Iraq & Syrian Civil Wars - Page 234

On September 26 2014 01:58 Millitron wrote:

Its more similar than you think. Those civilians are in the way of our imperialism.

The ONLY reason we care about ISIS is that they threaten to destabilize the oil market. There are other groups just as vile as ISIS in other regions of the world, like Boko Haram for instance, but no one cares because there's no oil there.

Terrorist is a buzzword, just like McCarthy's "Communist".

On September 26 2014 01:58 Millitron wrote:

Its more similar than you think. Those civilians are in the way of our imperialism.

The ONLY reason we care about ISIS is that they threaten to destabilize the oil market. There are other groups just as vile as ISIS in other regions of the world, like Boko Haram for instance, but no one cares because there's no oil there.

Terrorist is a buzzword, just like McCarthy's "Communist".

On September 26 2014 02:09 Nyxisto wrote:

The US is actually supporting the fight against Boko Haram, so is France as well as many other countries.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/nigeria/11076638/US-plans-major-border-security-programme-in-Nigeria-to-help-fight-Boko-Haram.html

Given the fact that the US will be a big net exporter of oil and gas very soon there is no basis in reality for the "we want to steal their oil, imperialism!11" argument.

On September 26 2014 04:25 Jormundr wrote:

Good article. I guess we're sending them bricks or maybe just several copies of 'How-To-Not-Create-A-Caliphate-For-Dummies'. Pretty sure that step one of that isn't murder Muslims en masse. You remember World War 2? Yeah that was started because your economy was trashed by the Treaty of Versailles and Hitler offered a return to greatness. Now, imagine that + the indignity of being slaughtered like pigs by the west and you have muslims in places currently exploited by us getting a wee bit prickly. But hey, throw more fuel on the fire.

Also, if it isn't about oil, it's about something equally or more valuable. We're not just dropping bombs on them for the hell of it. They are endangering something very valuable to the US (not Israel) and we (and most of the EU) have become very concerned. If we gave a shit about humanitarian concerns we would have went in when Assad was gassing his people, but we didn't. Now we're bombing the people we're supposedly liberating from teh evi1 ISIS in an ironic attempt to create the next ISIS.

On September 26 2014 04:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:


Well i think they were trying to go there when Assad started gassing the syrian people but backed down. But tell me whats your solution to ISIS ? should the us just let them be?

On September 26 2014 04:32 ImFromPortugal wrote:


Well i think they were trying to go there when Assad started gassing the syrian people but backed down. But tell me whats your solution to ISIS ? should the us just let them be?

On September 26 2014 05:27 Jormundr wrote:

Solution? Is there a problem? As far as I can tell there is no American soil in or around Syria + Iraq. As far as I can tell (judging by the current situation), the muslims don't take too kindly to us bombing them. I would say it is damn near impossible to form a logical argument that murdering innocent people in distant lands is going to ingratiate us with the population being murdered. Especially when we're just gonna pick up and leave in a few days.

See:
http://www.statista.com/statistics/251327/number-of-fatalities-due-to-suicide-attacks-worldwide/

On September 26 2014 06:22 pretender58 wrote:



A problem? An extremely aggressive and violent militant group of religious zealots armed with looted advanced weaponry, which is perfectly capable of genocides (see Yazidis or imagine Kobane falling). A group which furthermore draws extremists from all over the world to join their ranks, which in return pose a risk to their home country when coming back, and has repeatedly vowed to attack the US and other western countries as well as arabic nations. Better let them grow and spread, they ain´t no problem.

Also, your link doesn´show a graph unless you´re a premium member. Besides that, i don´t see how the the development of the "number of fatalities due to suicide attacks worldwide" can support your point?!

As of right now, "we" (the western world), are too heavily involved as to just retreat, lean back and watch. Whether the reasons why IS grew so strong are linked to earlier western activity in the region (Sykes-Picout, 2003 invasion etc.) is highly debatable.
But, as a matter of fact, the situation in the Mid-East needs to be addressed and resolved, preferably by globally coordinated actions.

On September 26 2014 06:25 Jormundr wrote:

Sorry I only read your first sentence.
Are you talking about us or them?

On September 26 2014 06:22 pretender58 wrote:



A problem? An extremely aggressive and violent militant group of religious zealots armed with looted advanced weaponry, which is perfectly capable of genocides (see Yazidis or imagine Kobane falling). A group which furthermore draws extremists from all over the world to join their ranks, which in return pose a risk to their home country when coming back, and has repeatedly vowed to attack the US and other western countries as well as arabic nations. Better let them grow and spread, they ain´t no problem.

Also, your link doesn´show a graph unless you´re a premium member. Besides that, i don´t see how the the development of the "number of fatalities due to suicide attacks worldwide" can support your point?!

As of right now, "we" (the western world), are too heavily involved as to just retreat, lean back and watch. Whether the reasons why IS grew so strong are linked to earlier western activity in the region (Sykes-Picout, 2003 invasion etc.) is highly debatable.
But, as a matter of fact, the situation in the Mid-East needs to be addressed and resolved, preferably by globally coordinated actions.

On September 26 2014 06:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:


I don't think there's any debate. If we didn't put the first full embargo in history, on Iraq, for 12 years and then destroy them with war for 8 years, including the deposition of the entire military and government, ISIS would have been decimated the second they cropped up and Iraq would probably be one of the noticeably better-off countries in Asia today. Iraq was the premier anti-Islamist country before we destroyed it. It had no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic terrorists. So yes, you are right in saying that the Western countries are responsible for the rise of ISIS, but it's not at all a matter of debate.

On September 26 2014 06:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:


I don't think there's any debate. If we didn't put the first full embargo in history, on Iraq, for 12 years and then destroy them with war for 8 years, including the deposition of the entire military and government, ISIS would have been decimated the second they cropped up and Iraq would probably be one of the noticeably better-off countries in Asia today. Iraq was the premier anti-Islamist country before we destroyed it. It had no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic terrorists. It had a very organized and professional military, a non-sectarianized society, and a competent and effective bureaucracy, even during the embargo. All things that have not existed since 2003.

So yes, you are right in saying that the Western countries are responsible for the rise of ISIS, but it's not at all a matter of debate

On September 26 2014 06:46 Nyxisto wrote:


The Syrian dictator is still breathing, it doesn't look much better than Iraq. The West has meddled with politics in Iran but largely the country has remained stable compared to its neighbours. There wars war in the middle-east a thousand years before "the West" and especially the US existed, and the Arab Spring was not a Western invention. I mean you can claim that the West may have caused this or that, but it's essentially meaningless because the idea that it would look better if we hadn't is a fantasy.

On September 26 2014 06:49 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:

You're comparing apples and oranges. Syria was always an unstable and weak nation. Iraq was significantly more consolidated and stable, even during the embargo. It's like saying the USA would collapse because the USSR did. I guess if you were to impoverish and conquer the US, execute the government, disband the security forces, formulate ethnic tensions, then you'll have a shitton of chaos. Otherwise, I don't see that happening to the US any time soon.

Refrain from comparing apples and oranges. Also, we're talking about the modern era, not 1,000 years ago. Crazy Muslims from 1,000 years ago doesn't mean the continuation of a pre-2003 stable and powerful Iraq would have crushed crazy Muslims today, as they were very good at crushing Islamic extremists.

The only logical point you made in your argument is, "There are crazy Muslims today just as there were 1,000 years ago". Okay.
So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.

So how does that have anything to do with the fact that the US completely decimated a country that had literally no issue beforehand in dealing with Islamic jihadists? It doesn't.

On September 26 2014 06:58 Nyxisto wrote:

Why? Because it does not fit into your worldview? Crazy muslims started conquests thousand years ago, they're doing it now and they probably still will in a thousand years. And how is Iraq a stable country? The country saw three coups in ten years (late 50's to 70's) and since its creation has had an extremely complicated ethnic constellation. There's nothing stable about the country.

It's relevant because people in this thread have advocated that if we stay out of it and let IS massacre children everything will be cool because we've created all the evil people in the first place. We haven't and thus we can at least try to save as much innocent life as possible.