On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
I love little more than seeing examples of European hypocrisy given how much shit they give us.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't really buy the argument that the West "broke" any of these countries anyway.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To be fair, most countries give zero fucks about people across the world, no matter the conflict. The weird thing is now most countries are being way more honest about it and pushing the role of peace keeper on more local governments and countries.
But the US backing off in those regions has really shown just how toothless the UN is when it comes to deal with any real crisis.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To be fair, most countries give zero fucks about people across the world, no matter the conflict. The weird thing is now most countries are being way more honest about it and pushing the role of peace keeper on more local governments and countries.
But the US backing off in those regions has really shown just how toothless the UN is when it comes to deal with any real crisis.
I think it might be a good thing the UN is so toothless. Imagine if the UN was around in 1864 and actually capable of doing things. The Civil War is raging, and Lincoln dispatches Sherman on a campaign of total war, in which he burns down practically everything in Georgia, rips up railroads and steals or destroys practically all the crops in the state. The UN today would be throwing a hissy fit about warcrimes and would come to the South's aid. The war would drag on and on, and end up with much of both the North and South in ruins. With no outside interference, one side is the clear winner, and the war ends in 4 years.
The US bombing its own guns perfectly sums up America’s total failure in Iraq
When President Obama announced US airstrikes in Iraq, most observers understood that the US would be bombing members of ISIS. What many did not know was that, in a twist of such bitterly symbolic irony that it could only occur in the Middle East, the US would also be bombing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of American military equipment.
Here's why: in the decade since the 2003 US-led Iraq invasion, the US has spent a fortune training and arming the Iraqi army in the hopes of readying it to secure the country once America left. That meant arming the Iraqi army with high-tech and extremely expensive American-made guns, tanks, jeeps, artillery, and more.
But the Iraqi army has been largely a failure. When ISIS invaded northern Iraq from Syria in June, the Iraqi forces deserted or retreated en masse. Many of them abandoned their American equipment. ISIS scooped it up themselves and are now using it to rampage across Iraq, seizing whole cities, terrorizing minorities, and finally pushing into even once-secure Kurdish territory. All with shiny American military equipment.
So the US air strikes against ISIS are in part to destroy US military equipment, such as the artillery ISIS has been using against Kurdish forces.
The absurdity runs deep: America is using American military equipment to bomb other pieces of American military equipment halfway around the world. The reason the American military equipment got there in the first place was because, in 2003, the US had to use its military to rebuild the Iraqi army, which it just finished destroying with the American military. The American weapons the US gave the Iraqi army totally failed at making Iraq secure and have become tools of terror used by an offshoot of al-Qaeda to terrorize the Iraqis that the US supposedly liberated a decade ago. And so now the US has to use American weaponry to destroy the American weaponry it gave Iraqis to make Iraqis safer, in order to make Iraqis safer.
It keeps going: the US is intervening on behalf of Iraqi Kurds, our ally, because their military has old Russian-made weapons, whereas ISIS, which is America's enemy, has higher-quality American weapons. "[Kurdish forces] are literally outgunned by an ISIS that is fighting with hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. military equipment seized from the Iraqi Army who abandoned it," Ali Khedery, a former American official in Iraq, told the New York Times.
More: One reason that ISIS has been so successful at conquering northern Iraq is that it has a huge base of operations in Syria, where it had exploited the civil war to overtake huge swathes of Syrian territory. One reason that ISIS was so successful in Syria is that the US refused to arm moderate Syrian rebels, for fear that the weapons would fall into ISIS's hands. So that made it easier for ISIS to overpower the under-funded moderate rebels, and now ISIS has seized, in Iraq, much better versions of the weapons that we were so worried they might acquire in Syria. So now we're bombing the guns that we didn't mean to give ISIS because we didn't give guns to their enemies because then ISIS might get guns.
It's not just ironic; it's a symbol of how disastrous the last 15 years of US Iraq policy have been, how circuitous and self-perpetuating the violence, that we are now bombing our own guns. Welcome to American grand strategy in the Middle East.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. launched two more airstrikes against Islamic State targets in northern Iraq on Friday, hitting a vehicle convoy and two mortar positions, the Pentagon said.
The attacks near the city of Irbil were carried out by armed drones and Navy fighter jets, said the Defense Department's press secretary, Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
Breaking a stable order will tend to fuck things up, so yes, things that were intact were broken. None of this violence would be happening in Libya were it not for the US backing Islamic terrorists and destroying Libyan forces during their rebellion. Now the country's fucked and unstable, and not a single thing is better. If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel. As it was the premier anti-Islamist country and stabilizing factor against extremists in the region before all that, the area would be significantly better today, and there certainly would not be all the chaotic violence and current genocide by ISIS going on there either since the US invasion in 2003. However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go. Ironically, all these regimes had to do was suck on Uncle Sam's dick (a dick so grand even I'm impressed), and they would have never been touched.
But why are we discussing history again? For the sake of revisionism and self-righteous apologism? Alright I get it
The UN today would be throwing a hissy fit about warcrimes and would come to the South's aid. The war would drag on and on, and end up with much of both the North and South in ruins. With no outside interference, one side is the clear winner, and the war ends in 4 years.
In fairness the only thing the UN peacekeepers excel is at sexually assaulting the populations they were ostensibly sent to protect
One reason that ISIS was so successful in Syria is that the US refused to arm moderate Syrian rebels, for fear that the weapons would fall into ISIS's hands.
the same moderates who were filmed executing prisoners. Also that moderate consumption of a person's heart. Honestly the only failure here is not arming the losing side in all cases.
but what can you really expect from Vox, the same journalism outfit who claimed there was a bridge between the West Bank and Gaza?
Well with the beginning of operation linebacker, they will need more children to recruit and carry less open attacks. It's amazing how effective their recruitment is, more generations of extremists to come.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
Breaking a stable order will tend to fuck things up, so yes, things that were intact were broken. None of this violence would be happening in Libya were it not for the US backing Islamic terrorists and destroying Libyan forces during their rebellion. Now the country's fucked and unstable, and not a single thing is better. If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel. As it was the premier anti-Islamist country and stabilizing factor against extremists in the region before all that, the area would be significantly better today, and there certainly would not be all the chaotic violence and current genocide by ISIS going on there either. However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go.
But why are we discussing history again? For the sake of self-righteous apologism? Gotcha
Dude what? Libya was stable before the western intervention? Again, there was an active civil war going on. And there is little indication that it was about to end. It is just insane to claim there would be no violence in Libya. Most likely the insurgency against Gaddafy would still be going on, just like the one in Syria is. I mean we can all have different opinions and stuff, but at least we should adhere to the most basic of facts.
It's insane the amount of Europeans that are part of ISIS, would be interesting to see how many have had some type of military training while in Europe.
On August 09 2014 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It's insane the amount of Europeans that are part of ISIS, would be interesting to see how many have had some type of military training while in Europe.
Probably very, very few. These types dont join a European military.
On August 09 2014 08:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It's insane the amount of Europeans that are part of ISIS, would be interesting to see how many have had some type of military training while in Europe.
To many unstable people who buy into any propaganda and have no idea of just how bad the reality of war is.
To be honest I don't mind them going out there to fight and die so long as we are careful when they come back. Heck I wish we could stop them from coming back at all.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
Breaking a stable order will tend to fuck things up, so yes, things that were intact were broken. None of this violence would be happening in Libya were it not for the US backing Islamic terrorists and destroying Libyan forces during their rebellion. Now the country's fucked and unstable, and not a single thing is better. If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel. As it was the premier anti-Islamist country and stabilizing factor against extremists in the region before all that, the area would be significantly better today, and there certainly would not be all the chaotic violence and current genocide by ISIS going on there either. However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go.
But why are we discussing history again? For the sake of self-righteous apologism? Gotcha
Dude what? Libya was stable before the western intervention? Again, there was an active civil war going on. And there is little indication that it was about to end. I mean we can all have different opinions and stuff, but at least we should adhere to the most basic of facts.
Dude what? So why did the US support Islamic extremists who have royally fucked the country? Libya would have beaten the revolution and things would have returned to normal and become stable again. So why did the US help usurp the one thing going for Libya and have it replaced by terrorists who have turned the country upside-down? Please enlighten me. And certainly Iraq was a decently orderly place before the embargo and Iraq War? So... enough of the apologism. Ironic it's coming from a German of all people lol.
Maybe Russia should pour its soldiers into Ukraine because it's unstable, going by your logic. In fact, the civil war would probably end in a day if the Russians were to intervene and a humanitarian crisis would be averted. Oh you don't agree with that, but it's okay when the US puts terrorists in power or devastates decent countries? Double standards are nice.
However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go
. wait what
I was talking about US wars in the Mideast. Going back to a previous point, if the Iraqi regime was being a good dog and sucking Uncle Sam's impressive penis, I highly doubt anything would have happened to them over the last 20 years. They were undone for strategic/political reasons, and I don't think anyone, not even in the US, believes the Iraq War or the degree or length of the embargo had any legitimacy, really.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
Breaking a stable order will tend to fuck things up, so yes, things that were intact were broken. None of this violence would be happening in Libya were it not for the US backing Islamic terrorists and destroying Libyan forces during their rebellion. Now the country's fucked and unstable, and not a single thing is better. If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel. As it was the premier anti-Islamist country and stabilizing factor against extremists in the region before all that, the area would be significantly better today, and there certainly would not be all the chaotic violence and current genocide by ISIS going on there either. However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go.
But why are we discussing history again? For the sake of self-righteous apologism? Gotcha
Dude what? Libya was stable before the western intervention? Again, there was an active civil war going on. And there is little indication that it was about to end. I mean we can all have different opinions and stuff, but at least we should adhere to the most basic of facts.
Dude what? So why did the US support Islamic extremists who have royally fucked the country? Libya would have beaten the revolution and things would have returned to normal and become stable again. So why did the US help usurp the one thing going for Libya and have it replaced by terrorists who have turned the country upside-down? Please enlighten me. And certainly Iraq was a decently orderly place before the embargo and Iraq War? So... enough of the apologism. Ironic it's coming from a German of all people lol.
Maybe Russia should pour its soldiers into Ukraine because it's unstable, going by your logic. Oh you don't agree with that? Double standards are nice.
The fuck am I apologizing? Why would I even try to apoligize any party involved there? Your claims are just nonsense, that is all there is to it. And why would Gadaffi of all people be successful in beating his popular uprising, when the other dictators of the region with mostly much more capable forced were not? Just take a look at how succesful Assad was.
It is much more likely that the resistance to Gadafi would have just become more extreme by jihadis mixing with those that just want a revolution in their country. Now the jihadis are an outside force and fight against those that took power from Gadaffi, instead of linking up with them.
On August 09 2014 01:25 Sermokala wrote: Its good to know that the world still wants us to be the global police force and wish's us to be more proactive about being the world police force.
If nothing else, this mess has shown how worthless the rest of the world is when it comes to these types of police actions (not that anyone should be surprised). We're still living in a world in which, if the US doesn't take care of business, no one will.
You have made some good points regarding issues like this before, but I don't think this is one of them. As others have pointed out, people all over the world fight islamist extremists, particularly if they are in close regional proximity.
I think the world primarily views this issue as a "you broke it you bought it", with respect to their own involvement vs. American involvement.
Sure, other countries are more than happy to clean up domestic and even regional messes that are more like large scale police actions than real military interventions. What's going on in Iraq/Syria is in a whole different class than these far lesser conflicts. I've yet to see another nation be willing to lead military action to solve an actual large problem. The closest example was European intervention in Libya, but that only happened because of how important Libyan oil is to Europe. Even with Libya slowly falling apart, it remains to be seen if Europe is in it for the long haul.
Or put it another way, if "You broke it, you fix it" mentality is really true than the UK-France should be deploying their troops into the Libyan war which is currently has as many causalities as Gaza. But mysteriously neither the governments who 'broke' the country nor the masses of people who went out to protest Israel -- but just Israeli caused deaths, guess Arabs killed by other Arabs are less valuable -- seem to give 0 fucks.
To break something it has to be intact before. You know there was an actual civil war going on before some Euopeans and the US intervened. If anything you should compare the deaths before the intervention with those now. That you have to use Gaza as a comparison instead, which obviously is the most overreported crisis there is, kinda shows that the situation is now far from as bad as it was back then.
Your last point is true though, people in the west generally care much less if Muslims kill each other (to be fair people in the east care even less). The Syrian civil war with like 250k deaths has shown that. On the other hand its kind of hard to intervene when none of the parties involved look like you should support them.
Breaking a stable order will tend to fuck things up, so yes, things that were intact were broken. None of this violence would be happening in Libya were it not for the US backing Islamic terrorists and destroying Libyan forces during their rebellion. Now the country's fucked and unstable, and not a single thing is better. If Iraq wasn't destroyed by embargo/genocide and war, it'd probably be the most productive country in the Mideast after Israel. As it was the premier anti-Islamist country and stabilizing factor against extremists in the region before all that, the area would be significantly better today, and there certainly would not be all the chaotic violence and current genocide by ISIS going on there either. However, the lust of imperialism and domination trumps all and a country like Iraq had to go.
But why are we discussing history again? For the sake of self-righteous apologism? Gotcha
Dude what? Libya was stable before the western intervention? Again, there was an active civil war going on. And there is little indication that it was about to end. I mean we can all have different opinions and stuff, but at least we should adhere to the most basic of facts.
Dude what? So why did the US support Islamic extremists who have royally fucked the country? Libya would have beaten the revolution and things would have returned to normal and become stable again. So why did the US help usurp the one thing going for Libya and have it replaced by terrorists who have turned the country upside-down? Please enlighten me. And certainly Iraq was a decently orderly place before the embargo and Iraq War? So... enough of the apologism. Ironic it's coming from a German of all people lol.
Maybe Russia should pour its soldiers into Ukraine because it's unstable, going by your logic. Oh you don't agree with that? Double standards are nice.
The fuck am I apologizing? Why would I even try to apoligize any party involved there? Your claims are just nonsense, that is all there is to it. And why would Gadaffi of all people be successful in beating his popular uprising, when the other dictators of the region whith mostly much more capable forced were not? Just take a look at how succesful Assad was.
You're attempting to justify US aggression. It's a bit strange. The scale of the civil war in Libya was a lot smaller than in Syria. In fact, the insurgents in Libya were on the ropes until the US started bombing the shit out of Libyan forces. A far cry from the situation in Syria, so please don't try to compare apples and oranges.
However, why didn't the US instead bomb the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb in Libya, instead of bombing Libyan forces and people? Seems pretty counter-productive. Now terrorists rule the country and everything's gotten a lot worse. Bravo mate. But by your logic, Russia should invade Ukraine because Ukraine isn't "intact" and needs someone to "stabilize" it.
EPT
