Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
ISIS are pure evil.
Options
Comments
-
old_aussie wrote: »Just like there were plenty of peaceful Germans and Japanese before their respective fundamentalist leaders (who were just a few, compared to the total of the population) tried to enforce their way of life on the world.
It's not the peaceful many who end up running things, it's the self egotistical few who end up running things.
unfortunately, it's not the many good cells around the few cancer cells that live in harmony with the cancer cells, the few cancer cells start to spread and end up wipeing out the rest of the good cells.
You have to kill all the cancer cells to survive and along the way a few good cells have to be cut out to totally remove the cancer.
We need to wipe out IS ASAP, before the situation becomes to big to stop.
Great video.
0 -
Are you referring to the priceless Assyrian and Babylonian treasures lost and destroyed forever by American bombs and shells in Iraq, the Cradle of Civilization?
Name five such treasures.
As I understand it, the treasures lost were those nicked by looters.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/muse-a16.htmlAt least 80 percent of the 170,000 separate items stored at the National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad were stolen or destroyed during the looting rampage that followed the US military occupation of Baghdad. The museum was the greatest single storehouse of materials from the civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia, including Sumeria, Akkadia, Babylonia, Assyria and Chaldea. It also held artifacts from Persia, Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire and various Arab dynasties.
The Iraqis appear to have Iraqis to blame for the loss of their treasures.
I'm not aware of a single museum hit by an American bomb, and I've just done a brief googling. I went by the Tomb of Jonah every day for a month without managing to run through it in my tank, it took ISIS to damage and destroy it with sledgehammers.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I'm not aware of a single museum hit by an American bomb, and I've just done a brief googling.
You didn't bother looking very hard, did you.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=49000 -
No I was asking you to provide information that the Turkish "Islamist" government changed the marriageable age to 12 in 2009, like your post implies.
I haven't been able to find any information about this.
Recip Erdogan was the Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 and I can't imagine him agreeing to Turkish girls being allowed to be married at the age of 12 in 2009.....especially in light of the fact that Turkey has being attempting to achieve access to the EU.
SO.....when did this 12 year old marriage law in Turkey take effect.
i dunno, you would have to check with whoever claimed that to be the case...entirely possible that somebody wrote crap there...
18 (with some exceptions) seems to be the legal minimum age for women to get married in turkey, as you also said...this law would have been passed by a (still) relatively secular government and not least in order to appear modern and appeal to the eu and all...basically despite the fact that the vast majority of turks are muslims and totally against islamic tradition...and they are still marrying little girls in turkey...
what was the original argument about? marriage age in the quran or so? recent turkish laws have nothing to do with any of that...0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Name five such treasures.
As I understand it, the treasures lost were those nicked by looters.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/04/muse-a16.html
The Iraqis appear to have Iraqis to blame for the loss of their treasures.
I'm not aware of a single museum hit by an American bomb, and I've just done a brief googling. I went by the Tomb of Jonah every day for a month without managing to run through it in my tank, it took ISIS to damage and destroy it with sledgehammers.
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for protecting such sites. (This doesn't excuse those who looted them).
Bush and his fellow war criminals had no plans in place to protect those sites.
Another victory for the glorious liberators. :rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
Under international law, the occupying power is responsible for protecting such sites. (This doesn't excuse those who looted them).
Bush and his fellow war criminals had no plans in place to protect those sites.
Another victory for the glorious liberators. :rolleyes:
including the museums, there were/are 25,000-odd archaeological sites , more than 10,000 edifices in Iraq. how do you secure them all?
the Hague convention you referenced required the Yanks/Brits to so "far as possible support the competent national authorities...or so far as possible take the most necessary measures of preservation of cultural sites.
You're aware there was a war on though... & some of said museums were being used by Iraqi forces...
The Iraqi museums had become symbols of Saddam's Ba'ath party; the looting was opportunistic poverty stricken Iraqis and a backlash against the ousted Ba'aths. The looting was not as bad as originally reported, a lot of the items recovered, and some of the looting of the more valuable items might have been an inside job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/iraq/iraq_after_the_war_01.shtml
that said there were some terrible decisions made, like using the ancient site of Babylon as a base.0 -
No I was asking you to provide information that the Turkish "Islamist" government changed the marriageable age to 12 in 2009, like your post implies.
I haven't been able to find any information about this.
Recip Erdogan was the Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 and I can't imagine him agreeing to Turkish girls being allowed to be married at the age of 12 in 2009.....especially in light of the fact that Turkey has being attempting to achieve access to the EU.
SO.....when did this 12 year old marriage law in Turkey take effect.
I highly doubt the marriage age is 12 in Turkey. That being said, Turkey is a secular democracy and is not really in the middle east. Its kind of irrelevant to the discussion as we are talking about Islamic based states in the middle east where Islamists are hugely influential eg Iran, Saudi Arabia and similar states. Islamists have very little say in Turkish law, thankfully.
The point is the secularists have tried to raise the age of marriage and in many if not most cases, the Islamists have opposed it and in some cases want no minimum age of marriage which is pretty revolting and disgusting.0 -
Roger Hassenforder wrote: »including the museums, there were/are 25,000-odd archaeological sites , more than 10,000 edifices in Iraq. how do you secure them all?
the Hague convention you referenced required the Yanks/Brits to so "far as possible support the competent national authorities...or so far as possible take the most necessary measures of preservation of cultural sites.
You're aware there was a war on though... & some of said museums were being used by Iraqi forces...
The Iraqi museums had become symbols of Saddam's Ba'ath party; the looting was opportunistic poverty stricken Iraqis and a backlash against the ousted Ba'aths. The looting was not as bad as originally reported, a lot of the items recovered, and some of the looting of the more valuable items might have been an inside job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/iraq/iraq_after_the_war_01.shtml
that said there were some terrible decisions made, like using the ancient site of Babylon as a base.
No, I hadn't a clue there was a war on. If only I'd known. :rolleyes:
The occupying forces made no effort whatsoever. They had no plan at all to protect museums in the centre of the capital that they were carrying out their violent attack on.
That is completely different from trying to protect historic sites where there are military defending.
Though it seems a bit odd to be holding western leaders responsible for historical artefacts considering their far bigger crimes.0 -
-
Touché. It's still far different to trying to destroy them.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, I hadn't a clue there was a war on. If only I'd known. :rolleyes:
The occupying forces made no effort whatsoever. They had no plan at all to protect museums in the centre of the capital that they were carrying out their violent attack on.
That is completely different from trying to protect historic sites where there are military defending.
Though it seems a bit odd to be holding western leaders responsible for historical artefacts considering their far bigger crimes.
there is a difference between collateral damage as happens in war and wantonly destroying cultural treasures as isis are doing, like their brethren in faith in egypt, afghanistan and elsewhere...and all that talk of "western leaders' crimes" is really but more ready-made leftist hate slogans...0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »there is a difference between collateral damage as happens in war and wantonly destroying cultural treasures as isis are doing, like their brethren in faith in egypt, afghanistan and elsewhere...and all that talk of "western leaders' crimes" is really but more ready-made leftist hate slogans...
You're spot on. No harm in a bit of depleted uranium here or there, or illegally invading countries and slaughtering civilians. :rolleyes:0 -
Just heard there on sky news, I think they were doing a paper review.
mother approaches isis about missing son. they offer her a meal which she accepts.
I think you can guess what was in the meal.0 -
You're spot on. No harm in a bit of depleted uranium here or there, or illegally invading countries and slaughtering civilians. :rolleyes:
How do you fight a war, any war without civilian casualties? You can't. Civilians live in areas where terrorist groups base themselves. Terrorists do not wear uniforms and they live among the civilian population who they use as a human shield.0 -
You're spot on. No harm in a bit of depleted uranium here or there, or illegally invading countries and slaughtering civilians. :rolleyes:
not a fan of du penetrators myself...imagine tungsten would be the more eco-friendly option, though probably more expensive...
yet they are a minor issue compared to the **** that went on in saddam’s iraq or is going on in the “islamic state” today...and the use of the words “illegal” and “criminals” with regard to western governments in all this is mainly just leftist hate speech...you really need to read up on the whole history thing and on how this world works, though i am aware leftists do not read anything that might challenge their world view or burden them with things like facts and historical truths...
having said that, i would have left saddam in place for the time being, simply in order to keep the lid on the region and to have peace and quiet at the world’s main filling station...0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »n...you really need to read up on the whole history thing and on how this world works, though i am aware leftists do not read anything that might challenge their world view or burden them with things like facts and historical truths...
having said that, i would have left saddam in place for the time being, simply in order to keep the lid on the region and to have peace and quiet at the world’s main filling station...
Please tell old and wise sage Wurzelburt of how this world really works? I'm always interested in hearing vague justifications for crimes perpetrated by democratic governments of the enlightened west. I think you will find that people on the left are well aware of how the world works but they have an issue with it and would prefer to change things if possible. Just accepting the status quo isn't a solution when innocents are dying. Our way of life is not immune to corruption and our motives for war, conquest and intervention (whatever name you want to give it) are built on shaky if not downright criminal grounds.0 -
They still got a long way to go before they cut off as many heads as the French Revolutionaries did.0
-
-
Please tell old and wise sage Wurzelburt of how this world really works? I'm always interested in hearing vague justifications for crimes perpetrated by democratic governments of the enlightened west. I think you will find that people on the left are well aware of how the world works but they have an issue with it and would prefer to change things if possible. Just accepting the status quo isn't a solution when innocents are dying. Our way of life is not immune to corruption and our motives for war, conquest and intervention (whatever name you want to give it) are built on shaky if not downright criminal grounds.
Great power systems - such as the US, Russia, China etc. - will never always act like angels as they have to preserve their power (Machtpolitik). In other words, there will never be total peace - and to assume it may happen in the future is, quite frankly, delusional.
In these situations, it's best to evaluate the least-worst power in this regard. The folks on the left still think the dream of total equality and total peace will eventuate, or could eventuate, one day. This is a fatal flaw, as it disregards how the world has, and will continue to, be run.
It may be an unpalatable conclusion, but the sooner you come to its realisation, the sooner you will interpret world events in a very different light. At the moment, the left look to the West as the unique source of the world's ills and, somehow, these ills would dissipate overnight if the West behaved in the interests of the Muslim world.
That is a profoundly delusional interpretation of world affairs, and I'm glad I escaped the left several months ago for this reason.0 -
wretcheddomain wrote: »Great power systems - such as the US, Russia, China etc. - will never always act like angels as they have to preserve their power (Machtpolitik). In other words, there will never be total peace - and to assume it may happen in the future is, quite frankly, delusional.
In these situations, it's best to evaluate the least-worst power in this regard. The folks on the left still think the dream of total equality and total peace will eventuate, or could eventuate, one day. This is a fatal flaw, as it disregards how the world has, and will continue to, be run.
It may be an unpalatable conclusion, but the sooner you come to its realisation, the sooner you will interpret world events in a very different light. At the moment, the left look to the West as the unique source of the world's ills and, somehow, these ills would dissipate overnight if the West behaved in the interests of the Muslim world.
That is a profoundly delusional interpretation of world affairs, and I'm glad I escaped the left several months ago for this reason.
Exactly. I could not have put it better myself.0 -
Advertisement
-
wretcheddomain wrote: »Great power systems - such as the US, Russia, China etc. - will never always act like angels as they have to preserve their power (Machtpolitik). In other words, there will never be total peace - and to assume it may happen in the future is, quite frankly, delusional.
In these situations, it's best to evaluate the least-worst power in this regard. The folks on the left still think the dream of total equality and total peace will eventuate, or could eventuate, one day. This is a fatal flaw, as it disregards how the world has, and will continue to, be run.
It may be an unpalatable conclusion, but the sooner you come to its realisation, the sooner you will interpret world events in a very different light. At the moment, the left look to the West as the unique source of the world's ills and, somehow, these ills would dissipate overnight if the West behaved in the interests of the Muslim world.
That is a profoundly delusional interpretation of world affairs, and I'm glad I escaped the left several months ago for this reason.
You make a lot of assumptions about what people believe. An attitude like yours of "Merica are the best of a bad bunch so lets be happy with them" is akin to an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. Merica are the good guys for you because you live in the West, your view of the US would be far different if you lived in the Middle East or Eurasia. This thread is a combination of hysterical ranting about the dangers of religion and political rhetoric which justifies western imperialism because the Russians/Chinese/Islamists would be worse. If you cannot see how destabilizing an influence the US is in the world at the moment and has been since the end of the Cold War then it is you who are delusional.
No one believes total peace or equality in the world is an imminent reality but for gods sake we need to be at least trying to work towards it or what is the point? We need to hold our governments to account and limit the influence of corporate interests and lobby groups so that we can trust that military interventions are only pursued for the right reasons. People dont trust the motives of their governments any more, they think the public reasons for war are just a front for some underlying geopolitical strategy to limit the influence of other powers and control natural resources and wealth. If we in the West want to talk to talk about respecting human rights then we need to walk the walk. Whats good for the goose need to be good for the gander or we just appear as total hypocrites. We cannot just sit back and allow our governments do what they will or total chaos will reign.0 -
Please tell old and wise sage Wurzelburt of how this world really works? I'm always interested in hearing vague justifications for crimes perpetrated by democratic governments of the enlightened west. I think you will find that people on the left are well aware of how the world works but they have an issue with it and would prefer to change things if possible. Just accepting the status quo isn't a solution when innocents are dying. Our way of life is not immune to corruption and our motives for war, conquest and intervention (whatever name you want to give it) are built on shaky if not downright criminal grounds.
old and wise sage wurzelbert may one day write a book on how the world really works, which you will then be welcome to purchase...
seriously though, while i respect leftist idealism to some degree, the type usually present in young folks, i still think there are fundamental flaws in all leftist or in the broadest sense marxist thought; and of course the real world has proven it wrong time and time again, while some isolated elements have stood the test of time and have become commonplace...
but i don’t think leftists and non-leftists will ever fully agree on how the world works, so any further discussion is pointless, and the debate has been waging for over a century anyway...also i think wretcheddomain has basically written in #3144 what else has to be said...0 -
You make a lot of assumptions about what people believe. An attitude like yours of "Merica are the best of a bad bunch so lets be happy with them" is akin to an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. Merica are the good guys for you because you live in the West, your view of the US would be far different if you lived in the Middle East or Eurasia. This thread is a combination of hysterical ranting about the dangers of religion and political rhetoric which justifies western imperialism because the Russians/Chinese/Islamists would be worse. If you cannot see how destabilizing an influence the US is in the world at the moment and has been since the end of the Cold War then it is you who are delusional.
No one believes total peace or equality in the world is an imminent reality but for gods sake we need to be at least trying to work towards it or what is the point? We need to hold our governments to account and limit the influence of corporate interests and lobby groups so that we can trust that military interventions are only pursued for the right reasons. People dont trust the motives of their governments any more, they think the public reasons for war are just a front for some underlying geopolitical strategy to limit the influence of other powers and control natural resources and wealth. If we in the West want to talk to talk about respecting human rights then we need to walk the walk. Whats good for the goose need to be good for the gander or we just appear as total hypocrites. We cannot just sit back and allow our governments do what they will or total chaos will reign.
You want to stop anybody from doing anything to stop ISIS because you hold the United States to an impossible standard.
If a child was drowning in a stormy sea and the only person who knew how to rescue her was Jimmy Saville who was ready to jump in swim out to her and pull her out do you think the child should be left to drown?0 -
Wurzelbert wrote: »old and wise sage wurzelbert may one day write a book on how the world really works, which you will then be welcome to purchase...
seriously though, while i respect leftist idealism to some degree, the type usually present in young folks, i still think there are fundamental flaws in all leftist or in the broadest sense marxist thought; and of course the real world has proven it wrong time and time again, while some isolated elements have stood the test of time and have become commonplace...
but i don’t think leftists and non-leftists will ever fully agree on how the world works, so any further discussion is pointless, and the debate has been waging for over a century anyway...also i think wretcheddomain has basically written in #3144 what else has to be said...
Well to be frank I wouldn't consider myself a lefty, I'm pretty much slap bang in the center on most issues. What I would say in response though is that we have managed to progress freedoms, conditions, protections and rights for people in recent history to a point that was previously unimaginable. We always need to be striving because there is always progress to be made and things can always get better. Without that energy from the left then things would just stagnate. Yes the left can be dangerous in its own right so needs to be tempered by the conservative right so I dont see either side of the debate as being fundamentally more moral than the other but both being a necessary check and balance on the progress of the other. The real danger is the far right or far left and to be honest I am concerned that the reaction to a far right group of fascists like ISIS seems to be far right hardline response. Fighting fire with fire is not necessarily the smartest way to approach this given our recent track record0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »You want to stop anybody from doing anything to stop ISIS because you hold the United States to an impossible standard.
If a child was drowning in a stormy sea and the only person who knew how to rescue her was Jimmy Saville who was ready to jump in swim out to her and pull her out do you think the child should be left to drown?
I'm not holding anyone to an impossible standard. Where do you get that idea? Complying with International law and the Geneva convention is now an impossible standard? If we abided by those standards then maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are in. There are many ways to skin a cat, ISIS obviously need to be dealt with but we need to tread carefully and with support of the regional powers. Boots on the ground and carpet bombing the region isnt going to solve the issues as we have seen0 -
I'm not holding anyone to an impossible standard. Where do you get that idea? Complying with International law and the Geneva convention is now an impossible standard? If we abided by those standards then maybe we wouldn't find ourselves in the mess we are in. There are many ways to skin a cat, ISIS obviously need to be dealt with but we need to tread carefully and with support of the regional powers. Boots on the ground and carpet bombing the region isnt going to solve the issues as we have seen
Without boots on the ground - combat soldiers - without the use of the full range of support weaponry from tanks, to artillery, to attack helicopters armed with rockets and cannons and jet fighter planes with bombs and air to ground missiles etc etc to assist the troops on the ground from taking back towns and cities and territory how do you defeat ISIS?
There is no way to fight any war without civilians who in the area being fought over from being killed during the fighting.
An aerial bomb hitting an enemy base will kill and injure civilians in streets and buildings close by, during a firefight in an urban area or in the countryside bullets, mortars and shells that overshoot their target or land short will kill and injure civilians, when the enemy dress in civilian clothes and use female or child fighters and suicide bombers it is a certainty that the wrong people may get shot etc etc etc.
Troops on the battlefield who are fearful for their own lives, fearful for the lives of their comrades, are exhausted, have been traumatized by combat etc etc will make mistakes on the battlefield.
War is bloody and horrifying and appalling.
Any war that will be fought in the territory occupied by ISIS will inevitably result in massive civilian casualties.
That's not a reason NOT to fight it.
Consider what happened in the French town of Villiers-Bocage during the Battle of Normandy.
A force of British tanks and troops moved into the town and received a rapturous welcome by the local population.
The liberation of the town was soon followed by the arrival of German tanks that shot up the British tanks vehicles and troops inflicting heavy casualties and forcing the British to withdraw.
To dislodge the Germans the British returned with bomber aircraft that bombed the town into rubble killing and maiming the same people who have cheered their liberators.
When the British returned and pushed the Germans out the town was a wasteland full of the rotting bodies of dead men women and children.
This happened in countless towns that were fought over in France before the Nazis were pushed out.
Nobody is going to seriously suggest that fighting the Nazis was wrong.
Similarly nobody is going to seriously suggest that fighting ISIS is wrong either. The same tragedy will happen in the towns taken back from ISIS.
They will have to be softened up with aerial bombs and shelling before ground forces move in and lots of civilians are going to die in the process.
I once spoke to a World War 2 veteran who described how they arrived in a German town where they were greeted by the locals. Then a young blonde woman who looked like Marilyn Monroe stepped out and opened fire with a rifle. The veteran was a tank machine gunner and he opened fire and cut that young beautiful young woman in half and her intestines spilled out on the street. The dead woman was looked no different from the kind of girl he would have dated back in the states or in Britain when he went to dancehalls. She had her life ahead of her but she chose to die for Hitler.
If you think war can be clean cut you are not living in the real world.0 -
You make a lot of assumptions about what people believe. An attitude like yours of "Merica are the best of a bad bunch so lets be happy with them" is akin to an Ostrich burying its head in the sand. Merica are the good guys for you because you live in the West, your view of the US would be far different if you lived in the Middle East or Eurasia. This thread is a combination of hysterical ranting about the dangers of religion and political rhetoric which justifies western imperialism because the Russians/Chinese/Islamists would be worse. If you cannot see how destabilizing an influence the US is in the world at the moment and has been since the end of the Cold War then it is you who are delusional.
No one believes total peace or equality in the world is an imminent reality but for gods sake we need to be at least trying to work towards it or what is the point? We need to hold our governments to account and limit the influence of corporate interests and lobby groups so that we can trust that military interventions are only pursued for the right reasons. People dont trust the motives of their governments any more, they think the public reasons for war are just a front for some underlying geopolitical strategy to limit the influence of other powers and control natural resources and wealth. If we in the West want to talk to talk about respecting human rights then we need to walk the walk. Whats good for the goose need to be good for the gander or we just appear as total hypocrites. We cannot just sit back and allow our governments do what they will or total chaos will reign.
You're doing it again - you just can't see through the stock answers you've read from Chomsky, Galloway and Co.
Nobody here is suggesting we should ignore the crimes of any country, nor should we accept them - this is true whether we're talking about America, Russia or China - or anywhere else for that matter.
It's true the trajectory of focus should be directed toward peace and economic stability for all, but this focus will always be tempered by the influence of competing power systems.
The bias, ironically enough, tends to come more from those on the far-left. There, you will often find Putin exonerated for every conceivable crime he commits - yet the same bias never extends to the US (for good reason, too). What's required is for people to take the middle ground and interpret, be critical, of world events, whoever happens to commit a given crime.
This simply doesn't happen with those on the far-left. There tends to be a complete lack of recognition of how international politics works while, at the same time, a paranoid bias against the US - paranoia so powerful that they're even willing to whitewash the crimes of other major world powers. Yes - let's be critical of the US, but let's not let that criticism overshadow our interpretation of global events.0 -
DavidRamsay99 wrote: »Without boots on the ground - combat soldiers - without the use of the full range of support weaponry from tanks, to artillery, to attack helicopters armed with rockets and cannons and jet fighter planes with bombs and air to ground missiles etc etc to assist the troops on the ground from taking back towns and cities and territory how do you defeat ISIS?
There is no way to fight any war without civilians who in the area being fought over from being killed during the fighting.
An aerial bomb hitting an enemy base will kill and injure civilians in streets and buildings close by, during a firefight in an urban area or in the countryside bullets, mortars and shells that overshoot their target or land short will kill and injure civilians, when the enemy dress in civilian clothes and use female or child fighters and suicide bombers it is a certainty that the wrong people may get shot etc etc etc.
Troops on the battlefield who are fearful for their own lives, fearful for the lives of their comrades, are exhausted, have been traumatized by combat etc etc will make mistakes on the battlefield.
War is bloody and horrifying and appalling.
Any war that will be fought in the territory occupied by ISIS will inevitably result in massive civilian casualties.
That's not a reason NOT to fight it.
Consider what happened in the French town of Villiers-Bocage during the Battle of Normandy.
A force of British tanks and troops moved into the town and received a rapturous welcome by the local population.
The liberation of the town was soon followed by the arrival of German tanks that shot up the British tanks vehicles and troops inflicting heavy casualties and forcing the British to withdraw.
To dislodge the Germans the British returned with bomber aircraft that bombed the town into rubble killing and maiming the same people who have cheered their liberators.
When the British returned and pushed the Germans out the town was a wasteland full of the rotting bodies of dead men women and children.
This happened in countless towns that were fought over in France before the Nazis were pushed out.
Nobody is going to seriously suggest that fighting the Nazis was wrong.
Similarly nobody is going to seriously suggest that fighting ISIS is wrong either. The same tragedy will happen in the towns taken back from ISIS.
They will have to be softened up with aerial bombs and shelling before ground forces move in and lots of civilians are going to die in the process.
I once spoke to a World War 2 veteran who described how they arrived in a German town where they were greeted by the locals. Then a young blonde woman who looked like Marilyn Monroe stepped out and opened fire with a rifle. The veteran was a tank machine gunner and he opened fire and cut that young beautiful young woman in half and her intestines spilled out on the street. The dead woman was looked no different from the kind of girl he would have dated back in the states or in Britain when he went to dancehalls. She had her life ahead of her but she chose to die for Hitler.
If you think war can be clean cut you are not living in the real world.
This rash idealism where you talk about the horrors of War but have zero understanding of what that phrase actually means. How would you feel if you and your family were living in a war zone and were likely to be the collateral damage of this 'just' war? Its easy to speak in these terms when it is not you or your loved ones in the firing line. To be honest I despise this kind of empty rhetoric by warmongers whose first answer to every issue is death and destruction.
I think out of the two of us I am the one who understands that war isnt "clean cut" hence why I'm not a big advocate of it until alternatives have been exhausted0 -
wretcheddomain wrote: »You're doing it again - you just can't see through the stock answers you've read from Chomsky, Galloway and Co.
Nobody here is suggesting we should ignore the crimes of any country, nor should we accept them - this is true whether we're talking about America, Russia or China - or anywhere else for that matter.
It's true the trajectory of focus should be directed toward peace and economic stability for all, but this focus will always be tempered by the influence of competing power systems.
The bias, ironically enough, tends to come more from those on the far-left. There, you will often find Putin exonerated for every conceivable crime he commits - yet the same bias never extends to the US (for good reason, too). What's required is for people to take the middle ground and interpret, be critical, of world events, whoever happens to commit a given crime.
This simply doesn't happen with those on the far-left. There tends to be a complete lack of recognition of how international politics works while, at the same time, a paranoid bias against the US - paranoia so powerful that they're even willing to whitewash the crimes of other major world powers. Yes - let's be critical of the US, but let's not let that criticism overshadow our interpretation of global events.
What are you talking about, stock answers? Is Galloway the only other character on the left who you could think of lol? If any intellectual in the world today understands 'Power' it is Chomsky, try reading before blindly criticizing.
The problem is that people on the far right yadda yadda yadda. See what I did there? How about taking your own advice and standing in the center for a change. The US according to people like you is immune to criticism. No one here and certainly not me is excusing any country, group or individual of crimes that have committed. The simple fact that you fail to grasp is that the law should be applied consistently to everybody including the World Police of America. Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and the United States are guilty of crimes and all should be held to account for the crimes they commit. We see a lot of pointing from the right to the sins of others but absolutely zero critical analysis of the role The West or the US plays in the instigation of these issues0 -
Advertisement
-
This rash idealism where you talk about the horrors of War but have zero understanding of what that phrase actually means. How would you feel if you and your family were living in a war zone and were likely to be the collateral damage of this 'just' war? Its easy to speak in these terms when it is not you or your loved ones in the firing line. To be honest I despise this kind of empty rhetoric by warmongers whose first answer to every issue is death and destruction.
I think out of the two of us I am the one who understands that war isnt "clean cut" hence why I'm not a big advocate of it until alternatives have been exhausted
If Hitler had conquered Ireland during World War 2 it is likely that this country would have become a battleground with the Allies landing on the west coast and pushed through the country to capture Dublin with the Germans fighting them for every yard. Towns and villages would have been reduced to smoking ruins and thousands would have surely been killed.
Are you saying that if that nightmare had come about that it would not have been justified to rid this country of Nazi occupation?
As we trade opinions at this moment real living flesh and blood people in Iraq and Syria are living under a cruel barbaric Islamic State occupation and right now the Iraqi Army are pushing into Tikrit and aim to recapture Mosul from those subhuman barbarian animals. Only a naive idiot would believe there will not be massive bloodshed in the months ahead.
How else will ISIS be stopped except with military force?0
Advertisement