The war on ISIS.

  • Thread starter mister dog
  • 3,128 comments
  • 132,761 views
Dotini
Of course - in an ideal world of enlightened, prosperous, free and reasonable people. Sometimes, in the ugly world we have, a benevolent dictator is to be preferred. Assad aspired to benevolent dictatorship insofar as protecting the minority rights of Jews, Kurds, Christians and all the forms of Islam. He married a European woman, promoted the rights of women to western dress, use cosmetics, etc, and the rights of men to shave, drink alcohol, etc.
Click to expand...
Irreligious people can be corruptible.

Most of the problems with democracy are based on individuals who use capital to gain votes (using jobs or social benefits to secure themselves into a political position, or outright buying people and votes to secure a power position).

If Bush teach us something is that democratic systems can be corrupted, but is all mostly related to capitalism and the idea of money as a way to gain representation, a problem that got the US and most of the western world into this problem.

Democracy is not the problem, an economy based on consumism is the problem.
 
Dotini
Of course - in an ideal world of enlightened, prosperous, free and reasonable people. Sometimes, in the ugly world we have, a benevolent dictator is to be preferred. Assad aspired to benevolent dictatorship insofar as protecting the minority rights of Jews, Kurds, Christians and all the forms of Islam. He married a European woman, promoted the rights of women to western dress, use cosmetics, etc, and the rights of men to shave, drink alcohol, etc.
Click to expand...
Problem is, in that part of the world, some of the natives get restless and want to kill you because you are too progressive or "western". It's pretty much the inevitable consequence of progressive values in the Middle East, outside of Israel anyway. IMO the way forward is still democracy, but the practical application of it may not be possible in the current climate of the Middle East and North Africa.

Akira AC
Irreligious people can be corruptible.

Most of the problems with democracy are based on individuals who use capital to gain votes (using jobs or social benefits to secure themselves into a political position, or outright buying people and votes to secure a power position).

If Bush teach us something is that democratic systems can be corrupted, but is all mostly related to capitalism and the idea of money as a way to gain representation, a problem that got the US and most of the western world into this problem.

Democracy is not the problem, an economy based on consumism is the problem.
Click to expand...
Got the US and most of the Western world into what problem? The greatest levels of freedom, wealth and general prosperity the world has ever known?
 
Johnnypenso
Regardless of past history, the answer is, and always will be, democracy. So long as the region is dominated by monotheistic states run by unelected dictators who answer to no one but themselves and highly radicalized clergy, the region will be in chaos. Equal rights for all, free elections and secular governments are the way forward.
Click to expand...
The Middle East had enjoyed a period of relative stability before the current appetite for democracy brought chaos to the region, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and has seen many millions displaced.

Democracy evolves naturally from a starting point that has never and probably will never exist in some places - there's a reason why some nations are undemocratic and will probably remain so. As the tragic example of Syria is making all too clear, the understandable desire of some people to rid themselves of a tyrannical regime in the hope that it may clear a path for a democratic future has in reality created a disastrous power vacuum, paving the way for an even greater tyranny - in this case Islamic fundamentalism. Democracy itself is not the maker of civilized societies, but rather it is a natural consequence of them. That's not to say that undemocratic nations cannot be civilized (take China, for example), but there are limits to how and where democracy can hope to flourish. It will be a cold day in hell before the Middle East embraces democracy.
 
Akira AC
Irreligious people can be corruptible.

Most of the problems with democracy are based on individuals who use capital to gain votes (using jobs or social benefits to secure themselves into a political position, or outright buying people and votes to secure a power position).

If Bush teach us something is that democratic systems can be corrupted, but is all mostly related to capitalism and the idea of money as a way to gain representation, a problem that got the US and most of the western world into this problem.

Democracy is not the problem, an economy based on consumism is the problem.
Click to expand...
Disagree, the economy and the way the Government is elected do not have to go side by side, the problem is in Countries like the US it does and its slowly eroding the democratic process, While other countries are slowly erroding the Capitalist economy.

Infact I would go as much to say Democracy and a Fully Functional Capitalist society rarely work in the long term, for both democracy and the economy, Rules don't seem to exist even when they do.
 
Johnnypenso
Got the US and most of the Western world into what problem?
Click to expand...
The very thing that we are discussing on this thread has nothing to do with the west? US intervention in Iraq and the arab spring (both proven to have international western intervention) is what created the the ISIS and terrorists, 9/11 was also product of that, as well as the war in Iraq from 2003 and all the radicals that went overseas.
Johnnypenso
wealth and general prosperity the world has ever known?
Click to expand...
Is it? as far as I know many many people lost their homes in 2008 due to the banking system collapse, something that still happened in 1929, unemployment is still above 5% (that's a lot considering that the US has around 300 million inhabitants), healthcare system in the US is highly advanced but highly expensive (so is not universal, as in Europe and some socialist countries, so there is no "wealth" for that people either), education is effectively elitist in the US in which you can't enroll, unless you enter yourself in a couple of decades debt just so you can be competitive in the job market. China had to slave their people to gain economic wealth so people in the west could buy and produce products for consumism (about 500 million living below minimal wages and precarious conditions), India has barely see any democratic development with the greatest divide between rich and poor, and they are a democratic country.

Last time I check, the "wealth" is owned by the 1% of the population, and how is that prosperity? when you have people starving in other places (including in the US itself in which people expend all their income paying debt due to credit cards and to support the banking system).

The reason the USSR collapsed is because it could not afford it's population to go into economic constraints because it was economically isolated (just like the "prosperity" that democracy gave to Cuba, by isolating it economically for over 40 years now), and the US had control of most oil reserves which gave them an edge (hence why the 1973 fuel crisis after Iran got fed with the local exploitation by US based companies), I could go on and on.

You can't tell me with a straight face that the system has brought "wealth" for all, that is just allowed for certain people, that's globalization, giving half of all the money to about a 100 people and give them freedom to do whatever, there is people who have more wealth than countries, so the next thing is to rely on good will, and while there is people like Bill Gates who want to use his capital to create education and infrastructure, there is people like the Arabs or Trump who want to produce the greatest amount of capital disregarding racial and human values for the sake of producing more capital.
mustafur
Disagree, the economy and the way the Government is elected do not have to go side by side, the problem is in Countries like the US it does and its slowly eroding the democratic process, While other countries are slowly erroding the Capitalist economy.
Click to expand...
The economy has to be controlled by the government, China is experimenting with that to see how much freedom can be allowed, and is realizing that the Wall Street model of economic exchange do not work, hence the "switches" to shut down the exchange, so speculation based on how much something is valued brings consequences of having a representative value rather than a real one, creating inflation and in the long run ... poverty.


Socialism is the way forward, simply because you can't have people like Trump or the Saudis, because there is no way for them to amass capital, multinational corporations cannot exists (nor the idea of an organization that has more wealth than a country), the world will no longer be guided by the 1%, that is freedom.
 
Akira AC
The very thing that we are discussing on this thread has nothing to do with the west? US intervention in Iraq and the arab spring (both proven to have international western intervention) is what created the the ISIS and terrorists, 9/11 was also product of that, as well as the war in Iraq from 2003 and all the radicals that went overseas.

Is it? as far as I know many many people lost their homes in 2008 due to the banking system collapse, something that still happened in 1929, unemployment is still above 5% (that's a lot considering that the US has around 300 million inhabitants), healthcare system in the US is highly advanced but highly expensive (so is not universal, as in Europe and some socialist countries, so there is no "wealth" for that people either), education is effectively elitist in the US in which you can't enroll, unless you enter yourself in a couple of decades debt just so you can be competitive in the job market. China had to slave their people to gain economic wealth so people in the west could buy and produce products for consumism (about 500 million living below minimal wages and precarious conditions), India has barely see any democratic development with the greatest divide between rich and poor, and they are a democratic country.

Last time I check, the "wealth" is owned by the 1% of the population, and how is that prosperity? when you have people starving in other places (including in the US itself in which people expend all their income paying debt due to credit cards and to support the banking system).

The reason the USSR collapsed is because it could not afford it's population to go into economic constraints because it was economically isolated (just like the "prosperity" that democracy gave to Cuba, by isolating it economically for over 40 years now), and the US had control of most oil reserves which gave them an edge (hence why the 1973 fuel crisis after Iran got fed with the local exploitation by US based companies), I could go on and on.

You can't tell me with a straight face that the system has brought "wealth" for all, that is just allowed for certain people, that's globalization, giving half of all the money to about a 100 people and give them freedom to do whatever, there is people who have more wealth than countries, so the next thing is to rely on good will, and while there is people like Bill Gates who want to use his capital to create education and infrastructure, there is people like the Arabs or Trump who want to produce the greatest amount of capital disregarding racial and human values for the sake of producing more capital.

The economy has to be controlled by the government, China is experimenting with that to see how much freedom can be allowed, and is realizing that the Wall Street model of economic exchange do not work, hence the "switches" to shut down the exchange, so speculation based on how much something is valued brings consequences of having a representative value rather than a real one, creating inflation and in the long run ... poverty.


Socialism is the way forward, simply because you can't have people like Trump or the Saudis, because there is no way for them to amass capital, multinational corporations cannot exists (nor the idea of an organization that has more wealth than a country), the world will no longer be guided by the 1%, that is freedom.
Click to expand...
The Economy doesn't have to be controlled by the Government, the Government controlling has created that mess your talking about in the first place, and that all stems from Democracy not excepting the lows that come with the highs both of which where exaggerated by Government intervention in a free market.

Socialism brings even more instability in the long term because then you have to find ways to fund your excessive spending, whilst it may give stability for a sustained period of time it's life is best described as a pyramid.

An aging population is the end game for a Socialist Society only slowed by High immigration which is needed to replace the workforce.
 
mustafur
Socialism brings even more instability in the long term because then you have to find ways to fund your excessive spending, whilst it may give stability for a sustained period of time it's life is best described as a pyramid.
Click to expand...
It sustains itself as long as there is a non dominant monopoly, US companies are not properly taxed based on their income, so you tax them accordingly and use said taxes to control expending within the government. Government should have control over the money, not the banks, because they only hold and lend money, but they will be always irresponsible with how this money will be invested as they need to produce at least interests on their clients, meaning that they need to diversify and withdraw some restrictions in their lending policies.

Is not a pyramid, is about primordial resources and how they are managed, what most people ignore is that in the US fuel is a primordial necessity, not because of their politics but due to their demographic distribution, people are scattered over a huge region and require vehicles driven by cheap fuel in other to operate, this include freight companies who take food and supplies to sale and exchange across the country. Globalization also means that companies who based manufacturer in China also have to pay transportation costs (resulting in more investment into fuel resources).

So, industrialization and development bring priorities over resources, oil is just simply a resource that is too valuable to industrialized nations that more and more nations with emerging industrial capacity are finding themselves in gridlock due to its importance. Oil is also used for plastic production processes (meaning all the electronics, computers and office appliances that you might find around the workplace are related to oil as well).

Undemocratic governments (like Saudi Arabia) have a huge advantage as they have possession of the valuable resources and don't have to respond to population necessities (education, social equality, development of new technology and equal opportunities), which means that they will have control over policies that affect certain sectors of the economy based on influence, meaning that the welfare of the population in one country has the consequence of degrading the welfare of the population of the other country, which constitutes one of the basic principles of slavery.
 
Akira AC
The very thing that we are discussing on this thread has nothing to do with the west? US intervention in Iraq and the arab spring (both proven to have international western intervention) is what created the the ISIS and terrorists, 9/11 was also product of that, as well as the war in Iraq from 2003 and all the radicals that went overseas.

Is it? as far as I know many many people lost their homes in 2008 due to the banking system collapse, something that still happened in 1929, unemployment is still above 5% (that's a lot considering that the US has around 300 million inhabitants), healthcare system in the US is highly advanced but highly expensive (so is not universal, as in Europe and some socialist countries, so there is no "wealth" for that people either), education is effectively elitist in the US in which you can't enroll, unless you enter yourself in a couple of decades debt just so you can be competitive in the job market. China had to slave their people to gain economic wealth so people in the west could buy and produce products for consumism (about 500 million living below minimal wages and precarious conditions), India has barely see any democratic development with the greatest divide between rich and poor, and they are a democratic country.

Last time I check, the "wealth" is owned by the 1% of the population, and how is that prosperity? when you have people starving in other places (including in the US itself in which people expend all their income paying debt due to credit cards and to support the banking system).

The reason the USSR collapsed is because it could not afford it's population to go into economic constraints because it was economically isolated (just like the "prosperity" that democracy gave to Cuba, by isolating it economically for over 40 years now), and the US had control of most oil reserves which gave them an edge (hence why the 1973 fuel crisis after Iran got fed with the local exploitation by US based companies), I could go on and on.

You can't tell me with a straight face that the system has brought "wealth" for all, that is just allowed for certain people, that's globalization, giving half of all the money to about a 100 people and give them freedom to do whatever, there is people who have more wealth than countries, so the next thing is to rely on good will, and while there is people like Bill Gates who want to use his capital to create education and infrastructure, there is people like the Arabs or Trump who want to produce the greatest amount of capital disregarding racial and human values for the sake of producing more capital.

The economy has to be controlled by the government, China is experimenting with that to see how much freedom can be allowed, and is realizing that the Wall Street model of economic exchange do not work, hence the "switches" to shut down the exchange, so speculation based on how much something is valued brings consequences of having a representative value rather than a real one, creating inflation and in the long run ... poverty.


Socialism is the way forward, simply because you can't have people like Trump or the Saudis, because there is no way for them to amass capital, multinational corporations cannot exists (nor the idea of an organization that has more wealth than a country), the world will no longer be guided by the 1%, that is freedom.
Click to expand...
Socialism is the way forward, the economy has to be controlled by the government and the U.S. is horrible because some people have massive wealth and that's bad. Can you give me some examples of countries that are socialist, have ecomomies that are controlled by the government, don't have really wealthy people, and have widespread prosperity and unemployment lower than 5%. Perhaps we can use them as a model for the way forward for the middle east and others.
 
Johnnypenso
Socialism is the way forward, the economy has to be controlled by the government and the U.S. is horrible because some people have massive wealth and that's bad. Can you give me some examples of countries that are socialist, have ecomomies that are controlled by the government, don't have really wealthy people, and have widespread prosperity and unemployment lower than 5%. Perhaps we can use them as a model for the way forward for the middle east and others.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy with most elements of a socialist state, being part of NATO and not having conflicts with the monarchs forces them to continue being a constitutional monarchy (which is different than a former colony, or Republic), there is free market and liberal ideas as well as regulatory government practices, unemployment is currently at about 6% to 7% due to immigrant influx, prior to that unemployment stood in the 3% to 4%.

The economy is controlled by a way of a council whose job is to advise the economy in certain matters, if a fault is committed the government controlled council can start inquiries and proceed with sanctions, it has limited powers but it works in regulating the economy, I should mention that these councils were constituted by members of trade unions and worker's unions, meaning that both workers and owners were represented, and make part of a system modeled to promote a fair income distribution.
 
So, according to the Russians, this is what's happening in Aleppo and it's surroundings.

7nYCGes.jpg


Seems that they are more coordinated with their attacks now.
 
Rage Racer
Also, Russian Ministry of Defence claims that Turkey might be preparing an invasion of Syria.
Click to expand...

The Saudis want to join in the groundwar too. Expect Iran to follow suit. And then watch how Syria disappears all together.
 
Rage Racer
Also, Russian Ministry of Defence claims that Turkey might be preparing an invasion of Syria.
Click to expand...
Between the Kurds and the Assad/Russian forces, Turkey's supply lines to ISIS are being squeezed. If Erdogan is as serious as he pretends to be about taking down Assad, he must be committed to the whole enchilada of supporting his tool ISIS, whatever it takes.

But now ISIS is said to be streaming into Libya by the thousands, and while the US and Europe are moving their gums, they have committed no teeth in the defense of their new failed state, Libya.
 
Turkey, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran all lumped in together on the ground, and the USA and Europe flying above them.


🤬
 
"Russians use unguided bombs that kill civilians, women and children. Unlike us, the US-led coalition, who use precise munitions only. Look at this video, how precisely WE do it!"
 
Wise people ignore that type of news. Collateral damage is inevitable.

And it's even worse when you have no clue who is friend or foe.
 
Rage Racer
That's not the point of the video. ;)

A French news channel uses Russian airstrike videos for evidence of the US coalition's work. :D
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I wouldn't take English subtitles on a Russian video as fact without checking them, you should avoid the same with French ;)

There's more than one coalition, guess which one this article refers to? None of the subtitled references to US-Coalition exist.
 
TenEightyOne
No, it doesn't. I wouldn't take English subtitles on a Russian video as fact without checking them, you should avoid the same with French ;)

There's more than one coalition, guess which one this article refers to? None of the subtitled references to US-Coalition exist.
Click to expand...
No, but in the whole news section on that channel they were comparing the French strikes in Syria with the US and Russia, to then refer to the efforts of "the" coalition (that they are member of) in the attacks, to then refer to the efficiency of "their" airstrikes showing the Russian Armed Forces footage, to then mention the Russian death toll of civilian casualties caused by US, French and Russian airstrikes.

http://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-j...t-de-20h-du-jeudi-4-fevrier-2016_1289725.html
(3:18)

So yeah, references to the US coalition do exist.
 
Akira AC
No, but in the whole news section on that channel they were comparing the French strikes in Syria with the US and Russia, to then refer to the efforts of "the" coalition (that they are member of) in the attacks, to then refer to the efficiency of "their" airstrikes showing the Russian Armed Forces footage, to then mention the Russian death toll of civilian casualties caused by US, French and Russian airstrikes.

http://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-j...t-de-20h-du-jeudi-4-fevrier-2016_1289725.html
(3:18)

So yeah, references to the US coalition do exist.
Click to expand...

They mention the Russian toll too. There's no negative/positive comparison in that section, just dry numbers. The video excerpt referenced by @Rage Racer does not claim to be of the US coalition strikes, that fact stands. It even has Cyrillic writing on it...
 
TenEightyOne
They mention the Russian toll too. There's no negative/positive comparison in that section, just dry numbers. The video excerpt referenced by @Rage Racer does not claim to be of the US coalition strikes, that fact stands. It even has Cyrillic writing on it...
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say? The video still claims that "precision airstrikes" reduce civilian casualties on hard targets

Also, what is this "fact" you are talking about? there is no fact, they use Russian airstrikes while mentioning and referring to US coalition precision airstrikes, claiming a "fact" is just grasping at straws. That the people who edited the original video have no idea how to edit is another matter, but the original Fr 2 segment still shows and claims those airstrikes were part of their coalition.

Are you that insecure? Presenting information and claim it to be true so it can benefit your biases, like really?
 

Similar threads

Dotini
The US War in Afghanistan
9 10 11
Replies
329
Views
13K
Liquid
Liquid
JMoney
Just War Theory
2 3 4
Replies
100
Views
5K
JMoney
JMoney
Dotini
Wars against native tribal leadership - in general
Replies
24
Views
1K
Rallywagon
Rallywagon
KSaiyu
The New Cold War?
Replies
10
Views
1K
YSSMAN
YSSMAN
YSSMAN
21,500 More US Troops Headed to Iraq
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
niky
niky

Latest Posts

Back