ISIS

[britbox]

and the sales pitch begins:

Theresa May (British politician) scaremongering that ISIL will become a nuclear threat:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11130354/Theresa-May-Isil-will-become-nuclear-threat-if-we-dont-stop-them.html

Seem to remember hearing this same old crap before. A precursor to British troops on the ground in a "coalition of the willing"?

OK, so we've all done a lot of throwing mud around at whose problem this is, what caused it and who is to blame. How about some solutions?

I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. Turkey, The Saudis, Quatar, Syria, Iraq and various other nations claim to be "part of this anti-ISIL coalition" so let them sort it out. The Saudis, for instance have billions of dollars of British and American weaponry... if they are truly interested in clamping down on these extremists (which I actually doubt, a lot) let them put boots on the ground and run bombing sorties. It's time the west stopped interfering in the middle east as it's just one endless war after war and millions of deaths. Let them resolve their own problems.

 

[britbox]

Virtually all of these wars are for big business, controlling resources (mainly energy), protecting currencies and geopolitical aims. Humanitarian stuff or democracy doesn't come into it all - that's just a sales pitch to the folks back home.

Disagree there.....the effects of educational indoctrination on the political class are very strong. Bush and Obama have both been ideologues, in addition to cronies. Philosophy is not irrelevant.

The president doesn't decide to go to war because of personal ideology. Do you have any idea how many lobby groups are involved ranging from oil barons, defense contractors, other high ranking government officials, groups who fund campaigns, religious lobby groups... You overestimate any president's "real power" my friend.

I agree with you there; I know that D.C. is under the sway of countless lobby groups, and when it comes to foreign policy the Saudis and Israelis basically tell Congress what to do.

At the same time, many "lobby groups" are ideological in nature. They aren't all just defense contractors and oil barons.

Do you really think that the U.S. is intervening in Iraq just because ISIS took the ability of Halliburton to control the oil fields in northern Iraq away?

^ No it will be a combination of things, but that would be one... and I agree that lobby groups can be ideological in nature. One of the most powerful being the jewish lobby group. Or maybe I should re-phrase to the Israeli lobby group.

 

[calitennis127]

^ No it will be a combination of things, but that would be one... and I agree that lobby groups can be ideological in nature. One of the most powerful being the jewish lobby group. Or maybe I should re-phrase to the Israeli lobby group.

Right. How about groups such as the National Endowment for Democracy or the Project for a New American Century? They are heavily ideological, and also very influential.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Oh, OK then...My mistake holding the "Clergy" who take a vow of celibacy to a higher standard than the "general population". I am a bit slow like that...

Do you give the ones who do live up to that higher standard any credit?
[/quote]

For????
[/quote]


Living up to the higher standard (your words, not mine).
[/quote]

All credit to them. Cannot be easy going against what makes you human. Also brownie points for putting your brain aside and not questioning it. Extra bonus points for the ones who DO question the absurdity of the whole thing but accept the answer " Lord works in mysterious ways".

 

[britbox]

^Don't know much about the first, but the second seem very dangerous to me. I guess it depends who are in their pockets at any given time.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

and the sales pitch begins:

Theresa May (British politician) scaremongering that ISIL will become a nuclear threat:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11130354/Theresa-May-Isil-will-become-nuclear-threat-if-we-dont-stop-them.html

Seem to remember hearing this same old crap before. A precursor to British troops on the ground in a "coalition of the willing"?

OK, so we've all done a lot of throwing mud around at whose problem this is, what caused it and who is to blame. How about some solutions?

I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. Turkey, The Saudis, Quatar, Syria, Iraq and various other nations claim to be "part of this anti-ISIL coalition" so let them sort it out. The Saudis, for instance have billions of dollars of British and American weaponry... if they are truly interested in clamping down on these extremists (which I actually doubt, a lot) let them put boots on the ground and run bombing sorties. It's time the west stopped interfering in the middle east as it's just one endless war after war and millions of deaths. Let them resolve their own problems.

There are regional issues as well. Right now, 2.5 million Syrians are in Turkey, living in refugee camps. They are suffering and Turkey is doing what it can, but some of these people are not exactly who they say they are. Nobody has Id's so that will be an issue pretty soon. Also, some of these guys are leaving the camp, working at odd jobs for next to no money and the locals are getting restless because they are losing their jobs...I am afraid of a backlash.

Another big issue happening in Turkey: US wants to and is arming the Kurdish population against ISIS. But of course , some of those weapons will find their way to the hands of the PKK, which has been fighting with Turks for the last 30-35 years, with over 25 thousand dead on both sides. How are the Turks going to fight against a common enemy side by side with Kurds, when there is a chance some PKK members might be around looking for some easy targets? And honestly, vice versa?

Lots of local issues...a total mess no matter how you look at it.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^ No it will be a combination of things, but that would be one... and I agree that lobby groups can be ideological in nature. One of the most powerful being the jewish lobby group. Or maybe I should re-phrase to the Israeli lobby group.

Right. How about groups such as the National Endowment for Democracy or the Project for a New American Century? They are heavily ideological, and also very influential.

As idiotic as PNAC was, I think they are pretty much done...at least not as influential as in the days of "Rebuilding America's Defenses" times (I hope).

 

[shawnbm]

Nothing is clear cut when it comes to the Middle East in the post-Sykes-Picot Agreement era, is it?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Also, Bush showed absolutely no regard for the Christian population in Iraq, which has suffered immensely because of the U.S. invasion in 2003. Saying that Christianity was a motivation for the war is simply idiotic.

Ah, yes, I see. Christians being killed by Americans is proof that Christianity had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq, but ISIS slaughtering Muslims is "absolutely irrelevant" according to you, despite the fact that by the same logic, this should mean taht what ISIS is doing has nothing to do with true Islam.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Who compared Gaddafi to Hitler?

I think he was talking about Moxie :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

Who compared Gaddafi to Hitler?

I think he was talking about Moxie :laydownlaughing

:lolz: :lolz: :lolz:

 

[britbox]

and the sales pitch begins:

Theresa May (British politician) scaremongering that ISIL will become a nuclear threat:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11130354/Theresa-May-Isil-will-become-nuclear-threat-if-we-dont-stop-them.html

Seem to remember hearing this same old crap before. A precursor to British troops on the ground in a "coalition of the willing"?

OK, so we've all done a lot of throwing mud around at whose problem this is, what caused it and who is to blame. How about some solutions?

I don't want to see the west getting involved in this. Turkey, The Saudis, Quatar, Syria, Iraq and various other nations claim to be "part of this anti-ISIL coalition" so let them sort it out. The Saudis, for instance have billions of dollars of British and American weaponry... if they are truly interested in clamping down on these extremists (which I actually doubt, a lot) let them put boots on the ground and run bombing sorties. It's time the west stopped interfering in the middle east as it's just one endless war after war and millions of deaths. Let them resolve their own problems.

There are regional issues as well. Right now, 2.5 million Syrians are in Turkey, living in refugee camps. They are suffering and Turkey is doing what it can, but some of these people are not exactly who they say they are. Nobody has Id's so that will be an issue pretty soon. Also, some of these guys are leaving the camp, working at odd jobs for next to no money and the locals are getting restless because they are losing their jobs...I am afraid of a backlash.

Another big issue happening in Turkey: US wants to and is arming the Kurdish population against ISIS. But of course , some of those weapons will find their way to the hands of the PKK, which has been fighting with Turks for the last 30-35 years, with over 25 thousand dead on both sides. How are the Turks going to fight against a common enemy side by side with Kurds, when there is a chance some PKK members might be around looking for some easy targets? And honestly, vice versa?

Lots of local issues...a total mess no matter how you look at it.

All interesting stuff.

I know it's a mess and a workable solution is probably unfeasible but if you had to outline a solution of sorts, what would it be?

 

[shawnbm]

How to solve the problem? Do we go back to T.E. Lawrence's map for the post-Great War world? Too much water under the bridge for that, me thinks. There are a couple of things that would have to be part of a solution. It would involve large swaths of land that were historically shia remaining shia--with all their mosques and worship sites. Sunnis would have to remain in historically Sunni areas in a kind of loose federation of Arab Sunni Muslims, so as to allow certain tribes to live in certain areas. Finally, Jerusalem would have to be equally governed by Jews, Christians and Muslims--how? I do not know. More of the gains from the Six Day War would have to be given back as part of the deal, which would include Arab and Persian nation-states publicly renouncing the destruction of Israel in their charters. In order to do that, I think the world of Islam would have to call something of an ecumenical council for their religion to start off. They have so many things to sort out between Sunni and Shia, to say nothing of Lebanese Druze and Indonesian/Subcontinental Islam followers, that it is hard to see any success without something along those lines. The decentralization of Islam throughout the world is problematic, it seems to me.

 

[Kieran]

Sometimes there's no solutions, and things just continue as they are...

 

[britbox]

Sometimes there's no solutions, and things just continue as they are...

Well, I agree that there is no "solution" that would work. There is far too much historical stuff and far too many vested interests that would ever allow one to work... but the question is more hypothetical... If you were personally given the global go-ahead to create a blueprint what would it be?

 

[Kieran]

Sometimes there's no solutions, and things just continue as they are...

Well, I agree that there is no "solution" that would work. There is far too much historical stuff and far too many vested interests that would ever allow one to work... but the question is more hypothetical... If you were personally given the global go-ahead to create a blueprint what would it be?

It's hard to say, brother, but it would have to include the locals in the fight against groups like ISIS and Hamas and Al-Qaeda. In this, there needs to be a willingness to acknowledge the problem and face it. The west also needs to step back because they're getting more confused with each twirl of the ring. I think that as long as Islam is divided, there's no real end to the trouble, and getting Sunni and Shia to agree to leave each other alone would be a monumental step forward.

Then getting the Saudis to stop funding trouble-makers would be another.

But who can achieve any of this? That's why I asked about the UN, but we all know they're a toothless bunch. There are big problems in the region, which also involve basic social issues such as hospitals and schools, the way women are treated, and some basic level of freedom for non-Muslims. The wealthy Arab nations aren't so giving as the west when it comes ti charity for their own brothers, I suspect.

I wasn't being cynical when I said there's often no solution - people who know the region better than I do can't agree on what should be done. In the immediate struggle against ISIS, I've seen some commentators recommend talking to them. I don't believe that talking to them will have any effect. I think in some way an international force will be needed to stop ISIS - because they must be stopped - but the Middle Eastern countries will need to back this up, provide for it, and play a leading role in cleaning their own backyard...

 

[nehmeth]

but the question is more hypothetical... If you were personally given the global go-ahead to create a blueprint what would it be?

Hypothetical:

I would hit the reset button, go back in time and make sure Abraham never slept with Hagar. :angel:

 

[shawnbm]

So, the genesis of the current problem stems from Genesis, which, ironically enough, a return to Genesis is the solution. Did I get that right?

 

[nehmeth]

So, the genesis of the current problem stems from Genesis, which, ironically enough, a return to Genesis is the solution. Did I get that right?

Um, Yes.

As with so many problems, it begins with a man sticking his dinger where it never belonged. :nono

 

[tented]

As with so many problems, it begins with a man sticking his dinger where it never belonged. :nono

A common phrase from parent-teacher conferences when I was young.