United as one
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
172 comments displayed.
#1
-
chumblefucker [OP](11/14/2015) [+] (9 replies)
stickied by chumblefucker
I'm not from the USA but this really struck a chord.
#2
-
anon (11/14/2015) [-]
It's a powerfull image.
Also: pray your ******* gods this will never happen, because it could perfectly be the start of WW3.
Also: pray your ******* gods this will never happen, because it could perfectly be the start of WW3.
#78 to #2
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (11/15/2015) [-] Not really, everyone is against the Islamic State.
#12 to #2
-
hourlyb (11/15/2015) [-] WW3?
I'm sorry, I believe you're confusing ISIS for something powerful.
Not for the *********** thay are.
I'm sorry, I believe you're confusing ISIS for something powerful.
Not for the *********** thay are.
#282 to #12
-
jujuface (11/15/2015) [-] WW3.
You're confusing a terrorist with an opposing nation. WW3 wouldn't be against ISIS. It would be against every country who disagrees on how to handle ISIS. I'm amazed. It just completely blows my ******* mind how ignorant people are when it comes to these things.
8 Terrorists started killing people at random with the goal of starting a war. Hook, line and sinker. Looks like everyone wants to give them exactly that. And why? A knee jerk reaction for instant gratification - revenge. As if the terrorists are going to come out of their caves to fight against an organized military? If you seriously believe that, you're completely out of touch with how this **** works.
Here's how it goes down in case you haven't been paying attention the past 15 years. We commit 5000-10000+ troops and invade. They hide out and use guerilla warfare, occasionally taking out troops here and there with IEDs. The local population is totally clueless and uneducated - malleable. They're easily convinced that were there to conquer land. They pick up guns and fight. sound like ******** ? 92% of afghans didn't know what 9/11 was. www.rawstory.com/2010/11/think-tank-afghans-dont-know-911/ And then what? How long do you propose we do this? How many thousands of American lives are you willing to give for this? How much of your yearly income to fund it?
What happens when we pull out? All it takes is 8 terrorists. If even a handful of them are left in hiding after another god damn middle east war is said and done, it's rinse and repeat time.
"But muh drones"
How's that working out so far? How's it been working out the last 3 years?
"Mass extermination of 1.6 Billion muslims worldwide"
Good luck with that.
You're confusing a terrorist with an opposing nation. WW3 wouldn't be against ISIS. It would be against every country who disagrees on how to handle ISIS. I'm amazed. It just completely blows my ******* mind how ignorant people are when it comes to these things.
8 Terrorists started killing people at random with the goal of starting a war. Hook, line and sinker. Looks like everyone wants to give them exactly that. And why? A knee jerk reaction for instant gratification - revenge. As if the terrorists are going to come out of their caves to fight against an organized military? If you seriously believe that, you're completely out of touch with how this **** works.
Here's how it goes down in case you haven't been paying attention the past 15 years. We commit 5000-10000+ troops and invade. They hide out and use guerilla warfare, occasionally taking out troops here and there with IEDs. The local population is totally clueless and uneducated - malleable. They're easily convinced that were there to conquer land. They pick up guns and fight. sound like ******** ? 92% of afghans didn't know what 9/11 was. www.rawstory.com/2010/11/think-tank-afghans-dont-know-911/ And then what? How long do you propose we do this? How many thousands of American lives are you willing to give for this? How much of your yearly income to fund it?
What happens when we pull out? All it takes is 8 terrorists. If even a handful of them are left in hiding after another god damn middle east war is said and done, it's rinse and repeat time.
"But muh drones"
How's that working out so far? How's it been working out the last 3 years?
"Mass extermination of 1.6 Billion muslims worldwide"
Good luck with that.
#246 to #2
-
sonicsyndicate (11/15/2015) [-] i pray to god for ww3 thank you very much
peace cant fix everything, im sorry
peace cant fix everything, im sorry
#214 to #9
-
maxismahname (11/15/2015) [-] I really hope I get to complete the game before they nuke us
#96 to #2
-
xdiabolicx (11/15/2015) [-] How? Everyone else vs a bunch of goat ******* ? Sounds more like the utter annihilation of a radical terrorist group to me.
#271 to #178
-
anon (11/15/2015) [-]
ISIS: that's where you're wrong, our main goal isn't just to engage in battle, we are not just soldiers, we are terrorists. We are here to break you piece by piece emotionally. Our goal isn't to succeed in our attacks, but to cause and spread fear. We can damage more people with a simple event, than you can with guns.
#91 to #37
-
bobtombobbob (11/15/2015) [-] No not at all.
Well maybe if you compared it to the EU as a whole
Well maybe if you compared it to the EU as a whole
#99 to #94
-
anon (11/15/2015) [-]
ISIS wouldnt exist if the US hadnt invaded Iraq for non-existent weapons of mass destruction and manufactured arbitrary links to al-qaeda though. ISIS formed out of former members of Saddam's ruling party and the military who'd been kicked out of power and then left to their own devices. The US ignored them basically when they were pulling out because al-qaeda had quietened down and thats what they wanted :/
#162 to #99
-
anon (11/15/2015) [-]
This "non-existent weapons of mass destruction" **** is retarded.
Saddam Hussein claimed himself that he had these weapons, and that he would not hesitate to use them on the US, UK, or anyone else that opposed him.
How are you supposed to react when the leader of a country in a crucial part of the world directly threatens you and your allies while also oppressing his own people.
If you are one of these idiots that think that the war was over oil, then you do not understand the (at the time) current geoeconomics. The only region that stood to gain (or lose) from that war regarding oil? Western Europe, a resource and oil poor part of the world that imports most of their oil, and they were not interested in getting involved.
I'm not even saying that we handled the situation in Iraq properly. I think we were there too long after Hussein was killed. But no matter what the US had done, there would have always been an oppressive group trying to kill people who disagree with them. It was only a matter of time (and technological advancement) before these groups went global.
Shove your "Murica did it!" ********* back up your ass where it came from.
Saddam Hussein claimed himself that he had these weapons, and that he would not hesitate to use them on the US, UK, or anyone else that opposed him.
How are you supposed to react when the leader of a country in a crucial part of the world directly threatens you and your allies while also oppressing his own people.
If you are one of these idiots that think that the war was over oil, then you do not understand the (at the time) current geoeconomics. The only region that stood to gain (or lose) from that war regarding oil? Western Europe, a resource and oil poor part of the world that imports most of their oil, and they were not interested in getting involved.
I'm not even saying that we handled the situation in Iraq properly. I think we were there too long after Hussein was killed. But no matter what the US had done, there would have always been an oppressive group trying to kill people who disagree with them. It was only a matter of time (and technological advancement) before these groups went global.
Shove your "Murica did it!" ********* back up your ass where it came from.
#230 to #162
-
vvthegreats (11/15/2015) [-]
Except it was for the oil and they found ZERO proof while they were there because, as I said before, they were there for the oil. So get your redneck, Cheney-supporting **** out of here.
#235 to #233
-
vvthegreats (11/15/2015) [-]
. . . You do realize that the true motive was covered for the majority of the war, right?
#220 to #94
-
goodadventures (11/15/2015) [-] Should probably also add
>US supplies radical Muslims with weapons
>Mass profits
>Now death and war begins
>Bigger profits
>Mr. America claims to be good guy?
>k
k
>US supplies radical Muslims with weapons
>Mass profits
>Now death and war begins
>Bigger profits
>Mr. America claims to be good guy?
>k
k
#110 to #94
-
ikweetnietmeer (11/15/2015) [-] most ignorant post I have seen today, but don't worry I just got up.
#140 to #2
-
comradewinter ONLINE (11/15/2015) [-]
Unless it turns out ISIS was behind the Russian airplane crash, in which case it would give the West and Russia an incentive to cooperate. Give the West enough pressure and they might agree to let Assad remain, which is the biggest question in the Syrian conflict.
#176 to #140
-
angelusprimus (11/15/2015) [-] Actually Putin has shown flexibility on Assad, as long as Assad is only one to go, and his people are part of the new government.
#267 to #241
-
billburr (11/15/2015) [-]
It's not just the US who's reporting that! And I think everyone has come to terms with the fact that Assad is the lesser of two evils in this scenario
Even if Russia is just doing it for their own political purposes and most evidence seems to point that way the US government would be a little hypocritical if they criticized that
Even if Russia is just doing it for their own political purposes and most evidence seems to point that way the US government would be a little hypocritical if they criticized that
#272 to #100
-
niggastolemyname (11/15/2015) [-] >implying assad's government isn't pivotal in keeping a somewhat good government in that entire region
#317 to #2
-
ihateeverybodytoo (11/19/2015) [-] it's already world war 3. Just because we don't want to deal with it doesn't stop it from happening
#48 to #2
-
Lulzilla (11/15/2015) [-] Doubt it. The major powers that pose a threat towards each other are being rallied under one common mission. Destroy ISIS and all their sand flee friends. If the US fought against Russia for Ukraine then it would be WW3 but Russia, the US, majority of the EU (I only say majority because some countries remain neutral), and the gulf countries are all fighting ISIS (Funny how the entire globe is fighting this group yet they manage to grow.)
#255 to #48
-
dagold (11/15/2015) [-] I'm not gonna state it as fact but I believe what allows them to grow is the fact most countries involved are held back from wiping them out by the geneva convention. We are fighting an idea, and ideas do not wear uniforms. It could be anyone in a crowd, and that one in the crowd can convince the five in the crowd around them that their idea is the right idea, and those five convince the five around them. We cannot stomp them out because that would require a wide boot that would smash more the undeserving along with them.
#7 to #5
-
catdownstairz (11/15/2015) [-] This isn't a videogame. There can be more then 3 parties involved. Russia, the US, and Assad all want ISIS gone. Isis and Russia want the rebels gone. Isis and the rebels want Assad gone. Removing ISIS from the equation de-complicates it a lot
#40 to #39
-
harrykuntz (11/15/2015) [-] I thought that was the joke, it was French so going back to fight for them?
#11
-
wellimnotsure (11/15/2015) [-] "Our god will protect us" Shame your god doesn't live here then.
#283 to #207
-
bioxx (11/15/2015) [-] I used to idolize the image of Uncle Sam. When someone said America, that's who I thought of. But then when I started learning about what "America" has done, and what lengths we can go to, I've stopped seeing him associated with... yeah.
I still see him as a gritty, upholding, and wall of a man; old and kicking, but this picture is what I always thought of him. He cares about his homeland, and seeing as how they gave us Lady Liberty, I see him comforting an adopted child as her home is hurting.
I like this picture because even though Sam is this big-bad old skullcracker, he's still supposed to be an image of what we (are supposed to) stand for.
He looks like the Uncle Sam I know.
Forgive my sentimentality:
This is ******* beautiful.
I still see him as a gritty, upholding, and wall of a man; old and kicking, but this picture is what I always thought of him. He cares about his homeland, and seeing as how they gave us Lady Liberty, I see him comforting an adopted child as her home is hurting.
I like this picture because even though Sam is this big-bad old skullcracker, he's still supposed to be an image of what we (are supposed to) stand for.
He looks like the Uncle Sam I know.
Forgive my sentimentality:
This is ******* beautiful.
#104
-
jellyman (11/15/2015) [-] Every post I stumble upon Facebook that mentions the incident in Paris, the comment section is swarmed with ignorant ***** complaining that another country doesn't get any recognition about their incident, like the terrorist attack in Lebanon, or the earthquake in Japan. Don't get me wrong, I feel awful for all the victims and their loved ones in all the countries that are suffering from attacks or natural disasters, but that makes you very selfish and rude. It's not about competition on how much attention an incident gets, it's about the world uniting to show support for the victims and their loved ones suffering from that incident.
Also, I could be wrong, but the reason Paris gets more coverage from the media is because they're one of our bigger allies. They've been on our side throughout history. They have taught and showed the world what it means to gain liberty. Some countries in the middle east don't get much recognition because they're our enemies. They show little to no support to us nor to their citizens, but rather threaten us and dehumanize us like they're top **** as well as their citizens.
tl;dr: What happened in Paris was awful, and every other incident that has occurred is awful as well. Either show some support, stop complaining, or just don't say **** at all.
Also, I could be wrong, but the reason Paris gets more coverage from the media is because they're one of our bigger allies. They've been on our side throughout history. They have taught and showed the world what it means to gain liberty. Some countries in the middle east don't get much recognition because they're our enemies. They show little to no support to us nor to their citizens, but rather threaten us and dehumanize us like they're top **** as well as their citizens.
tl;dr: What happened in Paris was awful, and every other incident that has occurred is awful as well. Either show some support, stop complaining, or just don't say **** at all.
#270 to #104
-
billburr (11/15/2015) [-]
I think the point they're trying to make is just that when something terrible happens, we shouldn't rush in to get revenge. Especially when all evidence indicates that the revenge would just aggravate the problem.
Just like we can't bomb the ocean after a tsunami, we can't bomb the middle east over a few brainwashed idiots
Just like we can't bomb the ocean after a tsunami, we can't bomb the middle east over a few brainwashed idiots
#320 to #104
-
anon (12/06/2015) [-]
You are completely missing the point, paris got more media coverage because the media and governments can gain something out of it, not because they are an older ally. Kenya is an older ally (UK) and has never been our enemy but the media did not cover the 140+ university shooting to anywhere near the same extent. Fear sells and allows you to do as you wish to the fearful, and people dying in kenya doesn't scare people. So the point when these posts are made is to not trust the media coverage/actions of government afterwards, an attack has already been made in london as a direct response to the government's pointless and expensive decision to bomb syria. And the even more pointless shows of support like the flag thing benefits only the media covering it getting them top stories, if you really want to show support actually do something.
Also the idea that countries are either friends or enemies is incredibly american. You are not at war with any country in the middle east, you are at war with a militant religious faction that has no elected right to the country, you are also ignoring the 20 or so factions that also fit that description. And no country has an obligation to support another, the UK is about to be ruined by a TTIP agreement that will let US businesses **** us up, under the guise of mutual benefit. Our connection to the US has been destroying us slowly since 2000
Also the idea that countries are either friends or enemies is incredibly american. You are not at war with any country in the middle east, you are at war with a militant religious faction that has no elected right to the country, you are also ignoring the 20 or so factions that also fit that description. And no country has an obligation to support another, the UK is about to be ruined by a TTIP agreement that will let US businesses **** us up, under the guise of mutual benefit. Our connection to the US has been destroying us slowly since 2000
#117 to #104
-
minorian (11/15/2015) [-] I understand the rage at those bigoted facebook-comment, but they have a point.
One actress from "Orange is the new Black" first tweeted "Pray for Paris", but then changed it to "Pray for the entire world" after she learned about the attacks in Lebanon and Syria too. Her followers went amok, and there's whole articles debating how she is taking away "attention" from Paris.
The fact is that it's just because it hits close to home. We can't relate to car bombings and mass-executions in the Middle-east, but everyone can relate to baguettes. It's partly because the tragedies are so more frequent and that we relate more to what happens in Paris, and think "that could have been us.".
The earthquake in Japan wasn't anything to report on. As far as I know, no one was even seriously injured, which is amazing. You bet your ass it would be all over the news if it was just half as bad as what happened in Paris.
In human terms, it would be like if you had a granddad living in the other end of the country, who has bad **** happening to him all the time, compared to if your nephew from across the street got Leukemia.
One actress from "Orange is the new Black" first tweeted "Pray for Paris", but then changed it to "Pray for the entire world" after she learned about the attacks in Lebanon and Syria too. Her followers went amok, and there's whole articles debating how she is taking away "attention" from Paris.
The fact is that it's just because it hits close to home. We can't relate to car bombings and mass-executions in the Middle-east, but everyone can relate to baguettes. It's partly because the tragedies are so more frequent and that we relate more to what happens in Paris, and think "that could have been us.".
The earthquake in Japan wasn't anything to report on. As far as I know, no one was even seriously injured, which is amazing. You bet your ass it would be all over the news if it was just half as bad as what happened in Paris.
In human terms, it would be like if you had a granddad living in the other end of the country, who has bad **** happening to him all the time, compared to if your nephew from across the street got Leukemia.
#35
-
strigt (11/15/2015) [-] Go, Miss Liberty, defend your motherland.
Make this not your only residence, but spread your houses across all lands.
Make this not your only residence, but spread your houses across all lands.
#50 to #31
-
Lulzilla (11/15/2015) [-] I've been saying we should send troops in to fight ISIS for the longest time. The air campaign has proven useless as the middle east fighters are too retarded to fight ISIS by themselves (Even with air support). We need to send a fighting force that knows how to fight, has the equipment for it, and will not run away. I dont care if its US boots or European boots. Someone needs to seen the boys in to take care of the mess the Middle East obviously isn't able to handle.
#114 to #50
-
anon (11/15/2015) [-]
ISIS knows what theyre doing trying to draw the US further in. Coalition airstrikes already have killed hundreds of civilians, and sending ground troups would just further reinforce their narrative. Not to mention that as we saw in Vietnam and Iraq, its not particuarly easy to fight a force like ISIS
#268 to #150
-
billburr (11/15/2015) [-]
I think religion has something to do with it but I also think a US invasion would be the best thing for ISIS recruitment. As we saw with Iraq all we would do is destabilize the area further and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Not to mention the American troops who would die, and lots of us Canadians too depending on what Trudeau does.
I know it seems worse because ISIS films it, but being bombed isn't particularly better than being burned alive. And we kill a lot more innocent civilians with bombs than they ever could
I know it seems worse because ISIS films it, but being bombed isn't particularly better than being burned alive. And we kill a lot more innocent civilians with bombs than they ever could
#288 to #285
-
billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
What I'm saying is that if we invade, the situation will likely get worse.
The last time we invaded, it caused the destabilization which in combination with a drought led to ISIS.
Why should we do something if its going to cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and make the situation worse?
I wish we had a bomb that could only hurt bad people, but we don't. I'm not saying we do nothing but it is pretty clear that the 'something' everyone is advocating right now is a stupid idea
The last time we invaded, it caused the destabilization which in combination with a drought led to ISIS.
Why should we do something if its going to cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and make the situation worse?
I wish we had a bomb that could only hurt bad people, but we don't. I'm not saying we do nothing but it is pretty clear that the 'something' everyone is advocating right now is a stupid idea
#291 to #288
-
gerfox (11/16/2015) [-]
Why? To protect our way of life, and our freedom to think, move and do what we want without any big limitations to our personal freedom and way of life.
Right now the Islamic State control an area the size of the UK and with 30 million people living in it. Do you think they will recruit fewer people if they force the people who live there to fight for them, and take in foreign fighters - than if you invade, take their land and resources - and make it much much harder to join the organization?
In short... Can it get any worse than it is now? There is stability in the region right now, and the stability is that the Islamic State is the biggest regional power. But is that a power that we can allow such a totalitarian theocracy to have? Especially when they are in open war with everyone in the west. Its just we that are not in war with them... Well, at least that much.
Right now the Islamic State control an area the size of the UK and with 30 million people living in it. Do you think they will recruit fewer people if they force the people who live there to fight for them, and take in foreign fighters - than if you invade, take their land and resources - and make it much much harder to join the organization?
In short... Can it get any worse than it is now? There is stability in the region right now, and the stability is that the Islamic State is the biggest regional power. But is that a power that we can allow such a totalitarian theocracy to have? Especially when they are in open war with everyone in the west. Its just we that are not in war with them... Well, at least that much.
#294 to #291
-
billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
It can certainly get worse than it is right now! And they're not infringing on your freedoms in america. They didn't bring in a surveillance state, the Bush administration did. And they were saying the exact same things you are while they did it.
The leaders in the US need to sit down and really think about how to go forward. We know that bombing hasn't worked in the past so we need some more ideas. I'm not saying it's an easy answer, I'm just saying that we shouldn't keep doing the same things that make the situation worse
The leaders in the US need to sit down and really think about how to go forward. We know that bombing hasn't worked in the past so we need some more ideas. I'm not saying it's an easy answer, I'm just saying that we shouldn't keep doing the same things that make the situation worse
#299 to #294
-
gerfox (11/16/2015) [-]
I don't live in America. I live in Europe. And as your ally, it is our duty to defend you and help you, and visa versa.
"They didn't bring a surveillance state, the Bush administration did".
And why did he implement surveillance? To stop terrorism from happening. And who's fault is that? Al Qaeda. So who was really the reason for the increased surveillance? Al Qaeda. They are threatening our way of life, and the government wishes to prevent that from happening.
I just dont see how a ground invasion can be better for recruitment for the Islamic State than having citizens who they can just recruit with force.
Bombing has been half succesful. It has definitely hurt the Islamic state, and they are weakened. The problem is just that neiher of their opponents are strong enough to topple them alone. The Arab states are hesitant to intervene, and Iran isn't allowed to. New political will is required to do something.
"They didn't bring a surveillance state, the Bush administration did".
And why did he implement surveillance? To stop terrorism from happening. And who's fault is that? Al Qaeda. So who was really the reason for the increased surveillance? Al Qaeda. They are threatening our way of life, and the government wishes to prevent that from happening.
I just dont see how a ground invasion can be better for recruitment for the Islamic State than having citizens who they can just recruit with force.
Bombing has been half succesful. It has definitely hurt the Islamic state, and they are weakened. The problem is just that neiher of their opponents are strong enough to topple them alone. The Arab states are hesitant to intervene, and Iran isn't allowed to. New political will is required to do something.
#302 to #299
-
billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
Creating a surveillance state was done under the guise of fighting Al Quaeda but it's pretty clear that it didn't work! And I think most people can see by now that Bush had ulterior motives for both that and the Iraq war, which was completely unrelated to 9/11 except that they both happened on Bush's watch
Why will it work now if it hasn't in the past? There would need to be a better argument than "We need to kill them because they killed 150 of us". Not to be callous but that's no excuse for starting a war that will kill hundreds of thousands on their side and thousands on ours
And the reason it works so well for recruiting is that there are hundreds of millions of people in the middle east and less than 100 000 people in ISIS. Every civilian we kill has a family and that family will start to hate us so much more than they already hate ISIS. They also have friends. The more we interfere, the more likely ISIS is to gain power.
What we need to do is get the local armies like Turkey and Iran to nut up and fight this themselves. The Middle East has been volatile for a long time and every time the US interferes it just gets worse. Since we CAN'T fix it, why don't we let somebody else try instead of murdering 150 000 people and getting another 10 000 NATO soldiers shot
Why will it work now if it hasn't in the past? There would need to be a better argument than "We need to kill them because they killed 150 of us". Not to be callous but that's no excuse for starting a war that will kill hundreds of thousands on their side and thousands on ours
And the reason it works so well for recruiting is that there are hundreds of millions of people in the middle east and less than 100 000 people in ISIS. Every civilian we kill has a family and that family will start to hate us so much more than they already hate ISIS. They also have friends. The more we interfere, the more likely ISIS is to gain power.
What we need to do is get the local armies like Turkey and Iran to nut up and fight this themselves. The Middle East has been volatile for a long time and every time the US interferes it just gets worse. Since we CAN'T fix it, why don't we let somebody else try instead of murdering 150 000 people and getting another 10 000 NATO soldiers shot
#304 to #302
-
gerfox (11/17/2015) [-]
It didn't? There has been a lot of muslim extremist terrorism in the US since 9/11 that I haven't heard about? Guess you learn something new every day.
It has worked. Well, not the way that was intended - but Al Qaeda was weakened and became a shadow of what it was before 2001 because of the US war against it. If you deny that you are delusional. The number of dead is totally irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter is that they have attacked the civilian population of a sovereign country, and they are fully entitled to defend their sovereignty with any means necessary. Even more so, in the NATO treaty theres a clause that says that if a member states sovereignty is being defiled then they can call upon the other members to help defend it. Thats the reason why so many NATO members joined the war in Afghanistan, since the US invoked that clause for the first time in its history. If France decides to invoke that clause too, well, then the US and the other NATO members have to respond - or risk weakening the integrity of NATO.
There are 30 million people living in ISIS controlled territory. Not 100 000. They have a 100 000 man big army, but with 30 million people under their control they can increase conscription further than what they have already done and bolster their ranks greatly.
Turkey wants nothing to do with the conflict, and works against the coalition even with their targeted attacks on the Kurds fighting IS. Iran wants to fight, but are not allowed to since the coalition feels that a shia state fighting a sunni caliphate can lead to no good.
Not every time. The US has interfered twice with war. The first and the second gulf war, and the first one was a success - and did not destabilize the region.
Yes. Let's leave them alone, and let the Islamic State grow in peace. We'll see a continued influx of refugees to Europe, increased amounts of terrorism in Europe - and a growing religious and racial divide. But who cares? Its not like protecting our way of life matters anyway. In the end the Islamic state will have engulfed the Middle East, and we'll have a significantly harder war on our hands when they wish to capture Europe to kill the infidels and spread the word of Allah. The worst that can happen is a genocide, but hey, its not something we haven't tried before in Europe.
If the US won't interfere, well, then the European minor powers will be forced to do it by themselves - we can't endure this situation for an extended period of time. And they will call upon their ally, and if the US doesn't respond, then you will lose a lot of friends and prestige.
It has worked. Well, not the way that was intended - but Al Qaeda was weakened and became a shadow of what it was before 2001 because of the US war against it. If you deny that you are delusional. The number of dead is totally irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter is that they have attacked the civilian population of a sovereign country, and they are fully entitled to defend their sovereignty with any means necessary. Even more so, in the NATO treaty theres a clause that says that if a member states sovereignty is being defiled then they can call upon the other members to help defend it. Thats the reason why so many NATO members joined the war in Afghanistan, since the US invoked that clause for the first time in its history. If France decides to invoke that clause too, well, then the US and the other NATO members have to respond - or risk weakening the integrity of NATO.
There are 30 million people living in ISIS controlled territory. Not 100 000. They have a 100 000 man big army, but with 30 million people under their control they can increase conscription further than what they have already done and bolster their ranks greatly.
Turkey wants nothing to do with the conflict, and works against the coalition even with their targeted attacks on the Kurds fighting IS. Iran wants to fight, but are not allowed to since the coalition feels that a shia state fighting a sunni caliphate can lead to no good.
Not every time. The US has interfered twice with war. The first and the second gulf war, and the first one was a success - and did not destabilize the region.
Yes. Let's leave them alone, and let the Islamic State grow in peace. We'll see a continued influx of refugees to Europe, increased amounts of terrorism in Europe - and a growing religious and racial divide. But who cares? Its not like protecting our way of life matters anyway. In the end the Islamic state will have engulfed the Middle East, and we'll have a significantly harder war on our hands when they wish to capture Europe to kill the infidels and spread the word of Allah. The worst that can happen is a genocide, but hey, its not something we haven't tried before in Europe.
If the US won't interfere, well, then the European minor powers will be forced to do it by themselves - we can't endure this situation for an extended period of time. And they will call upon their ally, and if the US doesn't respond, then you will lose a lot of friends and prestige.
#315 to #304
-
billburr (11/18/2015) [-]
I'm sure you can see why your first statement is wrong? The face that the US hasn't been attacked since doesn't show that an unrelated war has helped. Or that the war in Afghanistan has helped.
And as I said, it is undeniable that the Iraq war is directly connected to the creation of ISIS and their rise to power.
The number of people dead does matter. It is all that matters. People are all that matters. Killing 100 000 people is a big deal and you need a good reason to do it and some kind of reasonable assurance that it will work.
And the first gulf war was effective at helping Kuwait but it was very ineffective at hurting Saddam Hussein or helping the people of Iraq. A part of the reason why may be that the coalition forces deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure as a "deterrent"; obviously the people were not too happy with this. It also had a very de-stabilizing effect on the economies in the area. Not nearly as bad as the second invasion and certainly more warranted but it still had some negative effects.
And blindly following treaties is what caused WW1, we should put some thought into our actions.
And I'm not saying the US shouldn't play a role. I'm just saying that the role should be decided by the American people and unbiased defense strategists instead of defense contractors and oil companies.
And as I said, it is undeniable that the Iraq war is directly connected to the creation of ISIS and their rise to power.
The number of people dead does matter. It is all that matters. People are all that matters. Killing 100 000 people is a big deal and you need a good reason to do it and some kind of reasonable assurance that it will work.
And the first gulf war was effective at helping Kuwait but it was very ineffective at hurting Saddam Hussein or helping the people of Iraq. A part of the reason why may be that the coalition forces deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure as a "deterrent"; obviously the people were not too happy with this. It also had a very de-stabilizing effect on the economies in the area. Not nearly as bad as the second invasion and certainly more warranted but it still had some negative effects.
And blindly following treaties is what caused WW1, we should put some thought into our actions.
And I'm not saying the US shouldn't play a role. I'm just saying that the role should be decided by the American people and unbiased defense strategists instead of defense contractors and oil companies.
#211 to #21
-
thesirofponies (11/15/2015) [-] There's a possibility of it starting over Chinese/Japanese aggression in the South China Sea over some islands, but I think it will come from economic collapse of the Euro and Dollar will push the world to annihilation.
Buy up weapons,ammo,supplies for farming,and head up north into the Canadian, Scandinavian, or Siberian wilderness, keep your family safe if **** goes south
Buy up weapons,ammo,supplies for farming,and head up north into the Canadian, Scandinavian, or Siberian wilderness, keep your family safe if **** goes south
#290 to #278
-
thesirofponies (11/16/2015) [-] The currencies in the middle east are stable over their current GDP, and China's economic future has strengthened significantly with making certain zones Capitalistic over the ruling Communist ideology.
The Euro stretches from economically rich countries like France and Germany, to weak nations like Italy and Greece,and they will weigh us down. The U.S is pouring trillions to keep the Euro afloat,and it risks bringing the Dollar down,and possibly weaken the Ruble and Yuan.
The Euro stretches from economically rich countries like France and Germany, to weak nations like Italy and Greece,and they will weigh us down. The U.S is pouring trillions to keep the Euro afloat,and it risks bringing the Dollar down,and possibly weaken the Ruble and Yuan.
#68 to #21
-
darkangeloffire (11/15/2015) [-] With everything that's happened within the past couple years, I'm inclined to agree with you.
MFW all this terrorist ****
MFW all this terrorist ****
#188 to #165
-
funnybox (11/15/2015) [-] Yes, war is one of the most expensive things a county can do but where does that money go?
Weapon makers, Big Oil, and the politicians they used to get the people on their side to go into war. Those types don't care how many have to die as long as they make a profit from it. All the while preaching bout how evil the other guy is and how we need to keep fighting...
Today's America is afraid of it's own shadow and it ready to attack anyone/anything that is 2spooky4them to exist
Weapon makers, Big Oil, and the politicians they used to get the people on their side to go into war. Those types don't care how many have to die as long as they make a profit from it. All the while preaching bout how evil the other guy is and how we need to keep fighting...
Today's America is afraid of it's own shadow and it ready to attack anyone/anything that is 2spooky4them to exist
#155 to #21
-
gerfox (11/15/2015) [-]
How exactly do you think that will happen? There will never be a third world war with IS involved. They have neither the friends, resources some oil revenue from Iraq, and tithes and taxes from people living in their "state" nor the manpower a huge amount of IS fighters died during the US-led bombing raids, and they have had to bolster their ranks with conscripts from the occupied areas. About 30 million people used to live in the area they controlled, but the question is how many of these are currently refugees - and how many of these do they actually have the capability to recruit. Especially considering the fluidity of their borders with fighting on all sides to make such a thing happen. They are in open conflict with the two greatest military powers in the world, Russia and the US - and the next ones on that list are more likely to join the coalition against them than join them.
Furthermore, they actually work as a unifying force - and tension between the US and Russia are more eased when they have a common enemy.
No, the Islamic State have more than enough fighting Syria, Peshmerga and the Iraqi military forces - and an invasion would only drive them underground. Terrorist attacks have come to stay though, I think, unfortunately. Thats the only way they can make any kind of noise, and thats just crime - and not war.
Ukraine-crisis had the explosivity and potential for world war material, but the US public, and therefore also the US government, is led by media attention - and that has shifted toward the Middle East yet again, and Ukraine has become forgotten. For now.
Thats my opinion at least. I'll gladly debate it with you.
Furthermore, they actually work as a unifying force - and tension between the US and Russia are more eased when they have a common enemy.
No, the Islamic State have more than enough fighting Syria, Peshmerga and the Iraqi military forces - and an invasion would only drive them underground. Terrorist attacks have come to stay though, I think, unfortunately. Thats the only way they can make any kind of noise, and thats just crime - and not war.
Ukraine-crisis had the explosivity and potential for world war material, but the US public, and therefore also the US government, is led by media attention - and that has shifted toward the Middle East yet again, and Ukraine has become forgotten. For now.
Thats my opinion at least. I'll gladly debate it with you.
#149 to #21
-
thumbfortrump (11/15/2015) [-] And exactly how do you see that happen?
No really, people keep saying it, yet fail to explain why they think so.
No really, people keep saying it, yet fail to explain why they think so.
#183 to #149
-
roflstorm (11/15/2015) [-] I don't have a clear idea, but i think i have a theory.
They've pissed off the Americans and now the French.
They're targeting Canada, Britain, and several other countries.
They're going out of their way to attack allied nations.
This tension that they're creating is going to snap. And when it does everyone will get involved. They will do so because they want not just revenge, but they want payback.
WWII involved warfare involving guns, boats, and planes. When they used these vehicles, they were still able to breathe and live, and when it was all over, they could be tried and brought to justice. Mostly by being killed. It's what they deserve, and that we feel better knowing we killed them. As revenge for their fallen. This is not what ISIS is doing. Their methods for killing involves them killing themselves. Wanna put several hundred pieces of person on trial? Be my guest. They are taking the cowards way out and killing themselves to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. And in a way, get away with killing hundreds of people. This typically doesn't slide well.
But that's just what i think. If you disagree with me, lemme know what you think.
They've pissed off the Americans and now the French.
They're targeting Canada, Britain, and several other countries.
They're going out of their way to attack allied nations.
This tension that they're creating is going to snap. And when it does everyone will get involved. They will do so because they want not just revenge, but they want payback.
WWII involved warfare involving guns, boats, and planes. When they used these vehicles, they were still able to breathe and live, and when it was all over, they could be tried and brought to justice. Mostly by being killed. It's what they deserve, and that we feel better knowing we killed them. As revenge for their fallen. This is not what ISIS is doing. Their methods for killing involves them killing themselves. Wanna put several hundred pieces of person on trial? Be my guest. They are taking the cowards way out and killing themselves to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. And in a way, get away with killing hundreds of people. This typically doesn't slide well.
But that's just what i think. If you disagree with me, lemme know what you think.
#186 to #183
-
thumbfortrump (11/15/2015) [-] US and Russia are not even interested in escalating conflict over Syria, evident by corporation at the current Geneva peace talks. It's is close to impossible that they'd engage in conflict because of ISIS. The only way for a world to break out would be ISIS getting their hands on a nuclear weapon, detonate it, and hope it triggers a domino effect.
The most likely scenario for a new world war would be China attacking US over the East China sea, which of course is also very unlikely, and still then it is uncertain if that would escalate to global conflict.
The world has, although some refuse to acknowledge it, evolved a lot since WW2.
The most likely scenario for a new world war would be China attacking US over the East China sea, which of course is also very unlikely, and still then it is uncertain if that would escalate to global conflict.
The world has, although some refuse to acknowledge it, evolved a lot since WW2.
#190 to #186
-
roflstorm (11/15/2015) [-] Russia and America may not be interested in escalating the conflict in Syria, but wouldn't ISIS want to?
They want all of the countries to know Allah. And they way they're doing it is not in a peaceful, handing-out-flyers-and-pamphlets-and-maybe-attend-a-conference kind.
A crusade maybe? They've killed enough to make it look like one.
So how does one fight a crusade? With another crusade of a different type?
Maybe declare war against the crusaders? Call me crazy, but when someone is acting in the name of their god, not a lot can change their minds. Especially when they don't know a lot about it an decide to spin out their own, violent version of it.
Am i wrong?
They want all of the countries to know Allah. And they way they're doing it is not in a peaceful, handing-out-flyers-and-pamphlets-and-maybe-attend-a-conference kind.
A crusade maybe? They've killed enough to make it look like one.
So how does one fight a crusade? With another crusade of a different type?
Maybe declare war against the crusaders? Call me crazy, but when someone is acting in the name of their god, not a lot can change their minds. Especially when they don't know a lot about it an decide to spin out their own, violent version of it.
Am i wrong?
#257 to #190
-
thumbfortrump (11/15/2015) [-] Yes, I am sure ISIS would enjoy starting a third world war, and enjoy martyrdom.
However, they're definitely not capable of starting it unless they manage to acquire a nuclear weapon, or perhaps stage an attack on Iran/Russia and making it look like a NATO country attacked. However, this is extremely unlikely.
The way it looks like now is that they will actually become the key to ending the conflict in Syria, rather than escalating it, as they are the only thing that the Western coalition and Russia/Syria/Iran can agree on.
There is reason to be concerned if you're European, but world war is not something to worry about. Mass immigration is a much greater threat.
However, they're definitely not capable of starting it unless they manage to acquire a nuclear weapon, or perhaps stage an attack on Iran/Russia and making it look like a NATO country attacked. However, this is extremely unlikely.
The way it looks like now is that they will actually become the key to ending the conflict in Syria, rather than escalating it, as they are the only thing that the Western coalition and Russia/Syria/Iran can agree on.
There is reason to be concerned if you're European, but world war is not something to worry about. Mass immigration is a much greater threat.
#260 to #258
-
thumbfortrump (11/15/2015) [-] Very few. However, I don't believe it is the islamic forces you should be as worried about, as the economic toll mass immigration takes on a country's economy.
The damage is not as visible in short term as it in long term. Sweden, for example are expected to spend 7% of their total GDP on refugees alone this year, a number expected to rise in 2016. This is as much as they spend on their entire healthcare sector, which obviously is not sustainable.
Where do you live?
The damage is not as visible in short term as it in long term. Sweden, for example are expected to spend 7% of their total GDP on refugees alone this year, a number expected to rise in 2016. This is as much as they spend on their entire healthcare sector, which obviously is not sustainable.
Where do you live?
#63
-
freedombirdman (11/15/2015) [-] If you ask me, it's time we finish what we started.
ISIS cannot be reasoned with nor appeased. They don't want peace, they want a holy war, one they think they can win. I say we give them their holy war; and make sure it's one they'll wish they never started.
And to the innocent people in Syria and Iran who have been persecuted and enslaved, both by ISIS and your oppressive governments: pick up a weapon and fight for your freedom, or get the hell out of our way. Because I've just about had it with all this senseless brutality, and the rest of the world is feeling the same -- so don't be surprised if we decide to roll out the ultimatum for the second time in world history, or at the very least go full D-Day on your asses.
I'm sorry, I usually try to remain level headed about these things. But something about the idea of those savages scorching in nuclear hellfire is just oh so satisfying to think about.
ISIS cannot be reasoned with nor appeased. They don't want peace, they want a holy war, one they think they can win. I say we give them their holy war; and make sure it's one they'll wish they never started.
And to the innocent people in Syria and Iran who have been persecuted and enslaved, both by ISIS and your oppressive governments: pick up a weapon and fight for your freedom, or get the hell out of our way. Because I've just about had it with all this senseless brutality, and the rest of the world is feeling the same -- so don't be surprised if we decide to roll out the ultimatum for the second time in world history, or at the very least go full D-Day on your asses.
I'm sorry, I usually try to remain level headed about these things. But something about the idea of those savages scorching in nuclear hellfire is just oh so satisfying to think about.
#81 to #63
-
Sorrowscythe (11/15/2015) [-] "If they wanna meet God, it's our duty to send them to him."
#80
-
cannibalvegan ONLINE (11/15/2015) [-] Armoured tanks of mass destruction
Killers in the east
Rats who dares to stand before us
Feel our guns go live
Death in the shape of a panzer battalion
Insect of terror don't run
Face your fate like a man
Cannot outrun our panzer battalion
Thousands of tons of armour and guns
Making it's way through the sand
Our panzer battalion is back for revenge
Artillery sweeping the land
First strike is ours no mercy is shown
There's rivers of blood in our track
Breaking their waves of defence with our tanks
Infantry watching our back
Never have Sabaton lyrics been so relevant.
Killers in the east
Rats who dares to stand before us
Feel our guns go live
Death in the shape of a panzer battalion
Insect of terror don't run
Face your fate like a man
Cannot outrun our panzer battalion
Thousands of tons of armour and guns
Making it's way through the sand
Our panzer battalion is back for revenge
Artillery sweeping the land
First strike is ours no mercy is shown
There's rivers of blood in our track
Breaking their waves of defence with our tanks
Infantry watching our back
Never have Sabaton lyrics been so relevant.
#102
-
herecomesjohnny (11/15/2015) [-] France is the 6th greatest military, we're not exactly in that need of a bully defender
but hey gotta love a 20 meter assault rifle, why not
but hey gotta love a 20 meter assault rifle, why not
#144
-
travishein (11/15/2015) [-] Listen guys. US veteran right here and I wish I was still in so I could come over there and **** up some of those bastards for my Eurobuds. Just remember, our swagger might be over the top across the pond, but you **** with our brothers and we'll bring the big stick to the fight. My heart hurts for my french Bros right now.
#77
-
anon (11/15/2015) [-]
Considering France and USA have an alliance dating back to the American Revolutionary War, yeah if they go to war, we would probably go help them.
#159 to #77
-
gerfox (11/15/2015) [-]
Not completely true though. Sure, you've fought many wars together - but Charles de Gaulle left NATO in the 50s - and France didn't return until the 2000s. Because they wanted a defence policy independent of NATO and the US, and to stand unaffiliated with any of the sides in the cold war. A third way. Thats not the same as an alliance is it?
#101 to #77
-
herecomesjohnny (11/15/2015) [-] France was already in the coalition against Isis. It's simply a matter of a predictable increase in executive agreements
#32
-
romdadon (11/15/2015) [-] i love that this was the previous post:
/Anon+helps+the+french/funny-pictures/5742418/
/Anon+helps+the+french/funny-pictures/5742418/
