|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies.
|
On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies.
I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal."
|
On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal."
We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development
|
On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development
This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency.
EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge.
|
That's really dangerous thinking. Minor genocide and torture not brutal enough for you, full scale invasion, suppression, genocide is a OK. The world is a big place. Once you start invading the wrold, you have to be prepared to keep going and deal with the responces of every other country on earth with their nuclear stocks and USA doesn't have the resources to do so, short of leaving a devasted wasteland.
|
On June 17 2014 07:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
That's really dangerous thinking. Minor genocide and torture not brutal enough for you, full scale invasion, suppression, genocide is a OK. The world is a big place. Once you start invading the wrold, you have to be prepared to keep going and deal with the responces of every other country on earth with their nuclear stocks and USA doesn't have the resources to do so, short of leaving a devasted wasteland.
This is why I said that the developed world isn't willing to do what is necessary to beat back the Islamists. It doesn't change the fact that we may not be able to crush them without resorting to such measures. Maybe after several generations, there will be enough informational diaspora to soften the hardliners, but it sure as shit isn't working right now.
|
On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge.
This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol.
You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money.
Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region.
The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere.
|
The al-Qaeda breakaway group that has captured Iraq’s biggest northern city is on a recruitment drive in Saudi Arabia.
The evidence showed up last month in Riyadh, where drivers woke up to find leaflets stuffed into the handles of their car doors and in their windshields. They were promoting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, which has grabbed the world’s attention by seizing parts of northern Iraq. The militant group is also using social media, such as Twitter and YouTube, to recruit young Saudi men.
Already at war with the governments of Iraq and Syria, ISIL also poses a potential threat to the Al Saud family’s rule over the world’s biggest oil exporter. Saudi authorities gained the upper hand in their battle with al-Qaeda, which targeted the kingdom a decade ago, yet analysts said the latest generation of militants may be harder to crush.
Source
|
On June 17 2014 00:54 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't be so sure.
Iraq was always a powder keg that was waiting to blow. It wasn't helped by the fact that Maliki alienated the Sunnis to stay in power so it's not a surprise that ISIS made the gains in the north as quickly as it did. The same however can't be said for Kashmir where the majority of the Islamic population there is contained (to a certain extent) that any uprising won't last for long.
Even assuming the best case scenario for ISIS; ergo they manage to "take over" the region, their forces would be completely sandwiched in between two powers that are hostile to it. Jihad or not, they'd be crushed quite quickly.
On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:
I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal."
The two aren't the same as their spineless "Westernised" counterparts in Europe so they certainly wouldn't lack the political will to do it.
On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies.
True. But for Pakistan it's more or less a case of you reap what you sow. They definitely learnt that the hard way after getting backstabbed by the Taliban so they wouldn't make the mistake of ignoring it again even if it means stretching their counter-insurgency capabilities thin.
You can imagine what their reaction would be like if there was yet another region filled with religious fanatics on their doorstep.
|
On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere.
You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it.
There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it.
"The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion."
The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty.
(That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options)
|
On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options)
The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former.
As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing.
|
On June 18 2014 17:21 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options) The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former. As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing.
This is ridiculous. We (or any other country) wouldn't have to turn into Nazi Germany to solve the problem. It's not like the US hasn't committed its share of atrocities without compromising its general national character.
But you're correct about one thing. America doesn't really have an interest in intervening in a war between our enemies. I'm perfectly content to let them slaughter each other, as sad as it may be.
|
On June 20 2014 11:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2014 17:21 mcc wrote:On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options) The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former. As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing. This is ridiculous. We (or any other country) wouldn't have to turn into Nazi Germany to solve the problem. It's not like the US hasn't committed its share of atrocities without compromising its general national character. But you're correct about one thing. America doesn't really have an interest in intervening in a war between our enemies. I'm perfectly content to let them slaughter each other, as sad as it may be.
The atrocities that are required to solve it the way Danglars envisions are on entirely different level.
|
On June 20 2014 11:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2014 17:21 mcc wrote:On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options) The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former. As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing. This is ridiculous. We (or any other country) wouldn't have to turn into Nazi Germany to solve the problem. It's not like the US hasn't committed its share of atrocities without compromising its general national character. But you're correct about one thing. America doesn't really have an interest in intervening in a war between our enemies. I'm perfectly content to let them slaughter each other, as sad as it may be.
And whats this general national character? I still remember all of the pro war screamers here on tl before the iraq war and the american news shows screaming for justice and freedom for the poor oppressed iraqis. 500-1000k dead iraqis later its not your problem anymore huh? Nice national character.
The US is as big a threat to peace as russia and china. We definitely need to unite Europe and loosen our ties to the warmongering nations.
|
On June 21 2014 07:11 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 18 2014 17:21 mcc wrote:On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options) The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former. As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing. This is ridiculous. We (or any other country) wouldn't have to turn into Nazi Germany to solve the problem. It's not like the US hasn't committed its share of atrocities without compromising its general national character. But you're correct about one thing. America doesn't really have an interest in intervening in a war between our enemies. I'm perfectly content to let them slaughter each other, as sad as it may be. And whats this general national character? I still remember all of the pro war screamers here on tl before the iraq war and the american news shows screaming for justice and freedom for the poor oppressed iraqis. 500-1000k dead iraqis later its not your problem anymore huh? Nice national character. The US is as big a threat to peace as russia and china. We definitely need to unite Europe and loosen our ties to the warmongering nations.
Yeah, keep telling yourself all of this garbage. Whatever we may be, we're not, and never have been, on the level of Nazi Germany. And believe me. There's plenty of Americans that would love to see Europe be more united and take more responsibility for its security as opposed to receiving the current massive defense subsidy from the US that it receives.
As for Iraq, yes, it's no longer our problem. Maliki fucked himself and his country. Maybe things would different if Obama didn't fuck up the negotiations over the US leaving a security force behind, but the present sectarian conflict is something that's been brewing for far, far longer than the US has even been involved in the Middle East.
EDIT: And just to put a finer point on why the US shouldn't really care to get involved, Middle Eastern oil matters far less to us now than it did just 10 years ago. Within another 10 years, we'll be producing more oil than they do and be the biggest energy exporter.
|
On June 21 2014 07:11 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2014 11:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 18 2014 17:21 mcc wrote:On June 18 2014 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 17 2014 10:08 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On June 17 2014 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 06:28 Derez wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." We've done plenty of illegal things in the 'war against terror' and most of them backfired tremendously. Abu Ghraib. drone strikes, Gitmo, rendition (not to even touch upon invasion) have been tremendous propaganda tools for organizations like ISIS and created a bigger monster than we started out with. Maybe we should try the legal way for real once, like spending a little more than 0.4% of GDP on foreign development This is all bush league stuff compared to what I'm thinking about. The Americans haven't really fought dirty since the war with the Philippines. Uncoincidentally, that is also the last time that the Americans successfully squashed an insurgency. EDIT: Though one could argue that the Americans did successfully squash the insurgency in Iraq with the Surge, and that this new conflict there is the result of a new insurgency that sprung from American and Iraqi mismanagement of the situation following the Surge. This whole situation is because the US has been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, and specifically this situation, because the US directly and overwhelmingly devastated Iraq for 20 years (among lots of political interference / coups ever since the monarchy was overthrown). Look at the root of the problem, not something far down the line. Iraq was by far the largest opponent of Islamic extremism in the Mideast, and we killed them, then we ask why there's this shitty situation going on? lol. You're right, the developed world does not have the will to fight Islamic extremism, because at least in this scenario, there's no economic or strategic goal that would motivate it. Also, the US is losing its influence steadily. We lost our most important friend there, Mubarak, thus losing Egypt, and our support for radicals in Libya and Syria have been a flop. The ones in Libya don't like us, and the ones in Syria failed. We have not even a fraction of the leverage we used to with our European "allies" as we did when the USSR collapsed. We would have to do things alone in a region where in the last few years in particular, we've become almost entirely unwelcome except some oil sheikhs who will do anything for our money. Iran is probably the worst problem in the Mideast when it comes to Islamic extremism, possibly even more than Saudi Arabia, and their Islamic Republic exists because we overthrew a democratic republican government to re-install an extremely unpopular monarchy. That unpopularity was so great that it made even insane lunatics like Khomeini look like Lord and Savior, which is how he so easily took over an otherwise very secular country, perhaps the most so in the region. The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion. We already have enough growing problems domestically anyhow. Maybe we should focus on those before we make matters worse elsewhere. You say we've been fucking up the Mideast for the past 5 decades, yet that's still talking tangentially to the argument at hand. If doesn't matter how we've been screwing up if the measures required for "not screwing up" can't be stomached by the political class or a plurality of the American people. If you want to look at the root of the problem, half assing the real solutions would be it. There is no will to fight Islamic extremism, because, again, large majorities of people would view the necessary actions as just as barbaric as the terrorists themselves (also, easily seen in the posters in this and other threads willing to morally equate radical Islamic fundamentalism with the darkest days of Christendom). Talking about "economic or strategic [goals] that would motivate it" does not even begin to touch on it. The only motivation would be the raw goal of "staying alive" or "living without rational fear of terrorist massacres" ... in which case there might evolve a political will for it. "The worst part of it all, is if somehow we grew a conscience, there is no way to reverse anything we've set into motion." The worst part of it all, is we have a conscience, which makes us put up with much of this Islamic terrorism because the diffuse moral landscape won't permit us to fight dirty. (That is the real Catch-22 of American foreign policy in the Middle East. If you're a country with moral qualms to fighting fire with fire, you'll never fully defeat the enemy. If you still take action to remove the threat despite this, you'll always come up short and fail. As Hollywood shows it, it's Alfred cautioning Bruce that [he] doesn't really fully understand his enemy, or Malone asking Ness what he's prepared to do after he's exhausted all the clean options) The reason why most people oppose such a radical solution is because the "dirty" solution would mean killing 90% more innocent non-fanatical people than the actual fanatics. You might as well nuke the Middle East so it is devoid of life. Especially since the enemy does not threaten your country in any significant way, just your geopolitical interests. So it is a choice between becoming new Nazi Germany and just trying to solve things in other ways. Thankfully most people in the West today do not wish the former. As for living without fear of being massacred. Are you going to also propose turning America into police state immediately to solve your issues with violence ? Because that is exactly the same thing you are arguing. This is ridiculous. We (or any other country) wouldn't have to turn into Nazi Germany to solve the problem. It's not like the US hasn't committed its share of atrocities without compromising its general national character. But you're correct about one thing. America doesn't really have an interest in intervening in a war between our enemies. I'm perfectly content to let them slaughter each other, as sad as it may be. And whats this general national character? I still remember all of the pro war screamers here on tl before the iraq war and the american news shows screaming for justice and freedom for the poor oppressed iraqis. 500-1000k dead iraqis later its not your problem anymore huh? Nice national character. The US is as big a threat to peace as russia and china. We definitely need to unite Europe and loosen our ties to the warmongering nations.
Nah, we're a much bigger threat. We're a lot more powerful and a lot more aggressive when it comes to pursuing our interests we can't get without military force. Excuse my self-apologetic countrymen. It's not easy to admit having committed unjustified devastation and death over a 20 year period, and the reason for this whole clusterfuck since 2003, which obviously includes the ethnic cleansing of Christians and a completely corrupted, dysfunctional system, in the first place. Without a doubt, none of this would be happening otherwise. We'd have a very prosperous country most likely. Their perception of these matters is based on the Call of Duty world, sadly. But hey, "All for the empire", as the BW Zealots say. I can't say I was much different way back in the day, until I saw it for myself.
Anyways, there's been a lot of beheadings, crucifixions and overall killing of Christians lately. The same was also happening in Syria. Pretty soon, there's not going to be a Christian population in Iraq, the same fate that Jews suffered at the hands of the old monarchy.
Christians in the Middle East know very well about the ferocious system of Islam enforced by ISIS terrorists. When the group attacked Raqqa, Syria earlier this year, they gave the Christians three options: “Convert. Submit to Islam. Or face the sword.”
In order to save lives, Raqqa’s Christian elders chose to submit to ISIS’s 7th Century version of Muslim Sharia law and became dhimmis, a subservient, second-class minority under Islamic rule.
Among other severe demands, particularly about women’s dress, their oppressors also forbade the repair of war-torn churches, worshiping or praying in public, ringing church bells, or wearing crosses or other symbols of faith. Bearing arms is forbidden, and of course alcoholic beverages are banned.
The Christians in Iraq know all too well what they face as ISIS carries out its triumphant assault on Iraq – the terrorists’ vile reputation has preceded them. Images of ISIS beheadings, crucifixions, rapes, torture and mass execution have been widely disseminated on social media, including graphic YouTube videos.
To make matters worse, rather than offer assistance to their Christian neighbors, many Sunni Muslims in the area have simply turned a blind eye or even joined the invaders.
Iraq’s Christians have been left with little choice but to flee.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/20/religious-cleansing-iraq-christians/
Glorious people these terrorists are. Proof of human devolution if there ever was any.
|
On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal."
This would be a strange way of reasoning for a nation that has already broken just about every international law when dealing with "terrorists" already. And that line of reasoning has a scary history too I think. To defend one's own barbaric actions by saying that the enemy is less human than you or more barbaric than you can ever be has been an important part of colonialism at least since the Sepoy mutiny when reports of rapes of British women served as a pretext for the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Indians.
|
On June 21 2014 18:58 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." This would be a strange way of reasoning for a nation that has already broken just about every international law when dealing with "terrorists" already. And that line of reasoning has a scary history too I think. To defend one's own barbaric actions by saying that the enemy is less human than you or more barbaric than you can ever be has been an important part of colonialism at least since the Sepoy mutiny when reports of rapes of British women served as a pretext for the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Indians.
Life sucks, eh? I'm not pretending that my suggestion is "moral." It clearly isn't. But winning has nothing to do with morality. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for someone else to suggest how we can "morally" get rid of ISIS and like-minded groups. That's the point.
|
On June 22 2014 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2014 18:58 Elroi wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." This would be a strange way of reasoning for a nation that has already broken just about every international law when dealing with "terrorists" already. And that line of reasoning has a scary history too I think. To defend one's own barbaric actions by saying that the enemy is less human than you or more barbaric than you can ever be has been an important part of colonialism at least since the Sepoy mutiny when reports of rapes of British women served as a pretext for the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Indians. Life sucks, eh? I'm not pretending that my suggestion is "moral." It clearly isn't. But winning has nothing to do with morality. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for someone else to suggest how we can "morally" get rid of ISIS and like-minded groups. That's the point.
Security, education, sanitation. In general, just uplift the standard of living would do thousand times better than what you are suggesting.
|
On June 22 2014 03:46 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 21 2014 18:58 Elroi wrote:On June 17 2014 06:12 xDaunt wrote:On June 17 2014 05:54 Disregard wrote:
You be surprised how rampant corruption is in India and Pakistan has their hands full dealing with their own insurgencies. I'm not sure that the "developed" world has the stomach to do what is necessary to crush these Islamist uprisings. It probably wouldn't be "legal." This would be a strange way of reasoning for a nation that has already broken just about every international law when dealing with "terrorists" already. And that line of reasoning has a scary history too I think. To defend one's own barbaric actions by saying that the enemy is less human than you or more barbaric than you can ever be has been an important part of colonialism at least since the Sepoy mutiny when reports of rapes of British women served as a pretext for the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of Indians. Life sucks, eh? I'm not pretending that my suggestion is "moral." It clearly isn't. But winning has nothing to do with morality. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for someone else to suggest how we can "morally" get rid of ISIS and like-minded groups. That's the point. Security, education, sanitation. In general, just uplift the standard of living would do thousand times better than what you are suggesting.
And how do you expect to institute these three things to a people who don't want any of them. Women in sharia dominated countries are not secure will not get education and certainly won't have any rights.
what you want to do is bring western civilization and progress to a group of people who haven't gotten pats the "lets just cut each others heads off" stage of development. The best thing we could do is prop up a violent military dictator and force them to progress as a people. Force them to have security education and sanitation for all and not just for their tribe, gender, or ethnic groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.bloomberg.com/image/ie3gTta8m4FQ.png)
