil related no one would give to farks. Money trumps all whether we like it or not.
The only thing I'm 100% sure of is, Western countries (or Western backed locals) invading bits of the middle east results in far more terrorists & strife than leaving it alone would.
Terrorist is a loaded term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You cannot argue that point except from a partisan view. Money/capital has instigated the unrest in most of the places around the world. Who knows what kind of place Iraq might have been if the exploiters never ventured there, what, two hundred years ago? The European powers of yesteryear and US now have created un-natural national boundaries all over the place and they seem to be now reaping what they have sown.
Terrorist is a loaded term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You cannot argue that point except from a partisan view. Money/capital has instigated the unrest in most of the places around the world. Who knows what kind of place Iraq might have been if the exploiters never ventured there, what, two hundred years ago? The European powers of yesteryear and US now have created un-natural national boundaries all over the place and they seem to be now reaping what they have sown.
So then we just let it go on then.
I'm sure the women and children in the Middle East will be overjoyed.
LOL at people professing that sending 'humanitarian aid' is the solution.
How does that work specifically?
And I'm a bit tired of people sneering that the West are only getting involved because they are now impacted. Whether that is true or not, the course they are setting now is true and should be supported.
Unless people are advocating that we continue to do nothing whilst innocent people are slaughtered.
People get slaughtered everywhere all the time. It's impossible to involve yourself in every single conflict in terms of personnel and money. We will never and cannot understand how the Middle East works. These are issues that are culturally entrenched and have been since day dot. You can't just go in with your Western Imperialism ideals (such as our ideologies and democratic processes) and expect these countries to just function afterwards. I mean I can't say I like dictatorships, but who's to say these countries need western style democracy? It doesn't necessarily work everwhere. Yeah I'm sure life is **** under these dictators, but look what happens afterwards (e.g. Egypt), the situation worsens. We need to just stay the fark out. As already stated if this was not oil related no one would give to farks. Money trumps all whether we like it or not.
The only thing I'm 100% sure of is, Western countries (or Western backed locals) invading bits of the middle east results in far more terrorists & strife than leaving it alone would.
Again - what is your solution save for letting terrorists slaughtering whole segments of populations?
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
Terrorist is a loaded term. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. You cannot argue that point except from a partisan view. Money/capital has instigated the unrest in most of the places around the world. Who knows what kind of place Iraq might have been if the exploiters never ventured there, what, two hundred years ago? The European powers of yesteryear and US now have created un-natural national boundaries all over the place and they seem to be now reaping what they have sown.
Nothing too unnatural about the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon or Libya. Saudi land is a little made up but Arabia did previously exist through that region. Most of those countries have history in the regions they now occupy, same with Turkey.
And if / when ISIS is defeated? Then what, leave the region again because everything should be hokey dory?
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?
And if / when ISIS is defeated? Then what, leave the region again because everything should be hokey dory?
The aim, like it was last time (and we all know how well that worked) is to make a stable government that can control these factions and stop this sort of issue.
It won't happen, but that's the aim.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
It's impossible to save every innocent in the world. In this instance innocents are second, petrol first. How about all the crap that happens in Africa? They have no oil, no one cares. FWIW I'm not left.
Also regarding that point about the boundries, I was gonna ask about that. IMO that's the start of the issue. Why was it allowed to happen?
And if / when ISIS is defeated? Then what, leave the region again because everything should be hokey dory?
thats the issue. there is no strategy.
and if one isis member is left when us/uk leave then they can start it all up again.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
It's impossible to save every innocent in the world. In this instance innocents are second, petrol first. How about all the crap that happens in Africa? They have no oil, no one cares. FWIW I'm not left.
Also regarding that point about the boundries, I was gonna ask about that. IMO that's the start of the issue. Why was it allowed to happen?
They existed before the world powers divided up the region once the Ottoman Empire collapsed. They were only giving back what previously existed and it was not as artificial as people think. They are not all one people group, they actually do exist under different titles.
The thing is, for the entire history of the ME as we know it, there's either been a huge big all-powerful empire at war with the West, or a cacophony of smaller states who are various levels of extremist, warring more or less all the time amongst themselves.
I can't see a solution. I just know what hasn't worked the last 25323509 times, and that's having western troops on the ground attacking locals.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?
I don't understand this argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because we don't do something for other countries does not mean we should not get involved elsewhere just for the sake of consistency. Its frankly ridiculous.
The thing is, for the entire history of the ME as we know it, there's either been a huge big all-powerful empire at war with the West, or a cacophony of smaller states who are various levels of extremist, warring more or less all the time amongst themselves.
I can't see a solution. I just know what hasn't worked the last 25323509 times, and that's having western troops on the ground attacking locals.
That may well be right however in this case IS are rapidly getting out of control and gaining more power.
Standing back and watching them get stronger is not a solution.
Always find it amusing how the left are prepared to let innocent people die and get slaughtered overseas.
So... we should save every country whose people are being needlessly slaughtered? Or just the ones on the news?
I don't understand this argument. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Just because we don't do something for other countries does not mean we should not get involved elsewhere just for the sake of consistency. Its frankly ridiculous.
But you didn't answer the question. Is this situation only 'so out of control' because we are getting so much media about it? If you threw this much coverage at Africa, or even North Korea, the general public would be jumping up and down about that as well.
And your use of the term 'two wrongs don't make a right' in this situation, is subjective at best, and naive at worst. Which action are you attaching to the word 'right?'