RE: So . . . what do we do about C?

RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 10:18:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seekingOwnertoo Exactly what we are doing now! No doubt, that angers many of you; but keep in mind: 1. Western Forces, especially US forces, will be viewed as colonialists and conquerors. They will incite: popular unrest, guerrilla warfare and open rebellion. All that comes from being on the ground it is many, many casualties; until the Western Power(s) withdraw. 2. Stable Government everywhere in the world requires popular support. Middle East is no exception. 3. Daesh is NOT popular, unless Western Armies are on the ground. 4. Daesh WANTS Western Armies attacking their HQ. They believe it is a fulfillment of prophecy. 5. Western Ground forces attacking their HQ; will bring hundreds of thousands of new recruits to Daesh. My conclusion is to let local forces beat Daesh down, develop a national identity, and create working, peaceful Government. And we hardly have to do a thing. Except: bomb Daesh while arming and supporting the local opposition. Oh and shut down Twitter, Facebook and all social networking sites. As well as force Technology Companies world Wide to allow Government Spying. That's it, it simple. BTW, Ground Forces DID NOT WORK in Vietnam or Iraq. They will no work now, either. All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support.

seekingOwnertoo -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 11:39:09 AM)
To my mind, You are 100 per cent correct! [:)]

NorthernGent -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 11:45:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Trying to defend Islam and keep saying, oh it's peaceful, it's totally peaceful. It's not! How can anybody who reads their teachings even associate the word "peace" to it, that I cannot fathom. We could interpret a book according to our own bias, or: We could look at the evidence. When was the last time a muslim country invaded England or the United States or France or a few more. How many times have Western nations set up shop in muslim countries? The fact, and I restate fact, not your interpretation of religious books; is that the aggressors are Western nations. I don't speak as someone who has a problem with religion; nor do I care who is killing whom in the world - it's boring and nothing to do with me - but what I can't stand is people with big mouths who have a lot to say but none of it has any basis in fact. When was the last time a "Christian" country attacked another country over religious reasons? Well, yeah, in the event we're gonna stack the deck so that we can pick and choose which invasion is worthy of mention, then you'd win that argument; of course you would, because that's making it up as you go along. But, were we to arrive at the conclusion that invasions and violence in the name of 'democracy' or economics or pretty much anything, is up for discussion, then the unmistakable outcome is that muslim countries are generally not the aggressors. The evidence is indisputable but yet people want to jump through hoops to argue to the contrary. Tells a story. As I've said, I don't really care who is killing whom - boring and nothing to do with me - but for God's sake: be honest and fair.

NorthernGent -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 12:02:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think you need to look back in history to the answers of your questions of conquest. You clearly don't agree so go ahead and list these muslim invasions of Western nations. Will you include European nations as "Western"? Of course. I'm aware of Spain, Sicily, Siege of Vienna in the 1600s etc; but none of this would even register compared with Western nations setting up shop in their countries. You forgot a little minor inconvenience known as the "Ottoman empire" invading Europe. Muslims have instigated large scale invasions of the Western world and Westerners have invaded Muslim lands. It's not nearly as one sided as you would have though it is it? It is. For the Ottoman Empire read the British Empire, the current United States version, France, Germany, The Crusades and if we kept on listing them the Mods would be running out of bandwidth. It is unanimously one sided. And, the interesting thing is that when muslim countries held the upper hand, and Europe was a backward continent, not that long ago; they didn't really bother us that much. But, when the tables were turned and Europe, and later the United States, held the upper hand; we were all over them like a rash. And, we're still doing it today.

NorthernGent -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 12:09:10 PM)
And, what no one has mentioned yet is that there is an inherent contradiction within Christian nations. The tenets of the Protestant religion and Liberalism, which is a product of Protestantism, demands expansion. Unlike Islam.

BamaD -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 3:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub I think you need to look back in history to the answers of your questions of conquest. You clearly don't agree so go ahead and list these muslim invasions of Western nations. Will you include European nations as "Western"? Of course. I'm aware of Spain, Sicily, Siege of Vienna in the 1600s etc; but none of this would even register compared with Western nations setting up shop in their countries. You forgot a little minor inconvenience known as the "Ottoman empire" invading Europe. Muslims have instigated large scale invasions of the Western world and Westerners have invaded Muslim lands. It's not nearly as one sided as you would have though it is it? It is. For the Ottoman Empire read the British Empire, the current United States version, France, Germany, The Crusades and if we kept on listing them the Mods would be running out of bandwidth. It is unanimously one sided. And, the interesting thing is that when muslim countries held the upper hand, and Europe was a backward continent, not that long ago; they didn't really bother us that much. But, when the tables were turned and Europe, and later the United States, held the upper hand; we were all over them like a rash. And, we're still doing it today. According to Arab chronicallers of the time Europe was to cold. Besides, the further they got into Europe the more the tables turned, see Tours. They moved up through the Balkins into what is now Hungery and Romania where they were stopped by strong, and often ruthless, leaders like Vlad the impailer.

Politesub53 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 4:02:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ?

Politesub53 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 4:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 nookie, don't mind me... Thompson---though I am reluctant to talk with you and take you the least bit seriously: "the inquisition" is not confined to spain. it was a European wide phenomena and roughly began in the 1100s, and more earnestly in the 1200s. and spain was one of the places. the 1478 date you mention has to do with king Ferdinand and queen Isabella making the inquisition a "royal instrument" but the inquisitors (and thus "the inquisition") had already existed in spain for two centuries. feel free to apologize... Feel free to get your facts right. As per usual you show you know fuck all about fuck all.

zombiegurl -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 4:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? just like all wars engaged by proxy, we were just stupid enough to add some ground troops to the mix....the world thinks we are a joke and we seem to be trying hard to prove them right...

Politesub53 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 4:52:02 PM)
I have posted before about how complicated the situation is. The Turkish goverment are fighting the Kurds. The Kurds are fighing both the Turks and IS, as well as allegedly carrying out attacks on Sunni Muslims in areas over run by IS. IS are fighting the Kurds, Assad and the FSA. Assad is fighting the Kurds, the FSA and IS. IS is selling oil to the Assad and the Turks. The West propose to arm the FSA, despite it being made up of many groups, some anti western. Air power alone wont solve the problem, lets not forget we have been bombing IS for a year. Its a shitfest with no easy answer.

BamaD -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 5:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zombiegurl quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? just like all wars engaged by proxy, we were just stupid enough to add some ground troops to the mix....the world thinks we are a joke and we seem to be trying hard to prove them right... It didn't happen in Iraq, we went in and did the heavy fighting, leaving Iraq to be protected by unready troops who where handed something without have taken the effort and made the sacrifice to do it. This would not be war by proxy in any case. Do you not see that the people we would be helping are already at war with people who want to culturally if not physically exterminate them, all we would be doing is helping them win their own war. The fact that it helps us too is a really nice by-product.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 5:22:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Its a shitfest with no easy answer. [sm=agree.gif][sm=wall_smiley.gif] Fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So . . . what do we do about Daesh? (12/6/2015 5:25:46 PM)
]ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 Trying to defend Islam and keep saying, oh it's peaceful, it's totally peaceful. It's not! How can anybody who reads their teachings even associate the word "peace" to it, that I cannot fathom. We could interpret a book according to our own bias, or: We could look at the evidence. When was the last time a muslim country invaded England or the United States or France or a few more. How many times have Western nations set up shop in muslim countries? The fact, and I restate fact, not your interpretation of religious books; is that the aggressors are Western nations. I don't speak as someone who has a problem with religion; nor do I care who is killing whom in the world - it's boring and nothing to do with me - but what I can't stand is people with big mouths who have a lot to say but none of it has any basis in fact. When was the last time a "Christian" country attacked another country over religious reasons? Well, yeah, in the event we're gonna stack the deck so that we can pick and choose which invasion is worthy of mention, then you'd win that argument; of course you would, because that's making it up as you go along. But, were we to arrive at the conclusion that invasions and violence in the name of 'democracy' or economics or pretty much anything, is up for discussion, then the unmistakable outcome is that muslim countries are generally not the aggressors. The evidence is indisputable but yet people want to jump through hoops to argue to the contrary. Tells a story. As I've said, I don't really care who is killing whom - boring and nothing to do with me - but for God's sake: be honest and fair. I am being honest and fair. The reasons behind invasions are important. It's been quite a long time since religious expansion was the motive behind attacks from a "Christian" country. That's not the case with ISIS, as their religion (there interpretation of Islam, anyway) is the motive. Comparing invasions in the name of religious vs. invasions in the name of democracy or economics isn't being honest or fair. I do not dispute that "Christian" nations are more often the aggressors in fighting in the name of democracy or economics. When was the last time a "Christian" sect waged war against followers of a different "Christian" sect, over the religious interpretations? Catholics might make fun of Baptists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc., but there sure is a difference between making fun of them, and trying to kill them.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 5:30:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? Which time? Or Syria currently, or Afghanistan in the '80's. The US has a history of sending arms and "trainers" to a people to be the boots on the ground, only to have it come back and bite us in the ass.

BamaD -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 5:34:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? Which time? Or Syria currently, or Afghanistan in the '80's. The US has a history of sending arms and "trainers" to a people to be the boots on the ground, only to have it come back and bite us in the ass. Because we don't train them, we do it for them. We need to change that at actually train them, make the victory thiers, not ours.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/6/2015 5:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? Which time? Or Syria currently, or Afghanistan in the '80's. The US has a history of sending arms and "trainers" to a people to be the boots on the ground, only to have it come back and bite us in the ass. Because we don't train them, we do it for them. We need to change that at actually train them, make the victory thiers, not ours. The fight is not ours in Syria. The fight was not ours in Afghanistan in the '80's. It wasn't our fight in Libya (though that hasn't really come back to bite us in the ass, and may not ever). Was it our fight in the Iran-Iraq wars, and look at all the shit that's happened from that intervention?

Politesub53 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/7/2015 4:10:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? Which time? Or Syria currently, or Afghanistan in the '80's. The US has a history of sending arms and "trainers" to a people to be the boots on the ground, only to have it come back and bite us in the ass. The current time, which stems from Bush and Blairs 2003 fuck up. Afghanistan in the 80s.......... yep, that delivered us the Taliban and we know how that went. Syria ? You got to be kidding me bruv, didnt you read the US report re how many men are trained and ready to fight with the west, it was hardly awe inspiriing.

Politesub53 -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/7/2015 4:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Because we don't train them, we do it for them. We need to change that at actually train them, make the victory thiers, not ours. FFS Bama, didnt you see how the Iraqi forces trained by the US got on in Iraq last year. A clue would be all the us military vehicles being driven around by IS.

tweakabelle -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/8/2015 6:19:39 AM)
This is an informative analysis of the situation viz-a-viz IS and its patrons in Qatar, the UAE, Turkey and above all, Saudi Arabia: "Saudi Arabia has created a Frankenstein's monster over which it is rapidly losing control. The same is true of its allies such as Turkey which has been a vital back-base for Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra by keeping the 510-mile-long Turkish-Syrian border open. As Kurdish-held border crossings fall to Isis, Turkey will find it has a new neighbour of extraordinary violence, and one deeply ungrateful for past favours from the Turkish intelligence service. As for Saudi Arabia, it may come to regret its support for the Sunni revolts in Syria and Iraq as jihadi social media begins to speak of the House of Saud as its next target.[...] The rise of Isis is bad news for the Shia of Iraq but it is worse news for the Sunni whose leadership has been ceded to a pathologically bloodthirsty and intolerant movement, a sort of Islamic Khmer Rouge, which has no aim but war without end. The Sunni caliphate rules a large, impoverished and isolated area from which people are fleeing. Several million Sunni in and around Baghdad are vulnerable to attack and 255 Sunni prisoners have already been massacred. In the long term, Isis cannot win, but its mix of fanaticism and good organisation makes it difficult to dislodge. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html The entire piece is well worth reading for any one interested in understanding the situation in Syria and Iraq, the rise of IS and the brazen duplicity of so-called Western allies in the region. It points the finger at Saudi Arabia for fanning the flames of the sectarian tsunami sweeping through the region in the wake of the disastrous neo-con inspired invasion of Iraq. While it is informative it is far from cheerful reading.

DesideriScuri -> RE: So . . . what do we do about C? (12/8/2015 4:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD All of which supports my contention that we should insist that the locals do the ground fighting. We need to arm them train them, and most likely provide air support. Arm the locals with tons of US arms and let them fight for you...... How did that go in Iraq ? Which time? Or Syria currently, or Afghanistan in the '80's. The US has a history of sending arms and "trainers" to a people to be the boots on the ground, only to have it come back and bite us in the ass. The current time, which stems from Bush and Blairs 2003 fuck up. Afghanistan in the 80s.......... yep, that delivered us the Taliban and we know how that went. Syria ? You got to be kidding me bruv, didnt you read the US report re how many men are trained and ready to fight with the west, it was hardly awe inspiriing. I'm not sure you caught my meaning. I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on this one, Ps.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875