FIFA also some nationalist trolling and political debate
-
Yeah I actually don't understand this sentence. Mind explaining?
A little bit. You apparently can't tell the difference between conquest and the sorts of wars the US has had over the last century or so.
I just fail to see how Westerners interfering in a Muslim civil war across the entire Middle East can help in any way?
Yes, that's obvious.
"Keeping our hands clean" isn't the concern so much as "what good will getting them dirty do?"
It helps solve the current shortage of martyrs we have. I guess if you think that nothing that happens there matters or can affect you...You're welcome.
-
We see that you feel strongly about this.
I do. Freedom of speech is something that American (and many Americans) law takes seriously, because it's important.
And, you know, if you ever get tired of this whole public forum business, there's a cushy "consultant" gig waiting for you. Just as long as you keep championing our interest- akhm we mean following your true beliefs that happen to coincide with our interests wink wink .
For some reason, people look at government abusing its powers and instead of thinking, "Hey, maybe we should reign in some of those powers," they think they should give the government extra powers.
These are probably the same people responsible for the patchwork of mysql escaping functions.
-
You apparently can't tell the difference between conquest and the sorts of wars the US has had over the last century or so.
The difference in motivations for the wars are irrelevant to their results though. If the result is hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and a region in chaos, it really doesn't matter what the intentions were. Whether you were invading as the gee whiz good guys spreading democracy, or the evil imperialist oil stealers, the outcome was the same.Yes, that's obvious.
So why advocate more invasions and war, if it's obvious we can't do anything to stop the Muslim civil wars?
@boomzilla said:I guess if you think that nothing that happens there matters or can affect you...
I never said that though, did I?You're welcome.
For what?
-
So why advocate more invasions and war, if it's obvious we can't do anything to stop the Muslim civil wars?
Why is it obvious that we can't do anything to stop these civil wars? Are you saying that ISIS invading Iraq is a civil war? None of this makes sense and ignores a lot of stuff we've done to pacify the region. Then we left, and surprise, surprise, stuff went to shit.
For what?
For giving you the luxury of not needing to worry about this stuff.
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-
Doing nothing is better then bombing and killing for no reason, I think.
No reason?
I think this conversation might be hopeless.
We're secure enough from outside threats, we have UK and French (lol) nukes to deter Russia or whoever, and we are basically quite happy with the whole "peaceful prosperity" thing we got going on.
A.k.a. "Got ours, fuck everybody else."
How noble of you.
-
What, the millenia so far haven't been enough?
I retweeted this funny tweet:
https://twitter.com/chrischofield1/status/603506126295007233
Of those 2,868 diamonds, how many were stolen from their rightful owners? How many have been returned? (Hint: zero.) How much of Europe's wealth comes from slavery? And yet how many resources does Europe expend to assist the countries they fucked-over to gain that wealth?
In comparison to European nations, the US:
- Built hardly any of its wealth from forced labor, slavery, or other immoral institutions
- Contributes FAR more to the defense of countries fucked-over by European countries during colonialism
Is everything the US does perfect and right? Of course not. But at least we're trying to be good world citizens.
And those scary aircraft carrier groups? For every minute they spend in combat operations, they spend an hour in disaster relief. The US military is bloated, inefficient, and far too large for its purpose (as even its own top generals agree), but it's an amazing force for good.
-
I just fail to see how Westerners interfering in a Muslim civil war across the entire Middle East can help in any way?
The situation that created the war only exists because France and the UK (by signing contradictory treaties with local leaders, then resolving the conflicts by reneging on all the promises contained within) fucked-over the region after WWI. The power vacuum was the overnight dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. The US wasn't involved in that shit. On the contrary; we founded the League of Nations to prevent that exact shit from happening again. (It didn't work, but the point is: we're trying.)
Do you know why Mustafa Kemal Atatürk is the national hero of Turkey? Look it up.
I wouldn't mind "world police", but this more like "world police that acts entirely in their self-interest, occasionally beating some bad guy up just to steal their things".
Oh yeah, the whole "war for oil" bullshit people spread. There isn't a single fact to back it up, but sure, repeat it some more.
-
Oh do we finally care about people in other countries?
The US Bill of Rights isn't limited to US citizens. Truefax.
Can I expect a coordinated action to overthrow most African dictators, institute a global socialistic system where the richest countries spend >30% of their GDP to rebuild the poorest ones and educate their people?
No.
-
The difference in motivations for the wars are irrelevant to their results though. If the result is hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and a region in chaos, it really doesn't matter what the intentions were. Whether you were invading as the gee whiz good guys spreading democracy, or the evil imperialist oil stealers, the outcome was the same
This is so myopic it boggles my mind.
-
The difference in motivations for the wars are irrelevant to their results though. If the result is hundreds of thousands of dead civilians and a region in chaos, it really doesn't matter what the intentions were.
Yeah, uh. That chaos is the result of ISIS in the first place.
Whether you were invading as the gee whiz good guys spreading democracy, or the evil imperialist oil stealers, the outcome was the same.
How about defending an ally against a hostile incursion by a foreign army? How does that rate on your "gee whiz" meter?
Oh and again, we're imperialist oil stealers. I guess that explains why all that Iraqi oil is under US contr-- oh wait, it's all under local control? Well surely in Afghanistan we took control of the country's oil produ-- we didn't? Oh.
Goddamned this fucking lie will not go away. What does the US need to do? Run ads on the side of buses?
-
This reminds me of an old William F Buckley quote:
To say that the CIA and the KGB engage in similar practices is the equivalent of saying that the man who pushes an old lady into the path of a hurtling bus is not to be distinguished from the man who pushes an old lady out of the path of a hurtling bus: on the grounds that, after all, in both cases someone is pushing old ladies around.
-
-
Why is it obvious that we can't do anything to stop these civil wars?
Because there are centuries old ethnic (Arab vs Persian), religious(Sunni vs Shia), nationalist (Kurds want their own state), tribal (still a very important concept in Iraq, not sure about elsewhere), economic (self explanatory) differences.The idea that if Western folks bomb enough buildings, kill enough people, and/or occupy enough land, it'll all just stop and be nice, is ludicrous.
-
The idea that if Western folks bomb enough buildings, kill enough people, and/or occupy enough land, it'll all just stop and be nice, is ludicrous.
Is that honestly all you think is happening?
I have a serious question: are you 14 years old? Because you're displaying the general knowledge of world events of a 14-year-old. There's no way you're an adult.
-
For giving you the luxury of not needing to worry about this stuff.
Oh, no, that's no luxury. We had zero reason to fear intact Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We do have reason to fear ISIS and the regional. You guys fucked things up horribly, you don't get credit for attempting to fix it.
-
Oh, no, that's no luxury. We had zero reason to fear intact Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc. We do have reason to fear ISIS and the regional.
We got ours, fuck them.
You guys fucked things up horribly, you don't get credit for attempting to fix it.
I've already clearly demonstrated that the UK and France after WWI fucked the region up far more than the US ever has.
-
No reason?
I think this conversation might be hopeless.
You still haven't explained how bombing the Middle East helps anyone.A.k.a. "Got ours, fuck everybody else."
How noble of you.
You edited out the rest of my post where I said we SHOULD help, if we can. We can't though. And you haven't explained how bombing them more would help.The situation that created the war only exists because France and the UK (by signing contradictory treaties with local leaders, then resolving the conflicts by reneging on all the promises contained within) fucked-over the region after WWI. The power vacuum was the overnight dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. The US wasn't involved in that shit. On the contrary; we founded the League of Nations to prevent that exact shit from happening again. (It didn't work, but the point is: we're trying.)
Agreed, that was evil.This is so myopic it boggles my mind.
Ok. It's true though. Dead civilian people don't care that you had the best of intentions when you killed them.
-
Yeah, uh. That chaos is the result of ISIS in the first place.
ISIS wouldn't exist without the US invasion of Iraq, setting up a Shia gov and militias, and support for Syrian rebels. ISIS = Syrian rebels + Saddams former soldiers and officers + ordinary Sunnis oppressed by Shia gov.How about defending an ally against a hostile incursion by a foreign army? How does that rate on your "gee whiz" meter?
Oh and again, we're imperialist oil stealers. I guess that explains why all that Iraqi oil is under US contr-- oh wait, it's all under local control? Well surely in Afghanistan we took control of the country's oil produ-- we didn't? Oh.
Goddamned this fucking lie will not go away. What does the US need to do? Run ads on the side of buses?
The "gee whiz democracy" and "evil Imperial oil stealers" were two examples of the extreme narratives that get peddled about. They were examples of how the narrative, no matter how silly, doesn't really matter to the dead civilians. They're still dead.
-
You still haven't explained how bombing the Middle East helps anyone.
We're not bombing "the Middle East". We don't have bombs that large.
You edited out the rest of my post where I said we SHOULD help, if we can.
I can't edit-out text that's not there.
We can't though.
Of course not; it might require effort. Getting off your bony ass and doing something. Can't have that.
And you haven't explained how bombing them more would help.
Who is "them"?
When ISIS enters a city, they sell a significant percentage of the population into sex slavery, then murder a significant percentage of the remainder in cold blood.
If our bombs prevent ISIS from entering a city, we're saving hundreds of lives.
You're writing this post as if "the Middle East" is a single house with a single guy in it. We're not bombing "the Middle East". We're not bombing "them". The weapons we are using are specifically dedicated to saving lives.
Agreed, that was evil.
Right; so let's see the UK and France get in there and clean up their mess. Why is the US doing all of the work?
ISIS wouldn't exist without the US invasion of Iraq, setting up a Shia gov and militias, and support for Syrian rebels.
You don't know that.
They were examples of how the narrative, no matter how silly, doesn't really matter to the dead civilians. They're still dead.
What about the ones who would be dead if the US hadn't fought of their enemies? Do those civilians get a say at all?
Where the fuck are you from? What are they brainwashing you with, that you come in here and repeat this shit to us? Goddamned, man.
-
Are you saying that ISIS invading Iraq is a civil war?
No, I'm saying Sunni vs Shia is the civil war.
Shia: Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, etc vs Sunni: Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, ISIS, etc. It's a regional religious civil war and there's no chance in hell of westerners stopping it.
-
Is that honestly all you think is happening?
I have a serious question: are you 14 years old? Because you're displaying the general knowledge of world events of a 14-year-old. There's no way you're an adult.
I am an expert in this matter ;)
-
I've already clearly demonstrated that the UK and France after WWI fucked the region up far more than the US ever has.
Agreed, that was 100 years ago though and can't be stopped. The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
-
You guys fucked things up horribly
Yes. We should have stayed longer. They weren't ready to be left on their own.
The idea that if Western folks bomb enough buildings, kill enough people, and/or occupy enough land, it'll all just stop and be nice, is ludicrous.
The idea that you think that I think that is kind of funny. I don't think it'll all just stop and be nice, just that it's better than the alternative.
You still haven't explained how bombing the Middle East helps anyone.
You know how the guys were [currently] bombing want to take all sorts of shit over by force and then bring about the end of the world? We're making it harder for them to do that.
Ok. It's true though. Dead civilian people don't care that you had the best of intentions when you killed them.
Yes, we should never do anything risky. All us US Americans should burn our cars because we kill so many people because of them.
ISIS wouldn't exist without the US invasion of Iraq,
Yeah, the world would be so much better with Saddam out there free to go about his business (the way things were heading prior to the invasion).
-
The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
Which is pretty much the point of our current bombing! It's like you've finally started reading what we've been saying.
-
Bombing isn't necessarily the best strategy though; I can't help but think more surgical strikes would get the same or better results with less risk of civilian casualties
-
I can't edit-out text that's not there.
Post 31 - I wrote "If it was possible to fire a missile through some dictators window and have an overnight improvement in democracy, freedom, and human rights, I'd be all for it."Kindly read more carefully ;)
Of course not; it might require effort. Getting off your bony ass and doing something. Can't have that.
It's remarkable that you STILL won't say what that "something" actually IS. If we can help, then let's help. We can't, though.Who is "them"?
Every Middle Eastern country and group you're bombing.When ISIS enters a city, they sell a significant percentage of the population into sex slavery, then murder a significant percentage of the remainder in cold blood.
If our bombs prevent ISIS from entering a city, we're saving hundreds of lives.
Your bombs don't stop them. You are bombing them right now and they are still taking cities and territory.You're writing this post as if "the Middle East" is a single house with a single guy in it. We're not bombing "the Middle East". We're not bombing "them". The weapons we are using are specifically dedicated to saving lives.
Right now it kind of is all one big mess. Iraq and Syria are no longer countries, ISIS has declared itself a nation, the Iranian soldiers are in half a dozen different countries, the Saudis are bombing Yemen, the Americans are bombing Iraq, the Qutaris are supporting Syrian militias... it's pure chaos, and can't be distilled down to any sort of straightforward explanation.Right; so let's see the UK and France get in there and clean up their mess. Why is the US doing all of the work?
How would they clean it up? It's impossible. The US tactic of bombing isn't making the region safer or solving any problems.You don't know that.
Yes I do, a huge amount of these guys are former Baath party and army.What about the ones who would be dead if the US hadn't fought of their enemies? Do those civilians get a say at all?
Far less people died in Saddam's Iraq compared to the chaos afterwards. I'm not defending Saddam, just saying more people would be alive with him still in control of a stable Iraq.Where the fuck are you from? What are they brainwashing you with, that you come in here and repeat this shit to us? Goddamned, man.
Ireland. No one brainwashed me, I just read a lot of history books and current events.
-
Bombing isn't necessarily the best strategy though; I can't help but think more surgical strikes would get the same or better results with less risk of civilian casualties
Bombs these days tend to get pretty surgical. And we're only flying something like 13 sorties (presumably 4-ships) per day, so it's a pretty low tempo.
-
If the CEO of Apple takes bribe to use a specific hardware vendor, for example, that feels like
"fraud", not "corruption"business.FTFY
-
Bombs these days tend to get pretty surgical.
I know some of the better ones have scary-high levels of accuracy, but I was thinking something more surgical than explosive death from the sky
-
Your bombs don't stop them. You are bombing them right now and they are still taking cities and territory.
We had this same problem for a while with the Nazis and the Japanese. For a while.
it's pure chaos, and can't be distilled down to any sort of straightforward explanation.
Clearly the best thing is to put our fingers in our ears and hope for the best. I see your point.
-
Yes. We should have stayed longer. They weren't ready to be left on their own.
Western man's burden eh? How about not going at all?The idea that you think that I think that is kind of funny. I don't think it'll all just stop and be nice, just that it's better than the alternative.
Fair enough. I disagree.You know how the guys were [currently] bombing want to take all sorts of shit over by force and then bring about the end of the world? We're making it harder for them to do that.
You shouldn't have created them in the first place. Bombing them now isn't stopping them and can't stop them. Pure air power can never stop ground forces. They also have support from the Sunni powers, Saudi + Qatar + Gulf states. They are the frontline against the Shia forces of Iran and Iraq. As I said, religious civil war. It's nice to think that a few hundred bombs could stop this war. It won't though.Yes, we should never do anything risky. All us US Americans should burn our cars because we kill so many people because of them.
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky. There's no one to stop you. It's just pointless.Yeah, the world would be so much better with Saddam out there free to go about his business (the way things were heading prior to the invasion).
Saddam was a lame duck. You guys destroyed his armies in 1991. He had no WMDs. He was just a tinpot dictator. He was an evil person but he kept the 3 parts of Iraq (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd) from total meltdown. Now he's gone, the meltdown happened, and it's spread to half a dozen other countries at least. Iran and Saudi's are having their religious war. I truly believe the world WOULD be better with Saddam still around, evil bastard though he was.
-
Bombing them now isn't stopping them and can't stop them. Pure air power can never stop ground forces.
I basically agree, though the pedantic dickweed in me wants to point out that I think we have some bombs that are actually capable of that.
Like I said, our idiot president vacated the field and gave these lunatics an opening.
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky.
WTF are you talking about?
Saddam was a lame duck.
No, he wasn't. The sanctions regime was coming apart (he was largely getting around it by 2000 or so, and it was all about to go away).
He had no WMDs.
Untrue in several respects, but I'm not going to go into this tired myth. You claim to have read history books, but you have forgotten about his crap like letting al Qaeda train in his country or paying Palestinian bombers' families. We had been in a shooting war with him before the invasion. Very low intensity, but still.
I truly believe the world WOULD be better with Saddam still around, evil bastard though he was.
I believe you. People believe crazy ass things. @blakeyrat even likes having the Castros in power in Cuba, if you can imagine such a thing.
-
We had this same problem for a while with the Nazis and the Japanese. For a while.
Don't talk shit, you know there's a pile of reasons the situations aren't comparable in the slightest. This isn't an industrial war between nations we are talking about.Clearly the best thing is to put our fingers in our ears and hope for the best. I see your point.
Yes, that's better then bombing the Middle East for the 7 billionth time and killing more civilians.
-
The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
You just said they couldn't like a half hour ago.
-
The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
If we can help, then let's help. We can't, though.
So it can or can't?
Why don't you go figure out what the fuck you're talking about, then come back, ok?
-
Don't talk shit, you know there's a pile of reasons the situations aren't comparable in the slightest. This isn't an industrial war between nations we are talking about.
They are comparable in that we could be killing more of the enemy than we are, and that would change things, like it did then. I thought this was pretty simple. No doubt you thought the same thing about Iraq 10 years ago, but we won that war and had the country relatively pacified. If we'd stayed, it would be a whole lot better than it is now.
Maybe you think I'm saying we should only be bombing or something? That's the only thing that makes sense to me here.
Yes, that's better then bombing the Middle East for the 7 billionth time and killing more civilians.
Do you really believe this? I feel like IHBT here, but I know there are plenty of people who think War Is Never The Answer and that Violence Never Solves Anything, so I can't be sure.
-
-
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky. There's no one to stop you. It's just pointless.
Saving lives is pointless.
-
Do you really believe this? I feel like IHBT here, but I know there are plenty of people who think War Is Never The Answer and that Violence Never Solves Anything, so I can't be sure
I am pretty sure he is just trolling at this point.
-
@KillaCoder said:
The modern day shenanigans CAN be stopped.
If we can help, then let's help. We can't, though.
So it can or can't?
Why don't you go figure out what the fuck you're talking about, then come back, ok?
The first post was about what America is doing. That can be stopped. Just stop bombing for no reason.
The second post was about the Muslim civil war (Sunni vs Shia). That can't be stopped by outsiders.
Learn to read and stop editing out 90% of what I say, and you won't be so confused.
-
Learn to read and stop editing out 90% of what I say, and you won't be so confused.
Learn to quote, and read what other people say. Maybe you'll get similar treatment. If you don't, it's pretty unlikely that you will.
-
They are comparable in that we could be killing more of the enemy than we are, and that would change things, like it did then. I thought this was pretty simple. No doubt you thought the same thing about Iraq 10 years ago, but we won that war and had the country relatively pacified. If we'd stayed, it would be a whole lot better than it is now.
Maybe you think I'm saying we should only be bombing or something? That's the only thing that makes sense to me here.
Industrial war between the national armies of global powers isn't comparable to fighting irregular forces that can hide in the local population. If ISIS was a nation state with an economy, industry, regular troops in uniform, etc, you'd win in a week, and I'd cheer you on.I disagree about winning in Iraq. But maybe I just have a different definition of winning. Did you want
to leave troops there forever like Germany and Japan?Do you really believe this?
Yes.
@boomzilla said:I feel like IHBT here, but I know there are plenty of people who think War Is Never The Answer and that Violence Never Solves Anything, so I can't be sure.
War is often the answer and violence can solve things, I just don't see how it's accomplishing anything in this case. Shia and Sunni will still hate and want to slaughter each other, Kurds will still want their own state and be willing to fight for it, ISIS will still murder people. I don't see how adding American bombs to the mix helps, and I don't think either you or blakey have told me either, beyond a vague "it helps".
-
@KillaCoder said:
Bombing the Middle East isn't risky. There's no one to stop you. It's just pointless.
Saving lives is pointless.
Tell me how dropping bombs saves lives in this case. You are bombing ISIS (and civilians as collateral damage) and it's not stopping them. If anything, standing up to you guys is giving them street credit and attracting more fighters.
-
I don't see how adding American bombs to the mix helps, and I don't think either you or blakey have told me either, beyond a vague "it helps".
You refuse to read the posts where Blakey says how it helps. Of course you don't think he said it.
-
@KillaCoder said:
Learn to read and stop editing out 90% of what I say, and you won't be so confused.
Learn to quote, and read what other people say. Maybe you'll get similar treatment. If you don't, it's pretty unlikely that you will.
Fuck off, I clicked quote and that's what Discourse spit out.
-
I disagree about winning in Iraq. But maybe I just have a different definition of winning. Did you want to leave troops there forever like Germany and Japan?
When was the last time anyone invaded (or got invaded by) either of those countries?
-
Sure, blame what we all already know is broken for your inadequacy. You could fix it, but apparently you don't think you can. It wouldn't help.
-
@KillaCoder said:
I disagree about winning in Iraq. But maybe I just have a different definition of winning. Did you want to leave troops there forever like Germany and Japan?
When was the last time anyone invaded (or got invaded by) either of those countries?
I don't really understand the question. Sorry. I guess, you are saying keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely was the answer?
-
Isn't that better than the constant fighting that otherwise goes on there?
-
Doing nothing is better then bombing and killing for no reason, I think.
I'm sorry, all I hear is "I hate freedom and deserve to have a missile shot my ass."
