Are you for/against the US strikes against IS in Iraq?

[Fred Castellum]

When I pinpointed the UK plane I was trying to allow you to know that they are stepping in. The people on that mountain would not be laughing with you on this one I'd have to say. I guess the point of me posting here is, when the US spends money elsewhere no one bats an eye, but when they send help for innocent people who have shed many more tears than you could imagine, everyone loses an their minds. One of the reason Obama stepped in was because of the one woman crying the Iraq office. The video went viral (dunno if you saw it).

 

What your friend said is quite true. Like I said above, I have experienced these atrocities first hand where I was born, and let me tell you, its horrifying.

Where are they spending money where we don't bat a eye? Do note using military force costs a god dam fortune... its by no means a small number. A single day of military involvement could cost millions and that's just a small estimation in what I've seen before.

 

Like I said I'm all good with humanitarian aid but military aid shouldn't be done if its just the US sending troops in, We were just in a decade long war for crying out loud.

 

It's not the concept of helping people in need that bothers me its the concept of making a problem that's not yours into a problem that is yours. 

[AlwaysFSX]

Its not that simple, I can say that because I've personally experienced it. People would rather run then protect their stuff

 

 

Israel isn't IS though. I know they are killing people that are being used as shields but that has nothing to do with this post about Iraq. I think that in itself is America's problem, that it why I think they contradict themselves, but the Iraq problem is a place US has to come into place nonetheless.

When I pinpointed the UK plane I was trying to allow you to know that they are stepping in. The people on that mountain would not be laughing with you on this one I'd have to say. I guess the point of me posting here is, when the US spends money elsewhere no one bats an eye, but when they send help for innocent people who have shed many more tears than you could imagine, everyone loses an their minds. One of the reason Obama stepped in was because of the one woman crying the Iraq office. The video went viral (dunno if you saw it).

 

What your friend said is quite true. Like I said above, I have experienced these atrocities first hand where I was born, and let me tell you, its horrifying.

You're missing the point. I think most of us are in agreement that we should help the people stuck on the mountain. But we should not militarily intervene.

[x7ASSASSIN7x]

Where are they spending money where we don't bat a eye? Do note using military force costs a god dam fortune... its by no means a small number. A single day of military involvement could cost millions and that's just a small estimation in what I've seen before.

 

Like I said I'm all good with humanitarian aid but military aid shouldn't be done if its just the US sending troops in, We were just in a decade long war for crying out loud.

 

It's not the concept of helping people in need that bothers me its the concept of making a problem that's not yours into a problem that is yours. 

 

 

You're missing the point. I think most of us are in agreement that we should help the people stuck on the mountain. But we should not militarily intervene.

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I also agree with both of you in that matter. I do not think its right to send troops in, but sending aid and food to help is definitely the right thing to do 

[Fred Castellum]

Sorry if I misunderstood, but I also agree with both of you in that matter. I do not think its right to send troops in, but sending aid and food to help is definitely the right thing to do 

Lol well shit there we go @AlwaysFSX 

[helping]

Two options

1) Completely pull out of West Asia, I mean 100% dip. l8r.

2) Glass parking lot

 

seems to be the only effective options.

[AlwaysFSX]

Lol well shit there we go @AlwaysFSX 

*slow clap*

 

Two options

1) Completely pull out of West Asia, I mean 100% dip. l8r.

2) Glass parking lot

 

seems to be the only effective options.

You know, after being in a desert for so long, I prefer a parking garage.

[jmaster299]

From what I know, The Jewish people were not called the Jews until Judaism became the religion tied to the Hebrews. They were HEBREWS, not Jews. I have yet to seen a history book remark Abraham as Jewish, but as a Hebrew man. Hebrews are never referred to as Jews until some of them are exiled from Judea during the Diaspora, which wasn't until 600 BCE. You are right, though. You do not need to revere Judaism to be Jewish, but you must be Hebrew.

 

As for the topic: If history repeats itself (and it usually always does), then the air strikes will not do anything. I have yet to propose a solution, but I doubt one will come until either the Palestinians or the Israeli decide to come to their own terms with one another. I can also easily say why Israel is the true enemy and give reasons why, but the same can be said for Palestine.

@AlwaysFSX

But that goes back to the point I was making. Hebrew is just one of what is several Jewish ethnicities, and is defined by people who speak Hebrew. A Jewish person could probably explain it better than I can since I was not raised in a Jewish household. The Jewish people are not just the limited set of people who practices Judaism, like some people refuse to acknowledge, despite all the proof I have provided. @AlwaysFSX It's strictly a modern concept that a person is only Jewish if they practice Judaism. There is even disagreement on it between the different sects of Judaism. But in the context of history, the "Jewish People" encompases dozens of different ethnic groups.

The Kingdom of Judah predates the religion of "Judaism" and was established after the death of King Soloman. Who had ruled the Kingdom of Israel, which had been a single Kingdom until his death. The religion of the people of the Kingdom of Judah was not Judaism, but was in fact the Israelite Mosaic faith. Now those people eventually founded Judaism, but the religion does not define the people. The Jewish people encompass all the people of that land first settled in 4500 BC in what is now known as the City of David. The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah all come from those original settlers, who are historically referred to as the Jewish People.

For people to claim the Israel did not exist before 1948 really need to be educated. Palestine is the aggressor in all of this, if they would stop firing rockets into Israel every day, and stop calling for the death of all Jews, and stop launching terrorist attacks inside Israel, and stop kidnapping Israeli citizens, all of this would stop. 

 

 

You're missing the point. I think most of us are in agreement that we should help the people stuck on the mountain. But we should not militarily intervene.

 

Then how should we help? They are trapped on a mountain with ISIS cutting off all access. How are we supposed to help with out first removing the people who are trying to kill them?

 

 

Making money off of war isn't my cup of tea, I'd prefer through transactions dealing with the improvement on technologies.

 

Wat. You think Turkey will stand to let itself get invaded? There's a reason they've been there forever. This is a problem that's been contained to those few countries for thousands of years, it's not likely it'll change with one group that has an attitude problem.

 

How is it people can claim we are making money off of war in one breath, then complain about how expensive the wars are in another? Either it costs us money or it makes us money, it can't be both. We got nothing out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars other than destroying people who wanted to destroy us. We spent billions of dollars on our own troops, and sent billions of more directly to the new Iraqi government, but received no financial gain of any kind. Even after Iraq regained control of their oil fields, and we making billions of dollars off the sale of that oil, they were still begging us for money.

The claim foe "war for oil" is bs. Gas has only become more expensive ever since we left Iraq.

[Fred Castellum]

Then how should we help? They are trapped on a mountain with ISIS cutting off all access. How are we supposed to help with out first removing the people who are trying to kill them?

Then we clear out some of those areas by TIMED negotiation(a short period before military force) and with military force of not JUST the US. screw the idea of the US being the only nation to send military personnel all over the place. Let the UN open up a cooperative god dam line this time. 

[Sammael]

no but i am against arming kurdish forces nobody gives a fuck but those weapons come back to turkish borders and used against turkish forces.

 

 

I have a question about this, do the Turks dislike/distrust the kurds in their country?  And if so why?  If it was because of some past uprisings, did those uprisings occur because the kurds wanted to carve out their own land in Turkey, or because they were being oppressed and they saw that as a way to get ahead?

 

I ask because out of ALL of the power factions within Iraq, the kurds seem the most decent and respectful of others.  They do seem to want their own state, but they played ball before and stayed with the rest of Iraq without trying to split off.  They seem to just want to be left alone to thrive, vs actors like IS who want to dominate and subject everyone around them to their will.  Kneel or Die.

 

I don't understand why kurds would not be a solid neighbor and ally for Turkey since they DON'T behave like IS, they actually seem to care about their lives and people more than trying to subjugate others.

 

 

But these are just the impressions of a geographically challenged American, explain why I am so off.  I don't know much of anything about the PKK, just going off of what I've read about the kurds in Iraq.

[jmaster299]

Then we clear out some of those areas by TIMED negotiation(a short period before military force) and with military force of not JUST the US. screw the idea of the US being the only nation to send military personnel all over the place. Let the UN open up a cooperative god dam line this time. 

LoL, negotiate with ISIS? You're joking, right? They can not and will not be negotiated with. It's "do as we say or we will cut your head off". As far as the UN, it needs to be abolished. It sounds good on paper, but nothing good has ever come out of the UN. There end goal is a global dictatorship, as evidence by crap like the UN Small Arms Treaty. Which is in direct violation of the US Constitution. They want global law to supercede the sovereign laws of all counties on the entire planet. Also, any of the top members, I forget the term for them, can stop the UN from taking any action at any time. Just one of the top member nations can stop anything they don't want.

Also, who the hell to you think pays for the UN to do anything? They are fully funded by countries like the US.

[Fred Castellum]

LoL, negotiate with ISIS? You're joking, right? They can not and will not be negotiated with. It's "do as we say or we will cut your head off". As far as the UN, it needs to be abolished. It sounds good on paper, but nothing good has ever come out of the UN. There end goal is a global dictatorship, as evidence by crap like the UN Small Arms Treaty. Which is in direct violation of the US Constitution. They want global law to supercede the sovereign laws of all counties on the entire planet. Also, any of the top members, I forget the term for them, can stop the UN from taking any action at any time. Just one of the top member nations can stop anything they don't want.

Also, who the hell to you think pays for the UN to do anything? They are fully funded by countries like the US.

If its not done we can't say "at least we tried". 

 

In the end I simply do not agree with the US being the only nation to send direct military support, we aren't suppose to play world police yet we keep dong it. If its a conflict on the other side of the world then it should be a cooperative effort to resolve it, not a wave of the hand and tanks and jets traveling to the location. 

 

Do you want to enforce a set of ideals? Without a designated way to enforce it nothing will come of it. 

[jmaster299]

If its not done we can't say "at least we tried". 

 

In the end I simply do not agree with the US being the only nation to send direct military support, we aren't suppose to play world police yet we keep dong it. If its a conflict on the other side of the world then it should be a cooperative effort to resolve it, not a wave of the hand and tanks and jets traveling to the location. 

 

Do you want to enforce a set of ideals? Without a designated way to enforce it nothing will come of it. 

Yeah, the world has spent thousands of years trying to negotiate with radicals. It has never, ever, worked.

I also never said the US is the only country who can do something, but you said we should only be providing non-military support. But the truth is that's impossible.

[DeViLzzz]

Once again it is being said the only reason the US is doing this is to protect oil interests.  Pathetic.

However I am for the strikes as at least for a few moments ISIS got their butts kicked.

[Sammael]

Then we clear out some of those areas by TIMED negotiation(a short period before military force) and with military force of not JUST the US. screw the idea of the US being the only nation to send military personnel all over the place. Let the UN open up a cooperative god dam line this time. 

 

 

Truth be told, I would LOVE for the UN and other nations to step up to the plate during these types of crisis.  France actually does a bit of it, as does the UK and Australia, but Germany?  Never.  The lesson Germany learned from two devastating world wars was that the greatest evil they had to rail against was fighting itself.  I think a better lesson to take to heart would have been to fight evil.  There were plenty of decent Germans that stood by and did nothing while millions were gassed, they chose not to fight.  Standing aside and behaving like the peaceful hermit is no virtue when you have the power to stand against some great evil in the world.  The constraint to standing up against evil and bullies should never be some sterile principle against all violence and war, it should be based on the limitations of our power.  But many people don't use the latter to when arguing for non intervention, they sometimes make the case that it's not our business or not our problem, let THEM handle their own mess.  Who are "WE" to intervene over there.  We have no justification.

 

Implicit in these statements is a rejection of human rights.  If you actually believe in human rights, they do not go away because someone happens to live inside some hell hole the IS controls.  It is the same in all reference frames.  That does not mean you charge into every corner of the earth where injustice occurs, but it does mean that our policy ought to include considerations of human rights, not JUST human interests like the TOTALLY amoral radical realists, the tywin lannisters of foreign policy.

[Fred Castellum]

Yeah, the world has spent thousands of years trying to negotiate with radicals. It has never, ever, worked.

I also never said the US is the only country who can do something, but you said we should only be providing non-military support. But the truth is that's impossible.

I said we should only provide military support if its a group effort with multiple nations. I don't want the US shouldering all of it, sure we have the biggest military on the planet but it doesn't mean were able to keep up so many of these military engagements. I'm against the US being the world police. 

 

If the US is going to use military force it better not be just the US, all those taxpayer dollars flowing into the military to be thrown into conflicts not based in the US. 

[Fred Castellum]

Implicit in these statements is a rejection of human rights.  If you actually believe in human rights, they do not go away because someone happens to live inside some hell hole the IS controls.  It is the same in all reference frames.  That does not mean you charge into every corner of the earth where injustice occurs, but it does mean that our policy ought to include considerations of human rights, not JUST human interests like the TOTALLY amoral radical realists, the tywin lannisters of foreign policy.

Human rights yes, however in order for human rights to stick it has to be a global consensus agreed upon by those who want to enforce them. The US isn't designated to be the one to enforce human rights for the whole world, my points is the world theater needs to pitch in. The US was just in a decade long war, I'm not saying the US shouldn't help militarily I'm just saying the US isn't a giant invincible power we can't keep up multiple military engagements. 

 

The group effort and consensus needs to exist or all will be neigh. 

 

Plus the Lannisters thrive on their pride, and we all know being too prideful is poisonous 

[jmaster299]

I said we should only provide military support if its a group effort with multiple nations. I don't want the US shouldering all of it, sure we have the biggest military on the planet but it doesn't mean were able to keep up so many of these military engagements. I'm against the US being the world police. 

 

If the US is going to use military force it better not be just the US, all those taxpayer dollars flowing into the military to be thrown into conflicts not based in the US. 

So, we should just sit back and continue to let ISIS slaughter people until other countries agree to bomb them with us??????

[Fred Castellum]

So, we should just sit back and continue to let ISIS slaughter people until other countries agree to bomb them with us??????

Ok lets say we do send in US military force and end the conflict. Then what? Only for it to crop up in the next couple of years under a different name? 

 

Whats your permanent fix to the problem? 

[DeViLzzz]

What we need in this world is countries to finish wars.  Stop negotiating peace that will never be kept.  Finish enemies off.  I get tired of these bs wars and skirmishes.  Also if certain countries can't act peacefully and behave then why not invade the damn countries and take their resources and kill off the people.  End of story.  

 

Sorry but I have had it with the playing nice about all this sort of stuff.

I also grow tired of countries letting economics/companies run their government and dictate what they do.  If I had my way I'd kick the God damn companies out of my country that refuse to pay proper wages, hire enough people and so on and just try to educate and build from within.  Stop letting big companies rule the world.  It is ridiculous.  Take a step back and have less to go forward once again one day.

That is my two cents on dealing with all the bs in the world while still keeping some of the political ideas of civilized nations in this world but really ... what I want ...

NWO

I would like one governing body for the entire world and no BS.  Commerce = dead, criminals given super harsh punishments with many being death penalties, the right to health care, food, a roof over your head and an education.  Give everyone a job so that everyone can contribute to the good of the world.

NWO

 

I hope some day there will be militia groups in North America that say enough of this BS and take over parliament and so on and push the NWO agenda.  

I will grab any gun they hand me and storm wherever is needed.  It is about time there is equality in this world.

[Fred Castellum]

What we need in this world is countries to finish wars.  Stop negotiating peace that will never be kept.  Finish enemies off.

You mean completely killing off the opposing nation? Civilians and all? 

[Mooshi]

NWO is too idealistic to ever work in practice, the  world leaders have too much pride to have zero say so on how they rule their own people. There is too much tension and the human condition alone will never allow this. Personally, I'm against the idea, but simply wish my own country would stop playing Super Man. The USA is 200+ years old, that's a baby compared to the rest of the world to have so much influence over it. Forget the dirty oil abroad and fighting ideals. There is no victory in fighting over someone's ideals and that's what's up. Think about the last time the US was attacked hard on its own soil since over a decade ago. I'm more worried about the scum in our own streets we should focus on. Call me paranoid, but because of thugs that are common in the city, I worry about my mum when she goes out at night.

 

As for wiping out the other nations..this isn't a game of Civ where it's fun to drop nukes and take over, this is real life. Both our enemies, allies and our own countrymen, I am 100% against the slaughter of innocent lives.

[MrTiC]

 

Why should other people be involved, it's not their war, is it?

Think about this, what if it was YOURE country thats being opressed/invaded and you couldnt do anything about it. Wouldnt you want the outside help ?

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

As for wiping out the other nations..this isn't a game of Civ where it's fun to drop nukes and take over, this is real life. Both our enemies, allies and our own countrymen, I am 100% against the slaughter of innocent lives.

 

This is what I am thinking here. Killing people is not a direct goal of itself, but it is used to prove that a given party refuses to happily surrender it's motives so that somebody else has their way. If Israel has a non-genocide end goal, then so does Hamas, Taliban and the likes. If the Palestinians are trying to protect their land, then so are the Israelis. You have to see the other side of the problem, with open eyes, and understand why the "bad guys" do what they do. It is almost always more complex than what the medias would like you to believe. I have lost count of the amount of times where both Fox News and MSNBC have spouted complete and absolute lies about what is going on in the world beyond the States.

 

I have said this before, but I have 0 respect to the people who see the one side as a vile POS because they (very strongly) support the other. Yes, @jmaster299, I am talking about you. You should be very careful when you state your "facts", because I can very easily turn your own logic against you. To classify one side as "radicals" to such a broad degree, you are by yourself a radical, because you reject the merits of the opponent's argument, as misinterpret them as "extremist hate". You really think that Hamas does not see us a "infidel radicals"? When you boil it down, there is little to no difference between how they see us and how we see them, and it essentially becomes a battle of who's opinion is more important. Case in point: The Cold War. 

[Mooshi]

This is what I am thinking here. Killing people is not a direct goal of itself, but it is used to prove that a given party refuses to happily surrender it's motives so that somebody else has their way. If Israel has a non-genocide end goal, then so does Hamas, Taliban and the likes. If the Palestinians are trying to protect their land, then so are the Israelis. You have to see the other side of the problem, with open eyes, and understand why the "bad guys" do what they do. It is almost always more complex than what the medias would like you to believe. I have lost count of the amount of times where both Fox News and MSNBC have spouted complete and absolute lies about what is going on in the world beyond the States.

 

I have said this before, but I have 0 respect to the people who see the one side as a vile POS because they (very strongly) support the other. Yes, @jmaster299, I am talking about you. You should be very careful when you state your "facts", because I can very easily turn your own logic against you. To classify one side as "radicals" to such a broad degree, you are by yourself a radical, because you reject the merits of the opponent's argument, as misinterpret them as "extremist hate". You really think that Hamas does not see us a "infidel radicals"? When you boil it down, there is little to no difference between how they see us and how we see them, and it essentially becomes a battle of who's opinion is more important. Case in point: The Cold War. 

 

Different ideologies aside, not everyone is a radical. Most people have the same basic goal of wanting to live their lives in peace and raise a family. It doesn't matter if someone is Muslim, Christian, Atheist or anything else, we all breathe the same air and share the same planet. Are there extremists that are genuinely bad human beings? Of course. But to shameless paint an entire people is sad. It's easy to wave a flag and chant "USA! USA! USA!", but I just can't blindly do that. This isn't going on our soil, of course it's easy to sweep such conflict under the rug and think nothing of it. But what about the people abroad who are minding their own business who gets caught up in all this? This isn't fair to all those children who can't sleep at night because they live in a war zone. We as human beings should be ashamed this is considered normal or just another day. This is teaching people who are innocent over there to view the USA as a vile country full of hatred. Americans hate to believe that they are capable of being branded as terrorist by another group, but it's all the same. Lives are lost and not all of them were even part of the war, innocents caught up in all this and that is disgusting.

 

The slaughtering of innocent people is always wrong. This isn't patriotic, this is madness. It's been over a decade since the US had a major attack on our soil yet those in the middle east face this all the time. It's pitiful to have a one sided view on this.

[Fred Castellum]

Different ideologies aside, not everyone is a radical. Most people have the same basic goal of wanting to live their lives in peace and raise a family. It doesn't matter if someone is Muslim, Christian, Atheist or anything else, we all breathe the same air and share the same planet. Are there extremists that are genuinely bad human beings? Of course. But to shameless paint an entire people is sad. It's easy to wave a flag and chant "USA! USA! USA!", but I just can't blindly do that. This isn't going on our soil, of course it's easy to sweep such conflict under the rug and think nothing of it. But what about the people abroad who are minding their own business who gets caught up in all this? This isn't fair to all those children who can't sleep at night because they live in a war zone. We as human beings should be ashamed this is considered normal or just another day. This is teaching people who are innocent over there to view the USA as a vile country full of hatred. Americans hate to believe that they are capable of being branded as terrorist by another group, but it's all the same. Lives are lost and not all of them were even part of the war, innocents caught up in all this and that is disgusting.

 

The slaughtering of innocent people is always wrong.

Not just the US the rest of the world too, because the US has its hand in so many world events its seems like were the country solely obligated to solve all the problems and thats wrong.