What to do about ISIS? Great discussion...

Set aside your political bias and your sentiments towards "certain" broadcasters when watching this.
This morning, I watched this video and found it to be a genuinely good discussion that explores both sides (despite Gutfeld's snarkiness).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_upXkrVYNY

I admit that it is the discussion that is being had.  But it is Republican provoked, and they are not very intelligent.  Simple points to make, and move on:

1.  It is not our fight.

2.  Neither the American nor the British homelands are threatened.

3.  We wouldn't even know which side to be on.

Where were we when Burma was killing all its citizens; it's not our fight.  The fight is in the Middle East, and it's a religious civil war.  Iraqis tried to involve us in their religious civil war ten years ago.  Why do we care if Sunnis or Shi'ia win?  We don't know even who they are.  Why would we want to get involved?

It's a Republican advertisement for war.  I saw a similar ad for Audi vehicles yesterday.  Everybody dropping what they are doing, running in a mob, after some trucks loaded with new cars, until the final battle...erm, sales event.  Ends Friday, so hurry down.

Answers are simplistic.  Only Republicans drum up this nonsense, because they love their wars.  Makes them money (Halliburton) and it might get them some oil.  If nothing else, it provides them with sexual fantasies for all those nights when they are all alone.

Original Quill wrote:I admit that it is the discussion that is being had.  But it is Republican provoked, and they are not very intelligent.  Simple points to make, and move on:

1.  It is not our fight.

2.  Neither the American nor the British homelands are threatened.

3.  We wouldn't even know which side to be on.

Where were we when Burma was killing all its citizens; it's not our fight.  The fight is in the Middle East, and it's a religious civil war.  Iraqis tried to involve us in their religious civil war ten years ago.  Why do we care if Sunnis or Shi'ia win?  We don't know even who they are.  Why would we want to get involved?

It's a Republican advertisement for war.  I saw a similar ad for Audi vehicles yesterday.  Everybody dropping their what they are doing, running in a mob, until the final battle...erm, sales event.  Ends Friday, so hurry down.

Answers are simplistic.  Only Republicans drum up this nonsense, because they love their wars.  Makes them money (Halliburton) and it might get them some oil.  If nothing else, it provides them with sexual fantasies for all those nights when they are alone.

Point 1 incorrect

Point 2 incorrect, we have had attacks and have thwarted terrorists attacks on our soil all based around Islamic extremism, just because one group diminishes, like Al Qeada and another springs up, does not mean our nations are not threatened. The fact is this religious war is being played out globally, not just the Middle East, though that is where most casualties are occurring, I think you will find from Asia to Africa an spreading. There is Islamic extremism being funded by wealthy radical Muslims from the likes of Saudi and Iran. Saudis have shot themselves in the foot here because IS are a form of even more radical Wahhabism and for years the Saudis have been importing Wahhabism, which to me is the greatest threat to the stability of any nation Quill. If you allow something to gain even more power then the west will face an even greater challenge within their own border as more will be drawn to such a cause through propaganda. As I say, the Saudis have through their views created a monster, one that has been formed also through corrupt and discriminating polices by the majority Shia Government in Iraq, who now see the best tactical option for them is to not hit the west yet, but to win locally to gain support and power, which if allowed to go unchecked they will.
It is far more complicated than you are claiming and if the world allows to see Islamic extremism grow, then we are all in for a world of shit to come.


Here have a read:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html

I DON'T see any "two sides" to this issue, and any arguments are being manufactured by the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum...

THE relevant "facts" are simple :
ISIS/ISIL are criminal and bloodthirsty garbage;
They need to be totally eradicated - wiped from the face of the Earth;
Annihilate the lot of them..

Show them no mercy ~ that's still a mile more than they have ever shown their victims. Even al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been distancing themselves from these thugs !

For us, it's all smoke and mirrors. We have no dog in this fight.

The simple fact is--much as the wet-dream types hate to hear this--that 9/11 and 7/7 were crimes, not acts of war. Nineteen men boarding four aircraft in Boston. Same with London. Yes, with modern technology a criminal can do a lot of damage. But that doesn't justify us entering fantasy land.

We blow these local criminal acts into geopolitical proportions because they feed our wet-dreams of power, morality and might...which we confuse continually. And who does this? The conservatives in any nation...the Republicans and the Tories.

And why do they do that? They love war. They are business men and war is a business! War means making money. Opportunity. Look at Cheney and Halliburton. And war in the Middle East has implications of Oil...which will make a conservative drool. Why it's John D. Rockefeller all over again.

All that is happening is that they are changing the world they live in, into a war-time economy. Forget civil rights. Forget civil society. Look at what a pain in the ass flying is today. Law and Order becomes militarism. More opportunities for money.

Oh, they will dress it up in pride, patriotism and 'God's Way', but it's still money. Ask yourself: Do the old, white men who talk about war, ever intend to go to war themselves? Fook no...they want to send somebody else.

So you see...it's all in their wet dreams. Wet dreams about heroism, and being the big dog on the block. Wet dreams about money, more likely. But wet dreams, nonetheless.

Original Quill wrote:For us, it's all smoke and mirrors.  We have no dog in this fight.

The simple fact is--much as the wet-dream types hate to hear this--that 9/11 and 7/7 were crimes, not acts of war.  Nineteen men boarding four aircraft in Boston.  Same with London.  Yes, with modern technology a criminal can do a lot of damage.  But that doesn't justify us entering fantasy land.

We blow these local criminal acts into geopolitical proportions because they feed our wet-dreams of power, morality and might...which we confuse continually.  And who does this?  The conservatives in any nation...the Republicans and the Tories.

And why do they do that?  They love war.  They are business men and war is a business!  War means making money.  Opportunity.  Look at Cheney and Halliburton.  And war in the Middle East has implications of Oil...which will make a conservative drool.  Why it's John D. Rockefeller all over again.

All that is happening is that they are changing the world they live in, into a war-time economy.  Forget civil rights.  Forget civil society.  Look at what a pain in the ass flying is today.  Law and Order becomes militarism.  More opportunities for money.

Oh, they will dress it up in pride, patriotism and 'God's Way', but it's still money.  Ask yourself: Do the old, white men who talk about war, ever intend to go to war themselves?  Fook no...they want to send somebody else.

So you see...it's all in their wet dreams.  Wet dreams about heroism, and being the big dog on the block.  Wet dreams about money, more likely.  But wet dreams, nonetheless.

They may not be acts of war but they are acts of war to groups who think you are the enemy, which is why you are not grasping the situation Quill, where I agree the invasion of Iraq was wrong, Afghanistan, was not, when there were countless training terrorists camps with one intent to commit terrorism, around the world. Now people may use the argument the Taliban were willing to give up Bin Laden, but only to another Muslim nation, where the reality is yes they condemned 9/11, but had no love for America and were training Muslim extremists to commit harm around the world.
You are ignoring a growing problem, where is you allow something to fester as Hitler once did and then sit back an wait untill it is too late, then half of Europe is over run. You may think this is far fetched, but the reality is if in the long term IS can take over a huge area of control, then you will face a very real bigger problem and it is no good just thinking it is a pipe dream, where you can sit back and think it will not happen, because the reality is, if they are left unchecked they will

This is organised mass executions of civilians and innocent people. Kidnapping, rape and robbery on a massive scale.


A form of genocide.



Regardless of previous involvementp, this is something else and needs the world to act.

Tommy Monk wrote:This is organised mass executions of civilians and innocent people. Kidnapping, rape and robbery on a massive scale.

A form of genocide.

Regardless of previous involvementp, this is something else and needs the world to act.

You go act, Tommy. Be sure to send post cards.

If we went over there, we would spend 10-years, spend $17-trillion, and when we left the killing would all start all over again.

Let them have their 'acts of war' on their own soil.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:This is organised mass executions of civilians and innocent people. Kidnapping, rape and robbery on a massive scale.

A form of genocide.

Regardless of previous involvementp, this is something else and needs the world to act.

You go act, Tommy.  Be sure to send post cards.

If we went over there, we would spend 10-years, spend $17-trillion, and when we left the killing would all start all over again.

Let them have their 'acts of war' on their own soil.

That philosophy, allowed Germany to annex not only Austria, but Czechoslovakia Quill.
So the question I will leave you with, being as this was also a time of facing a great evil, should we have left these nations to face such aggression on their own soil?
Or would some intervention have called Hitlers bluff in 1938?

catch you later mate

Didge wrote:You are ignoring a growing problem, where is you allow something to fester as Hitler once did and then sit back an wait untill it is too late, then half of Europe is over run. You may think this is far fetched, but the reality is if in the long term IS can take over a huge area of control, then you will face a very real bigger problem and it is no good just thinking it is a pipe dream, where you can sit back and think it will not happen, because the reality is, if they are left unchecked they will

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.  You might recall, however, that there was areal problem if it was really 'our problem'.  We even had a Neutrality Act in effect at the time.

This time there's no Britain at stake, and it's just a bunch of junkies who want to play out a civil war over doctrines I don't even believe in, in the first place.

Truly, it's not our problem.  We're over here.  They are waaaaaaay over there.  I felt more tug about Burma, and no one listened.  Ezz no mi problema.

If it's anyone's problem, send Israel. They'll make short work of those lil fish.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You are ignoring a growing problem, where is you allow something to fester as Hitler once did and then sit back an wait untill it is too late, then half of Europe is over run. You may think this is far fetched, but the reality is if in the long term IS can take over a huge area of control, then you will face a very real bigger problem and it is no good just thinking it is a pipe dream, where you can sit back and think it will not happen, because the reality is, if they are left unchecked they will

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.  You might recall, however, that there was areal problem if it was really 'our problem'.  We even had a Neutrality Act in effect at the time.

This time there's no Britain at stake, and it's just a bunch of junkies who want to play out a civil war over doctrines I don't even believe in, in the first place.

Truly, it's not our problem.  We're over here.  They are waaaaaaay over there.  I felt more tug about Burma, and no one listened.  Ezz no mi problema.

Hitler had no real intention of invading Britain, in fact he wished to have them form an alliance with him to take on the greater threat of communism, he even wished the fall of France and hoped would bring Britain to sue for peace but did not bank on the defiance of Churchill, after of course both sides were engaged in war. At the time Hitler was only a threat to the land nations of Europe in 1938. Hitler knew he could not compete with the British Empire and hence why he wished to form his own within Europe.

Really have to go, so catch you later

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.  You might recall, however, that there was areal problem if it was really 'our problem'.  We even had a Neutrality Act in effect at the time.

This time there's no Britain at stake, and it's just a bunch of junkies who want to play out a civil war over doctrines I don't even believe in, in the first place.

Truly, it's not our problem.  We're over here.  They are waaaaaaay over there.  I felt more tug about Burma, and no one listened.  Ezz no mi problema.

Hitler had no real intention of invading Britain, in fact he wished to have them form an alliance with him to take on the greater threat of communism, he even wished the fall of France and hoped would bring Britain to sue for peace but did not bank on the defiance of Churchill, after of course both sides were engaged in war. At the time Hitler was only a threat to the land nations of Europe in 1938. Hitler knew he could not compete with the British Empire and hence why he wished to form his own within Europe.

Really have to go, so catch you later

See ya, Didge. Have a great evening.

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.

During WWII, our European allies practically begged for the US to get involved. Franklin Roosevelt declined, insisting that the US would remain neutral.

The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor. That woke the sleeping giant, and in December 1941, Roosevelt signed a declaration of war against Japan. Understanding that the attack was part of an alliance with Germany for conquest, we then (finally) sent troops and war equipment to Europe.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.

During WWII, our European allies practically begged for the US to get involved.  Franklin Roosevelt declined, insisting that the US would remain neutral.

The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.  That woke the sleeping giant, and in December 1941, Roosevelt signed a declaration of war against Japan.  Understanding that the attack was part of an alliance with Germany for conquest, we then (finally) sent troops and war equipment to Europe.

Yes, Churchill lived in the White House during the year 1941, trying to get the US into Europe's war.  The problem wasn't Roosevelt, but the Neutrality Act.  Back in the 1930's Congress had enacted a series of laws specifically stating that the US wouldn't enter the war in Europe.  Roosevelt, on the other hand, wanted to go to war in Europe.

Pearl Harbor was a ruse.  In September 1940, Germany, Italy and Japan signed the Tripartite Act, which said if any of them go to war with any outsider, they all would go to war with that nation.  Roosevelt saw his opportunity.  He moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, not only posing a direct and provocative threat to Japan, but actually putting the Pacific Fleet within easy reach of the Japanese Navy.  You dangle fresh meat over the nose of a crocodile and what happens?  

Have you ever wondered why the aircraft carriers were out on maneuvers and not at home at Pearl that weekend? They were the capital ships of the day, practically rendering the battleship useless.  Somebody knew what was hppening.

It was brilliant.  On December 7th the Japanese attacked the US.  On December 8th, the US declared war on Japan.  It almost didn't work...it wasn't until December 11th that Germany honoured it's pact and declared war on the US.  See how Roosevelt got around the Neutrality Act?  We didn't declare war on Germany...Germany declared war on the US.

Game, set and match...Roosevelt.

ISIS/ISIL already have supporter networks in Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia...

THAT'S pretty close to home, for me..

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Hitler was a real threat to Britain, and hence the US got involved.

During WWII, our European allies practically begged for the US to get involved.  Franklin Roosevelt declined, insisting that the US would remain neutral.

The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.  That woke the sleeping giant, and in December 1941, Roosevelt signed a declaration of war against Japan.  Understanding that the attack was part of an alliance with Germany for conquest, we then (finally) sent troops and war equipment to Europe.

ROOSEVELT wanted to go to war some 15 months or more before the USA finally did get involved, but he simply never "had the numbers" in Congress until Pearl Harbour swung things his way..

Lone Wolf wrote:

ISIS/ISIL already have supporter networks in Australia, Indonesia and Malaysia...

THAT'S pretty close to home, for me..

And Oz will take care of them with their able police departments.

It is what it is.  There's no need to redefine the universe.  The only people who want to call it a war, are the people who want a war.  That's what GWB and Cheney were all about, and why they kept employing wartime language--enemy combatants, in harms war, mission accomplished, "I"m a wartime President"--to characterize the situation.  When you want a war, say the other side is attacking...and call it a war.

But, I don't see a war.

Original Quill wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:

During WWII, our European allies practically begged for the US to get involved.  Franklin Roosevelt declined, insisting that the US would remain neutral.

The US didn't enter WWII until it was attacked at Pearl Harbor.  That woke the sleeping giant, and in December 1941, Roosevelt signed a declaration of war against Japan.  Understanding that the attack was part of an alliance with Germany for conquest, we then (finally) sent troops and war equipment to Europe.

Yes, Churchill lived in the White House during the year 1941, trying to get the US into Europe's war.  The problem wasn't Roosevelt, but the Neutrality Act.  Back in the 1930's Congress had enacted a series of laws specifically stating that the US wouldn't enter the war in Europe.  Roosevelt, on the other hand, wanted to go to war in Europe.

Pearl Harbor was a ruse.  In September 1940, Germany, Italy and Japan signed the Tripartite Act, which said if any of them go to war with any outsider, they all would go to war with that nation.  Roosevelt saw his opportunity.  He moved the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, not only posing a direct and provocative threat to Japan, but actually putting the Pacific Fleet within easy reach of the Japanese Navy.  You dangle fresh meat over the nose of a crocodile and what happens?  

Have you ever wondered why the aircraft carriers were out on maneuvers and not at home at Pearl that weekend? They were the capital ships of the day, practically rendering the battleship useless.  Somebody knew what was hppening.

It was brilliant.  On December 7th the Japanese attacked the US.  On December 8th, the US declared war on Japan.  It almost didn't work...it wasn't until December 11th that Germany honoured it's pact and declared war on the US.  See how Roosevelt got around the Neutrality Act?  We didn't declare war on Germany...Germany declared war on the US.

Game, set and match...Roosevelt.

Sorry Quill that is a load of bullshit, where I have explained this to you before.





You are completely wrong about Roosevelt, who if his intention had been to go to war to entice Germany to do so, he would have done so. In 1970's encrypted messages from he Axis about Roosevelt shows, America knew the disposition of U-Boats within the Atlantic and this was used to divert individual ships and convoys away from them. Thus far from seeking incidents, it was trying to avert them and of the few that occurred, Roosevelt used them to awaken the American people to the dangers coming, but he could have used the information to ensure there was a incident every few days. There is also phone conversations where a recording machine was accidentally not turned off, which in this Roosevelt (published in 1982) shows he was interested in keeping the USA out of the war. He also directed an exhaustive amount of time with the Japanese to again avert war. His views were based around again Japan sensing that Germany might loose and Hitler pushed his forces in the advance on Moscow, with the opposite fear, in that that the Japanese might settled with the Americans. What Roosevelt did again which was telling later was how he did not do as Stalin did with Germany providing stock piles of oil, he denied japan this opportunity, which was to prove telling as stated, but here again, America offered japan all the oil they wanted if they evacuated from French IndoChina, which was a direct threat to western influence in the East and pointed to a war with the Western Allies. The Japanese diplomats were told to not talk about this offer, again mainly on the advances of Germany, where they were misguide to think Germany would win and the fact Germany would join them in a war against the US, that the Japanese decided to strike at the US





As to Independent, He clearly wanted to help the allies and did everything he could to help with the fact he sold 50 destroyers to the British and helped whip up support against Germany in his country where there was little envy against Germany, so both both you and Quill are wrong, sorry.

You forget, I was alive when these things happened.  I probably wasn't working at the PhD level, but I could figure it out later.  I listened to the debates at the time; and my father was a Commander in the US Navy Air Corp., stationed on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.  Also see, Goodwin, Nor Ordinary Time: Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt-The Home Front in World War II (1995).

The Neutrality Act is a matter of fact.  And as Goodwin points out, why would Roosevelt initiate the Lend Lease Act if he wasn't looking for a way to circumvent Congress on the Neutrality Act.  Roosevelt allowed Churchill a third-floor war room in the White House during 1940; it was right adjacent to the Churchill bedroom. Roosevelt repeatedly expressed his opposition to the Neutrality Act.  As for what Roosevelt said in a phone conversation...if he was involved in a clandestine plan to involve the US in the war, what would you expect him to say out loud?  The British knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor, and even warned the Americans.  Roosevelt didn't want to hear it; an air attack was his ticket into the European war.

The rest is a matter of record.  The US never declared war on Germany.  Germany declared war on the US on December 11th...and it was because Japan had already started a war and Hitler had to honor the Tripartite Act.

I don't know where you get your facts (you don't say), but you appear to argue something that no historian has heretofore argued. You cherry-pick a few facts of very small significance, and appear to ignore the big picture. It is incredible to hear you say that Roosevelt didn't want into the war; he spent a year and a half conniving with Churchill for just that end. It's like arguing that Washington was pro-British during the Revolutionary war.

Original Quill wrote:You forget, I was alive when these things happened.  I probably wasn't working at the PhD level, but I could figure it out later.  I listened to the debates at the time; and my father was a Commander in the Navy Air Corp., stationed on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific.  Also, see, Goodwin, Nor Ordinary Time: Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt-The Home Front in World War II (1995).

The Neutrality Act is a matter of fact.  And as Goodwin points out, why would Roosevelt initiate the Lend Lease Act if he wasn't looking for a way to circumvent Congress on the Neutrality Act.  As for what Roosevelt said in a phone conversation...if he was involved in a clandestine plan to involve the US in the war, what would you expect him to say out loud?

The rest is a matter of record.  The US never declared war on Germany.  Germany declared war on the US on December 11th...and it was because Japan had already started a war and Hitler had to honor the Tripartite Act.

All irrelevant, as seen all the facts point to the reality there was no ruse by Roosevelt and being as I have studied this beyond comprehension, studying timeless documents, which show the secret side to the public one you are going off the back of. Again all the evidence points to him trying to keep America out of a war, why would he spend countless time and effort in negotiations with Japan, if seeking to go to war with them, that makes utterly no sense, he would allow ships to be hit by U_boats thus seeking the public outcry it would create but instead, use this intelligence to steer ships away from known U-boat paths.

Again I have read and stuidied many historians views on all the facts and have read many aspects of this conflict myself and I have told you before that Pearl harbour was more a Japanese blunder based on the poor ability of Yamamoto, who thought the Yorktown carrier was at Pearl Harbour, where his subordinates who all knew this was wrong and being a code had by the Japanese which continued throughout the war, nobody spoke out to point out this error. It was one of the failings of the Japanese that not many would ever question bad or poor orders.



For you to watch and these experts make us both look amateur:

Night Quill

Nite Didge. It's only 7 pm here...don't be surprised if I actually listen to an hour and a half clip.

See you on Saturday am.

There needs to be a multilateral approach against ISIS. It's no good if they US and UK go it alone.

Frazzled wrote:There needs to be a multilateral approach against ISIS.  It's no good if they US and UK go it alone.  

Arab nations need to take the lead on this, where again one thing is for sure, IS would spell their own doom, if they confront Israel, which may solve the problem for all, as they will not mess around

Didge wrote:

Frazzled wrote:There needs to be a multilateral approach against ISIS.  It's no good if they US and UK go it alone.  

Arab nations need to take the lead on this, where again one thing is for sure, IS would spell their own doom, if they confront Israel, which may solve the problem for all, as they will not mess around

For once we agree.  I once wrote a paper on the three necessary conditions needed for peacemaking.  First on the list was Internal (also, Inclusive, Integrative).  This conflict is not going to be resolved if there is no internal subscription for the resolution.  Outsiders are at best moderators; they have no stake in the game.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Arab nations need to take the lead on this, where again one thing is for sure, IS would spell their own doom, if they confront Israel, which may solve the problem for all, as they will not mess around

For once we agree.  I once wrote a paper on the three necessary conditions needed for peacemaking.  First on the list was Internal (also, Inclusive, Integrative).  This conflict is not going to be resolved if there is no internal subscription for the resolution.  Outsiders are at best moderators; they have no stake in the game.

lol we agree on quite a bit mate, except some political views, be boring if we did. ::D::