General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow would DU react to the 1930s and Hitler?
I see a lot of people dismissing any response to ISIS and the threat they pose because, gosh, they aren't really a threat to the United States anyway. I get the feeling, had there been an internet back in the 1930s, you'd be up in arms over the idea of ever there being a war in Europe.
You'd actively dismiss the deaths of millions, maybe even suggest it was all bullshit and a conspiracy of the MIC, solely to push your irrational anti-interventionist ideology. The Jews being gassed? Not our problem. Hitler is of no threat to the United States. Hell, we're responsible for him rising to power with our entrance into World War I! Had we just left enough alone, Hitler wouldn't have ever come to power and he wouldn't be killing all those poor Jews. Of course, now that he has, it's their problem.
Why should I worry my pretty little mind?
Then when Pearl Harbor was bombed, I'd be willing to bet that some of the worst crackpots would find justification in suggesting Roosevelt let it happen on purpose to drag the U.S. into war. Don't even get me started on what this place would be like if it was a Republican in the White House at the time. They'd blame it on the MIC, suggest it's the U.S.'s imperial ways and that we're all about war - after all, the U.S. had fought the Border War in the 1900s, World War I in the 1910s, the Russian Civil War in the 1920s and now we're looking at entering another war? Jesus Christ, that FDR is one sick warmongering son of a bitch.
Hitler isn't our problem. He's no direct threat to the United States. No more a threat than Wilhelm II!
Aren't we a nation tired of conflict and war? Yes, it's awful the images coming out of Germany - but it's not our problem!
Let's be honest, okay? The left likes to talk about humanity and hope and peace and a whole lot of you can give two fucks about any of it. It's all for show. You'll slump your head, push out those crocodile tears, for the men and women and children who are killed in U.S. conflict - but dismiss, ignore and downright excuse the massacres that are happening in Syria and Iraq right now. You'll get absolutely enraged over the beheading of an American, swear off the depravity, and then ultimately shrug when we ask what to do.
You say just leave 'em alone will work. Because, last I checked, the United States pretty much did that between 2011-2014 in Iraq and it didn't seem to stop ISIS. They didn't seem to go off to the sidelines and moderate. In fact, ISIS became a larger threat over the years the U.S. was out of Iraq than when we were actually there in the first place. Yes, I get the U.S. made this mess. Guess what? That doesn't fucking change the fact it's a mess - no more than us joining the allied forces in WWI led to a mess that we, fortunately, ended up cleaning.
No, I don't think ISIS is as bad as Hitler - or near the threat - but I'm also not advocating for war. I'm only pointing out your hypocrisy.
You bemoan the deaths of innocents in Iraq and Pakistan and ignore the deaths of just as many, if not more over the last three years, happening as a direct result of our inaction as a country. You advocate for a policy that will ultimately lead to the deaths of thousands and thousands more people - if not more when the power ISIS has expands because there is no greater force to step up the fight and stop them.
It's funny. So many on the left spent years and years saying Bush was responsible for 9/11 because he didn't act against al-Qaeda. The same people who then turn around and pretend ISIS, who's growing in influence a great deal like al-Qaeda out of the 1990s, is no threat to the United States.
Tell me there isn't some disconnect there? If you don't take these people seriously, why would anyone expect any president to do so? Bush didn't - and we paid for it on 9/11. Yes, I get there are some nut bars out there who think Bush actually orchestrated the attacks, but that's not relevant - for a vast majority of the left, the narrative has ALWAYS been that Bush didn't act and because of it, we were attacked.
Obama is acting and he's a warmonger.
Obama is doing something every president before him, whether Kennedy, Truman or FDR would do, and you blatantly lie and act like he's cut from the same cloth as Emperor Palpatine.
Kennedy is revered on DU and his administration had the leader of South Vietnam assassinated during a coup - at least backed the coup.
FDR firebombed an entire city and oversaw the creation of the atom bomb.
Truman dropped that bomb.
But it's Obama who has betrayed the entire ideology? Get fucking real.
What is betrayal is this idea that the world is some goddamn John Lennon dream. Then we pretend that if the United States wasn't some bogeyman, evil would never exist. As if it didn't exist before the U.S. or something. Then we demand no action and turn our backs to the plight of those thousands, if not millions, who are impacted because, dammit, we're tired of war.
Well I'm tired of war too. But I'm also tired of terrorists who feel they can go around beheading innocent people.
And if it takes a few bombs to make sure ISIS doesn't extend its reach, then I'll support it. What I won't support is this idea that the United States should just turn its back to the monsters like ISIS.
It doesn't make us pure. It doesn't absolve anyone of the sins. It doesn't mean I am cheer leading war - it does mean I believe we can take steps to end their reign and bring a little bit of sanity back to this planet. But I know if we let ISIS alone, they're not just going to go away magically - and they'll get worse and worse and then it'll be too late. Then it will require war.
Then you'll be able to complain.
marmar
(76,982 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Or you'd see I specifically said they weren't. Nice try, tho.
marmar
(76,982 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)That means I win, right?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Between the historical inaccuracies, the straw man arguments, the flame-baiting, and the counter-productive smears, I can't find them.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I am not interested in pissing in the wind.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)According to Amnesty International.
But what would they know?
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE14/011/2014/en
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Harder than anything weve tried to do thus far in Iraq or Afghanistan is how one U.S. general involved in war planning described the challenges ahead on one side of the border that splits the so-called Islamic State.
But defeating the group in neighboring Syria will be even more difficult, according to U.S. military and diplomatic officials. The strategy imagines weakening the Islamic State without indirectly strengthening the ruthless government led by Bashar al-Assad or a rival network of al-Qaeda affiliated rebels while simultaneously trying to build up a moderate Syrian opposition.
All that makes Iraq seem easy, the general said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share views on policy. This is the most complex problem weve faced since 9/11. We dont have a precedent for this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/countering-islamic-state-will-be-hard-in-iraq-and-harder-in-syria-officials-say/2014/09/10/de74d448-3943-11e4-9c9f-ebb47272e40e_story.html
lancer78
(1,495 posts)backed up the baby incubator story during the first gulf war.
thucythucy
(7,986 posts)Well, that's disappointing.
I'll Google it eventually, but if you've got a link to that it would be very much appreciated.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)thucythucy
(7,986 posts)Amnesty is usually pretty careful about they endorse, so this is indeed disappointing.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Doh!
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Technological advances alone make a difference.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)ISIL is really not a long term threat. You comparing it to Germany and the Nazis demands this thread be trashed.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Tell that to the many people they've slaughtered over the course of the last couple years.
Boreal
(725 posts)Who funds/funded them? Where have they trained (bases in what countries)? Where were al Nusra fighters (from Syria) given medical treatment?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)who declared WAR on the US and had the ability, the military to do it. THAT is the ONLY reason for a country to go to war, to defend itself from an imminent threat. Just as AQ was not such a threat, neither is ISIS.
So did you support Bush too when he told us we had to go to war with 'terror'?
To even mention Hitler in relation to this is so ludicrous it isn't worth discussing.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Aside from the threat of submarines sinking merchant shipping, Germany never possessed the capability to attack the United States aside from insignificant shelling from submarines.
Do some digging, the United States was actively helping the British well before December 7th, 1941, be it supplying the British with 50 WWI era destroyers in exchange for some basing rights in the Caribbean; repairing and overhauling British warships in US shipyards; repeatedly expanding our sea boundaries to allow US warships to start escorting convoys both to and from the United States and in the 6-9 months before Dcemeber 7th, the US Navy and the German NAvy's submarines were actively shooting at each other.
None of the above is the act of a "neutral" country
Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #33)
Post removed
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we know how DU reacted to the last attempt to gain support for the invasion of a ME country. We don't have to go back seventy years, it was quite recent. And DU was completely opposed to that illegal invasion. How about you, were YOU opposed to it also?
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Slaughtered that is.
But you thump your chest and tell us how great US art.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)ISIS is certainly a threat, no doubt about it. No question they intend to be long term. Whether they succeed or not is unknown.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
In 1939 the "Nazi war machine", at that time the most powerful military force in history, began its rampage through Europe. Less than a decade earlier the Nazi's were little more than an aggressive gang of thugs.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the premise this thread, only the OP's Hitler analogy which I think is reasonable and appropriate. And it's only an analogy, not a concrete prediction of future events.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)with boarders, but terrorist organizations. That is the mistake Bush made when he invaded Iraq instead of killing bin Laden.
By the way, I don't think the "thread" demands anything.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They just do not have borders.
I do not believe that violent terrorist organizations can be defeated by violence. It just escalates the violence, and breeds more terrorists. No, we have to make them irrelevant, by peaceful means. By using the same tactics as they use, we are only being as bad as they are.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)No one knows how much of a threat ISIL will be in the future, but Amnesty International says it's currently engaging in "ethnic cleansing on an historic scale."
Not a good start.
samsingh
(17,571 posts)by juries
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It's pointless, DI, they cannot be reasoned with.
OBTW, Michael Moore is a genius and a heartthrob!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Really?
There's something wrong with complaining about a war before it's begun?
Really?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)only to be shamed for complaining AFTER fait accompli.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)if we complain once it has started. It just makes it easier on them when they denigrate us as worthless ingrates if they can just call us simple one word names instead of having to explain that it hasn't happened yet. They also always say Obama is not going to do something right up until he does it, then tell us to shut up because it would be bad to complain once he does it. I think it is like that game of heads they win, tails we lose, that they like to play with us.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)They are beyond reason this election season.
There are only 54 days until election day, and a few of them think Michael Moore is a frickin' saint!!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I bet Michael will be pleasantly surprised.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is a thread about ridiculous.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I love that woman!!!!!!
Funny because when they aim it a BOGGers, well, at least our guy actually is attractive.
RKP5637
(67,031 posts)read it and came away with something completely different, somehow.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Germany fielded millions. ISIS has some captured equipment and Germany had thousands of tanks, an air force and a navy. ISIS may have a few tanks yet these guys are a threat to our security? It's an analogy fail.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)neverforget
(9,433 posts)and as a result of breaking Iraq, we have ISIS. And once we defeat ISIS, there'll be another terrorist organization to fight. You can kill all those that want to do us harm but you can't kill anti-American sentiment which breads those that want to do us harm.
Boreal
(725 posts)Or maybe not.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)taken to deal with terror, see how many terror attacks were stopped during the Clinton years, were not applied when over 52 warnings were given to Bush, who went on vacation and dismissed the 'messengers'.
We are told the NSA has been gathering info in order to prevent a terror attack on the US. Clinton managed to foil what would have been a worse and more devastating attack, than 9/11 because terrorist attacks can and have been prevented with the system that is in place.
And, if you think war was the answer, why, 13 later after we went off to 'smoke'm outta their caves' are we told, by Diane Feinstein, among others, that we are in 'more danger than ever'??
Maybe we should deal with terror the same way other countries deal with it, rather than killing and maiming and torturing people creating MORE terror, which is clearly why ISIS even exists. Iow, the solution you support not only has been tried and failed, it has made things much, much worse.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The stupid ass way in which we reacted to it.
Thanks to the sheer idiocy of Bush and Co to the destruction of a couple of skyscrapers and 3000 people, we entered into multiple wars that have killed far more Americans, brought home tens of thousands more maimed, destroyed trillions of dollars of wealth, devastated the American middle class, and plunged millions into joblessness.
Without the knee-jerk beating of the drums of war, America would be far better off.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)where we never did before.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)They were Saudi nationals, and were angry that the US had military installations on their holy ground.
They were funded by Saudi Arabia. Look it up.
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacksFour passenger airliners were hijacked by 19 al-Qaeda terrorists so they could be flown into buildings in suicide attacks. Two of those planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, were crashed into the North and South towers, respectively, of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Within two hours, both towers collapsed with debris and the resulting fires causing partial or complete collapse of all other buildings in the WTC complex, as well as significant damage to ten other large surrounding structures. A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77, was crashed into the Pentagon (the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense), leading to a partial collapse in its western side. The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was targeted at Washington, D.C., but crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after its passengers tried to overcome the hijackers. In total, almost 3,000 people died in the attacks, including the 227 civilians and 19 hijackers aboard the four planes. It also was the deadliest incident for firefighters and for law enforcement officers in the history of the United States, with 343 and 72 killed respectively.
You might want to check out this section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Attackers and see how is listed 1st
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Good luck with that.
krawhitham
(4,634 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)In the 1920's Hitler was just the leader of a "small group of extremists", and Germany's military had been absolutely decimated by the war. What was left was severely limited by the Treaty of Versailles
Of course ISIS/ISIL could never take over a country or two and commandeer their military. Right?
neverforget
(9,433 posts)and became the well trained military machine that nearly won WW2. ISIS has none of that.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)They're operating in a theater ripe for exploitation, unable or unwilling to defend themselves, often sympathetic to the ISIS/ISIL cause, with sizable militaries and vulnerable neighbors. This is not Hindenburg's Germany, of course, but then again his Germany didn't have tactical nukes within its grasp. Right?
Edited for clarity.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Turkey and Jordan each have well trained armed forces, Lebanon is a mess but Israel would stop that. Iraq was supposedly able to defend themselves but we found out that they were unwilling to do so. How do we fix that? Are we going to fight all their battles for them? How do you instill the will to fight to someone that doesn't want to defend their own country or home?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)And I think you just echoed my point. Iraq is unable and/or unwilling to stop them and Syria is potentially easy picking. Hussein wasn't on a religious crusade, while ISIS/ISIL are and ruthless and capable. Could they overtake Iraq and Syria? Possibly. Without outside intervention? Quite possibly. Why would this coalition look the other way when they have the opportunity, now, to stop this group?
The Hitler analogy is a bit of a plaything, but it's worth pointing out that isolationists here thought (like many Germans, BTW) that he was a loudmouthed crank with no following, that Germany was war-weary, that the era of Empires was over, and that they had not the will nor ability to wage war on anyone. Only a remarkable confluence of events led to an otherwise improbable WWII - a war which was preventable.
There are a few parallels today. Like the OP, I don't think ISIS/ISIL is Hitler and I don't think that the Middle East is 1930s Germany. OTOH, I don't believe that non-intervention is wise, nor do I think participation in a coalition is unacceptable.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)with ISIS. If ISIS is such a threat to the region, why are we doing it half-assed? If they are as grave a threat as we are told, why don't we put combat troops on the ground and fight ISIS to destroy them?
While we can kill those that want to destroy us, we can't kill the anti American sentiment. That's where we need to fight them if we are to truly win this. We'll win all the battles but we won't win until we win the hearts and minds of those that support these terrorists.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)And because the Republicans have, once again, created an inverse political paradigm. They did so with Clinton - impeachment is no longer a tenable legal action because the Republicans trivialized it. By abusing the tradition of the Unary Executive. By attacking, then manipulating the UN. And, mostly, by ignoring our solemn requirements to both abide by our treaty responsibilities and support and defend our allies. Every one of their fuckups became a new benchmark for how we don't do things any more.
While there were a smattering of naysayers during the Bosnian conflict, the country (including the Left) supported our actions, and it became a hallmark for the proper use of U.S. (and NATO) intervention. I had occasion to witness the Dayton Peace Accords. Those people were heroes.
"Boots on the ground" is now a euphemism for "Bush Doctrine". It wasn't always that way. Shit, it wasn't ever that way.
BTW, one can't "win the hearts and minds" of religious extremists out to destroy you. We can't even do that here.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)and expect a different result? If you don't do anything to change people's hearts and minds, then the fighting will never end.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)and expect a different result.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Beacons of American intervention where we were greeted as liberators and bringer of Democracy.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I think the point is that there is no simple answer by either side.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Your point is well taken.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 04:29 AM - Edit history (1)
the same reason we are in Pakistan. Iran is not as crazy as it's made out to be but no walk in the park, either for human rights or ending terrorism. Obama has brought them back from extremism, in a relative fashion, despite some of the awful things they have funded.The Taliban and others like them cross the border from Afghanistan and Pakistan and are being supported by factions in both nations. Pakistan is a nuclear power, but it is dangerously unstable. That's why we're not going to leave, IMO.
Pakistan's neighor India is also a nuclear power but not as unstable. If ISIL gets a bomb, it'll be from there, is what I bet. Iran can cause trouble, but it actually been cited as a nation with no interest in seeing ISIL suceed, except to stir the pot. And if goes too far, it will go against Iran, too. Wrong religion...
And the idea that ISIL has only 20 thousand at its command is wrong. Try something between that and 20 million, and more will be born daily from the sex slavery and forced marriage ISIL is practicing:
Apocalyptic Isis beyond anything we've seen, say US defence chiefs
Senior Pentagon officials describe militants as apocalyptic group that will need to be defeated but maintain limited strikes are sufficient
...(General) Dempsey, an Iraq veteran, has long been sceptical of US military involvement in the Syrian conflict, citing among other reasons the threat to US pilots from dictator Bashar al-Assads air defences. He has frustrated those who advocated American involvement in the two neighbouring wars, such as hawkish Republican senator John McCain, who in June called on Obama to fire Dempsey, saying he has done nothing but invent ways for us not to be engaged.
Echoing the White Houses stated position, Dempsey said the US needed a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating Isis over time, something the administration this week has put effort into broadening and strengthening. But the groups ultimate defeat, the general said, would only come when it is rejected by the over 20 million disenfranchised Sunnis that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/21/isis-us-military-iraq-strikes-threat-apocalyptic/print
While no doubt only a small percentage of the 20 million displaced people support ISIS, there are a significant number of refugees from the Iraq War. People need to think of these people. They want a new home and ISIL Is promising it.
The demographic of the Arab world (or Middle East as they're not all Arab) is also a difference in what you describe in the era post-WW1 Germany. In the Middle East, last I read, a much larger percentile of the population is under 18 and another part is from 18 to 25, something around 75%, and a lot not getting what they think they deserve.
Some say the West is old and weak, as we spend money on our disabled, elderly and quality of life issues. Youth is raw power to be harnassed no matter what economics they live and die under, and they are fearless. That is why this won't go away any time soon, it will take generations.
JMHO.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Rather, that with conquest and the miltaries that they can amass, Iran could become a target. And while they may not have functional nukes, they have fissionable materials. Bad enough in the hands of crazed fanatics.
Thanks for the link to The Guardian. This trope that the group is a tiny irritant really should be crushed.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Did you see Obama's statement on ISIL?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I'm always pleased when Obama offers just enough nuance to provide narrative, yet omits enough to drive the wings batshit crazy. I do that in normal conversation, mostly because I'm a smartass. Obama, I sense, is keen on leaving openings. He also, I would hope, has a little fun in the process.
Your post below was quite well written. And FTR, I think that Australia and New Zealand are in "Other". Even though my dad was an Aussie I'm not offended.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Putin has shown himself to be ruthlesss in response to terrorist attacks from Islamist extremists seeking to leave the federation of autonomous states, I think they call it. It's unlike the USSR, not Communist, more of a oligarchical union than anything else.
That talk about blood or ethnic Russians is not a recent thing. I talked for years with some Russians who see kinship with the people in Iran, Syria, all the former entities of the USSR, yet are not in any way Communist.
They are instead, in favor of Orthodox Christianity being respected, a return to monarchy and empire. But only in the former regions they possessed in the past, because they see them as their people.
Tsarist Russia was an awful lot of land. They consider what we call other nations a Western invention designed to harm Russia. They said that the West had an irrational hatred of Russia.
And they love Putin as the one who might bring that to pass, the glory days of the empire. Which they didn't see as imperialist as much as tradition. I think what we often forget is the centuries of history in Asia that didn't disappear with the UN or whatever.
It goes back much further than that. As far as the religion thing goes, they felt linked to all nations where there are churches. But also they were not anti-Muslim; they said they just wanted them to respect them.
I will probably make an OP on what is being reported to be going on there now that is wrong... I don't think these people would participate in that.
Gotta go and thanks for the reply. And in all the Anglosphere, the Aussies and Americans act the most alike in some ways...
Cha
(295,903 posts)Thank you for your post..
RKP5637
(67,031 posts)and ISIL Is promising it." "Senior Pentagon officials describe militants as apocalyptic group ..." IMO, the most dangerous fervor leading to delusional beliefs of a better future.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Caliphate
A caliphate (in Arabic: خلافة? khilāfa, meaning "succession" is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph i.e. "successor" to Muhammad. The succession of Muslim empires that have existed in the Muslim world are usually described as "caliphates". Conceptually, a caliphate represents a sovereign polity (state) of the entire Muslim faithful (the Ummah, i.e. a sovereign nation state) ruled by a single caliph under the Constitution of Medina and Islamic law (sharia).[citation needed]
In its earliest days, the first caliphate, the Rashidun Caliphate, exhibited elements of direct democracy (shura).[1] It was led, at first, by Muhammad's immediate disciples and family as a continuation of the religious systems he had introduced.
The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[2] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). From the end of the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties. The first of these was the Umayyad dynasty, followed by the several other sometimes competing claimants and finally the Ottoman dynasty. Though non-political, the Ahmadiyya Caliphate had been the only caliphate in existence for over a century. In 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant proclaimed another.[3]
The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries".[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate
Look at all the countries we are talking about today. Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the little alphabet nations there.
Note the Ottoman Empire at its height. We're talking about all of the current nations as well as those that bordered it now:
Ottoman Empire (/ˈɒtəmən/; Ottoman Turkish: دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه, Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmâniyye, Modern Turkish: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu), also historically referred to as the Turkish Empire or Turkey, was an empire founded by Oghuz Turks under Osman Bey in north-western Anatolia in 1299.[7] With the conquest of Constantinople by Mehmed II in 1453, the Ottoman state was transformed into an empire.[8][9][10]
During the 16th and 17th centuries, in particular at the height of its power under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.[11] At the beginning of the 17th century the empire contained 32 provinces and numerous vassal states. Some of these were later absorbed into the empire, while others were granted various types of autonomy during the course of centuries.[dn 5]
With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. The empire was dissolved in the aftermath of World War I, leading to the emergence of the new state of Turkey in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland, as well as the creation of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire
As the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Armenian Genocide occured and other nations were made. The Russians are tending to historical factions there.
That eventually included the state of Israel. Contrary to a mantra often repeated, Israel was not a gift from Europe and the USA for Nazi atrocities.
It had been contemplated in 1917:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
And also in 1926:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926
True, it was an European creation, as were most of the other countries that evolved out of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It just so happened that the rulers were different, is all that happened to that huge chunk of the world's surface. Looking at it in those terms explains the resistance of the parties involved to listen to the United Nations. Their viewpoint extends many centuries beyond the founding of that organization, or even the definitions of the nation state.
One side pushed one way over centuries, and then the other pushed back. We have movements in all the western nations, Russia, China, the islands and in the Americas that call for a world caliphate. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's how people organize themselves for what they think is a good thing.
Those who believe in setting up or expanding a caliphate believe it is a great plan to bring about world peace. There are costs along the road to empire. ISIL is showing us what they'll be. They want to bring back that empire and their version of peace in which all the people will agree on everything they say is the right thing to do.
The caliphate(s) once extended further and was contracted only by armed resistance. It was during long, bloody centuries. IMO, America is much too young to grasp this.
Our idea of how those regions in the two images here should fit onto a map, is not theirs. It was only a temporary hold. They have historical precedent for what they are doing. The more lands they can put in their resurrected empire, the more influence they'll have around the globe to establish their peace.
I don't know if they are right or if they will prevail. I've talked to eager young people online who think it's beautiful and promote it with messianic zeal, very happy to convert others to what they think is a good and holy thing.
It makes sense to those who believe in this. Those who don't, either accept their doing it or oppose it or try to escape it. I've known people from Egypt, Lebanon and other nations who moved to the USA to get away.
Some Americans say nothing will change their own lives. They may be right about it all. But I think they're unrealistic, because in history people don't stop wanting because other ignore their movement. That's not how the world works in the long term.
There always seems to be something amiss in periods of peace. A lack of justice, most likely, so people continue to make war with each other.
Just a few things to consider without any judgment on my part and I doubt anything I could do would change the outcome of these things. And some may not even respect Wikipedia, either.
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10025357236#post23
I see no will expressed by Americans to stop this. Obama's limited action on this is meeting howls of derision from all sides. His latest speech is simply re-iterating what he said at the NATO summit in Wales, which I've posted along with the latest one.
Americans will vote on what their future will be in less than 60 days. Not deciding (or not voting) is still making a choice. I don't see us as up to the challenge, personally. The will is not there. No more than it was in the Thirties. I hope the re-post here for you clarifies my POV.
JMHO.
RKP5637
(67,031 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)ISIL is Sunni
Aint happenin'
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been a spectacular failure.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)This page intentionally left blank.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Yes, maybe we are nipping it in the bud. Though they don't have a chance of getting as strong as Germany did, if they had a state apparatus - they could threaten Israel, which borders on Syria.
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)a long ago past. Let's agree on one thing - the world has changed in the last 75 years.
ISIS with 20,000 fighters PLUS 3 atomic bombs equals what, exactly, in your "millions of troops" scenario?
neverforget
(9,433 posts)delete_bush
(1,712 posts)is a rational actor. As well is Iran.
Pakistan? They LOVE us!
And of course Putin would NEVER think of "loaning" one to someone he not only trusts, but could get by with the old 'plausible deniability' thingy.
No thanks, I'm not on board with this one. One well placed nuke and we're back to the stone age. They had some good art, but I hear their food, wine, entertainment, and most other of life's enjoyments sucks.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)with no basis in reality. Same 'rationale' we heard from the Bushies.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)will give Nukes for free or at a discount to ISIS along with the means to use them.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)than ISIL as they have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? Plus they starve, enslave, torture, imprison and kill their own people in gulags throughout the country. They hate America and have threatened and called for our destruction numerous times.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)(since it does have a powerful military, atomic weapons, and is in easy striking distance to S. Korea) would be much greater than the consequences of attacking ISIS.
Is doing the right thing about ISIS bad because we don't try to correct all wrongs in the world? That is how I read your argument.
Does the US have the right to consider the consequences of it's actions or should we be required to mindlessly respond to the actions of others?
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)as if it stood alone, which it did.
neverforget
(9,433 posts)Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)but when someone makes a clear, understandable statement, context does not change it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)that couldn't even take over a beer hall.
RKP5637
(67,031 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Being that it's Sept. 11.
We are never in danger of physical occupation as France and Poland suffered at the hands of Germany - that is true.
We want to destroy the likes of AQ and ISIS so as to avoid terrorist attacks. The effectiveness of that could be questionable. AQ is still around and now we have ISIS. There's always going to be somebody in the ME for the time being.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)4b5f940728b232b034e4
(120 posts)I don't agree with any of it, but it was an interesting read.
Boreal
(725 posts)I could only stomach about half of that diatribe.
Do you work for NATO?
lol
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)MattBaggins
(7,894 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,626 posts)David Brooks version of it.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Christ.
I don't even fucking know how to respond to somebody who can casually say that. Either you have no idea what that means, in terms of human suffering, or you do and you don't care.
Either way I feel real fucking sorry for you.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Genocide, Kurds, Poison Gas?
Were we too mean to surgically remove Osama, was that also a bad thing?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Osama was set off by US bases in the Middle East after the Iraq war before the last one. For that matter that's what set up the situation with the Kurds.
You don't get to start history in 2001 for your convenience.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)What's your point? Just ignore the problem and hope it goes away?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)and bombing is only going to lead to further instability. Bombing in Syria of all places, where there isn't anything resembling a "good" side, but there is a dense and already suffering civilian population, makes no sense whatsoever.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They're lining up Iraqis by the hundreds and executing them.
How many Iraqis should be ethnically cleansed before we do anything?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Abandoning the situation means they die. If that's a cost you think is bearable, just say so.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)The redrawing of Iraq's colonial borders and the reshuffling of the population to better access the oil wealth are inevitable. Anybody who can read a map could see this coming.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The bombing that we've done so far has allowed the local forces to more-or-less stop ISIS's advance into Iraq. Which means they haven't been taking over new towns and ethnically cleansing them. They're still purging some of their current holdings, though.
Of course. The French and British did a lousy job of drawing the borders.
But shouldn't we try to have the new borders be drawn by less brutal groups?
phil89
(1,043 posts)And accept that this is not something we can fix (as evidenced by recent and not so recent history), regardless of how horrible it may be. No need for the false dichotomy of either military action or just not caring about suffering.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)There's a tiny bit of difference between the British blockade, American intervention, armed revolution in Germany, Clemenceau and Lloyd George demanding their pound of flesh, the seizure of the Ruhr, intentional hyperinflation to spark a reduction in reparations payments, the armed backing of the far right by the victorious Freikorps veterans, the rampant anti-semitism of 19th-20th century German culture, the utter incompetence of world leaders to deal with the Depression, and the monumental stupidity of Franz von Papen versus a war based on the dumbest of lies that got believed with little or no questioning.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)expecting different results? Do you not see the failing pattern with our intervention coming back to bite us in the ass later? Yet, we still keep doing the same thing. Whoever we ally with right now will become a threat to us later. It is an endless cycle of a failing strategy. How about we quit doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results? That would be a start. We are never going to get different results from repeating past mistakes. Period.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)going to war to 'fight terra'. You learn something new every day. Have you noticed that going to war on terra has spectacularly failed and only served, as we once predicted, to create MORE terror? Feinstein tells us that after all those bombs on terror, we are in MORE DANGER THAN EVER.
I feel sick.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)If THAT team does it its horrible, but if OUR TEAM does it then the action is purified. I see a dim future for the democratic party is this trajectory continues.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I had no trouble with attacking ISIS. The best way to do that is to tell our allies that we will not tolerate funding of Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, and enforce that with economic reprisals towards states that violate this. And monitor who funneling the money into these organizations with our vast spying apparatus, then bring them to court under terrorism, money laundering, and war crimes charges. But we won't do that, because it was us that turned radical Islam into a weapon. If someone started following the money, it would lead to Ankara, Riyadh, and Washington DC.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)I worry about genocide.
I also know that a lot of us people on the left (rightfully) nailed the previous administration for ignoring the warnings of the Clinton/Gore administration and the infamous PDB about Bin Laden.
I am not happy about what is going on, but I know this: This administration is not turning a blind eye to warnings.
This is prevention of a Genocide.
No one ever mentions Darfur anymore
. Bush could have helped then -- he didn't.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife which we haven't done," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we havent done. Those of us who care about Darfur dont think it would be a good idea," he said.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)And I don't see Obama proposing 300,000 troops. Instead, he's focusing on a threat. If this was a mere humanitarian problem, I doubt we'd even be involved.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Come on now, big kids are talking.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Yeah. They probably weren't in 1991. But it doesn't mean, after years of being ignored by the U.S., they weren't in 2001.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Because I'd be embarrassed to say something that goofy. Really now.
treestar
(82,383 posts)to argue that AQ should have been attended to earlier?
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)Remember history?
treestar
(82,383 posts)In context, it appears he was arguing against involvement in Iraq.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Where one has power, one has responsibility to protect the less powerful.
It's just a fact.
People actually think we should take a hands off position here, they are attributing the sins of the BFEE to Obama.
Well, guess what? Some in power then are still with us, but the POTUS now is a different animal, as proven by his address this evening.
But those who made up their mind before the address cannot be convinced that there's anything positive coming from the whitehouse.
That's on them.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)support genocide against the Kurds?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)above, for some totally off the wall reason, a mention of Putin. And Putin lovers?? Is Putin a part of ISIS?
Those old talking cannot be left unused it seems. EVen if they don't exactly fit the situation.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Back then Saddam was like Hitler in the 30's, if we didn't stop him then he would threaten America, if you weren't in favor of invading and removing Saddam then you were responsible for all the people Saddam killed, etc. It's interesting to see how many here agree with that Neocon garbage.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Some "people here" are considering this situation in isolation. Other "people here" are conflating two diametrically different scenarios.
It's entirely possible to view a Middle East conflagration as a clear and present danger and respond to it accordingly, despite (or uninspired by) the wretched history of previous administrations. Or, it's possible to remain hypnotized by the past, duped by its transgressions into presuming that all subsequent military actions are nefarious.
The OP analogized. He didn't liken ISIS to 1930s Hitler, and explicitly made that point. You did, through false equivalence.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)opposition to bombing Iraq with ignoring the threat posed by Hitler?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)But some parallels to 1920s Hitler.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Always interesting to see how far Neocon talking points spread.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)No.
We're done here, yes?
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"More like parallels to the rhetoric that got us into Iraq. No, not parallels; the same arguments."
You think we invaded Iraq based on anonymous internet postings?
The Bush administration and its proxies pushed this line. Not Obama. Not his administration. Not his proxies. One of these things is not like the other.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)people are commenting on. Your arguments have been pretty
bizarre:
- Dont criticize it for being a bad analogy since the OP said it was a bad analogy when they made it.
- Dont call out Neocon rhetoric here because its only anonymous internet posting.
- Dont say that the analogy is the same rhetoric that got us into Iraq in the first place since Obama didnt make the analogy.
- This statement that doesnt mention Obama at all supposedly says that he made the analogy:
"More like parallels to the rhetoric that got us into Iraq. No, not parallels; the same arguments."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)For instance being refered to as duped.
Also, see OP. And Post #114.
"...all subsequent military actions are nefarious."
I can't imagine why people would think that way.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Color me surprised.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Good to know.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Nor am I surprised that you choose not to.
My internet motto: Often amused, never amazed.
Response to OilemFirchen (Reply #221)
Hissyspit This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I take it you can't defend your original points.
"hypnotized by the past." Jeez.
Silent3
(15,018 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 15, 2014, 07:13 AM - Edit history (1)
...therefore it can be easily dismissed, with rolling eyes, of course.
There's nothing to think about for even a moment here, no reason to even slightly moderate one's conspiratorial anti-war views and wonder for a split second (even if you'd still end up being against getting involved with ISIS) whether there's another side of the issue worth entertaining seriously for just a moment.
Response to Drunken Irishman (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)To Iraq.
Correctly, is the answer.
mia
(8,356 posts)I wish I didn't feel so hopeless.
Almost Like The Blues by Leonard Cohen
I saw some people starving
There was murder, there was rape
Their villages were burning
They were trying to escape
I couldnt meet their glances
I was staring at my shoes
It was acid, it was tragic
It was almost like the blues
I have to die a little
Between each murderous thought
And when Im finished thinking
I have to die a lot
Theres torture and theres killing
And theres all my bad reviews
The war, the children missing
Lord, its almost like the blues
So I let my heart get frozen
To keep away the rot
My father said Im chosen
My mother says Im not
I listened to their story
Of the Gypsies and the Jews
It was good, it wasnt boring
It was almost like the blues
There is no God in Heaven
And there is no Hell below
So says the great professor
Of all there is to know
But Ive had the invitation
That a sinner cant refuse
And its almost like salvation
Its almost like the blues
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)But in the absence of leadership, we're going to have to build a coalition of our own.
mia
(8,356 posts)I sincerely wish them well, and am confident that they can do a better job without U.S. interference. We've caused way too much harm already.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We made it - we own it.
Just leaving it won't stop ISIS. If it did, ISIS would've never exploded like it has the last couple years in the vacuum of a post-American Iraq.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)get the bull to clean up the china shop. Brilliant as always DI!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I don't become the owner of my neighbour's house because I trash it. He still owns it, I just owe him all of the money for him to fix it, and maybe I get some jail time as well.
Of all the facile nonsense that ever came out of the Bush regime, the 'Pottery Barn rule' crap was the most fatuous.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)by a great many DUers.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)delete_bush
(1,712 posts)First of all, we need some sort of committee. THEY know how the world works - FDR had a few lucky guesses at best. Plus he was clearly a racist.
And just because the intent of some ragtag group is clear DOES NOT MEAN they are capable of carrying out such threats. We need to wait.... see if they can actually pull something off against us. Only after they accomplish said feat will we have the moral clarity to act. NYC might be in ruins, but at least we will have a clear conscience to go forward.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And he'd be excoriated for his lame Social Security plan, that did not include single payer and didn't apply to everyone. What a corporatist he was.
former9thward
(31,802 posts)is the equivalent of Hitler's Germany in the 30s. History Fail.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You are drunk.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Uncertain where the nation will go with this. There's a certain amount of outrage but no real interest in the work that is required.
We are in no worse state than America was in the Thirties in some cases; in others, we are in a worse condition. The WW2 effort was built from using national resources that no longer exist.
Our population was largely rural and despite many people starving, there was more land and community to support those who had not been exiled to cities. In that respect, we are weak, as we are dependent upon the resources of other people and other nations.
We have more people, less natural resources and less unity. That is why Democratic politicans tread softly, because people will die. We are being torn apart and remade.
It's unknown what the end result will be. We are coming to terms with our past now, too. If those who will be in power in the coming days do not support an American role in the world, there will not be one. Although many do, as their opportunities were in military service.
There is little support for the federal government as in the days of FDR. It took respect for that institution to wage WW2. The cost was extremely high to all the Allies, but not the Axis powers:
Few see any value in what WW2 caused the Allies to create to prevent another war such as that which FDR organized Americans to stop. No one seems to know civics and how the federal or even local government works.
Obama is suggesting more of a policing action than anything else. But Americans don't know the difference between low level, limited action, the Iraq War or WW3. So they reject all of it.
If the news reported at DU is an honest reflection of American views, the USA will devolve into states, little Koch fiefdoms and there will be nothing to do about other powers that seek to do us harm. Instead we will be armed to the teeth against each other and the acts of other foreign entities will mean nothing next to what we will do to ourselves.
JMHO.
Buddha2B
(116 posts)that excludes the Australian and New Zealand forces, especially considering our alliance with US in the Pacific, and that more bombs were dropped on Darwin than Pearl Harbor.
The person who made it should be ashamed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Australia_during_World_War_II
Here is an Aussie POW soldier before being beheaded by a Japanese soldier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Siffleet#mediaviewer/File:LeonardGSiffleet.jpg
But I'm sure the blood of our soldiers was just a little too inconvenient for the author of the graphic.
You know we are the largest economy of the Southern Hemisphere. That's half the frigging globe!!
/end rant
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I kid.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 02:55 AM - Edit history (1)
Americans know what the Australians suffered in WW2 on behalf of the BE as part of the Allies, in the Pacific Theater. It's well documented and part of the reason Australia is part of the Five Eyes that is also part of fighting ISIL.
What has the current Australian economy have to do with WW2 and the commitment of all of the ALLIED forces of which Australia was a part?
You should go to the Wiki page on WW2 casualties to edit it with your data instead of what you said about the graphic. It does not exclude Australia.
It is emblematic of my point, that the Axis did not suffer as much as the Allies did. What has those lives lost got to do with one single graphic? Does it say they were lost in vain?
I don't think so. I respect their sacrifice. I respect my father who fought in the Pacific and went from one island to another until they reached China and cleaned up what the Japanese left in retreat. Australians know this. Americans know this.
I'll try to explain the point of my post, that is about a national will and how we came to be what we are in the world. Note how The Five Eyes include both Australia and NZ:
...The treaty sharing info goes back to WW2.
The entire Anglosphere has been sharing a lot of information offically on the same basis it did during that war. Below is a post by Devon Rex, but most of us knew this for years, just not this well laid out:
I'll spell it out:
UKUSA. It's the SIGINT Intelligence Agreement. BRUSA.
Might as well be signed in blood.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
United Kingdom United States of America Agreement (UKUSA, /juːkuːˈsɑː/ ew-koo-sah) is a multilateral agreement for cooperation in signals intelligence between the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The alliance of intelligence operations is also known as Five Eyes (FVEY). It was first signed in March 1946 by the United Kingdom and the United States and later extended to encompass the three Commonwealth realms of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The UKUSA Agreement was a follow-up of the 1943 BRUSA Agreement, the World War II agreement on cooperation over intelligence matters. This was a secret treaty, allegedly so secret that it was kept secret from the Australian Prime Ministers until 1973.
The agreement established an alliance of five English-speaking countries for the purpose of sharing intelligence, especially signals intelligence. It formalized the intelligence sharing agreement in the Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, before the entry of the U.S. into the conflict.
History
The agreement originated from a ten-page BritishU.S. Communication Intelligence Agreement, also known as BRUSA, that connected the signal intercept networks of the U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) at the beginning of the Cold War. The document was signed on March 5, 1946 by Colonel Patrick Marr-Johnson for the U.K.'s London Signals Intelligence Board and Lieutenant General Hoyt Vandenberg for the U.S. StateArmyNavy Communication Intelligence Board. Although the original agreement states that the exchange would not be "prejudicial to national interests", the United States often blocked information sharing from Commonwealth countries. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on June 25, 2010.
Under the agreement, the GCHQ and the NSA shared intelligence on the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and several eastern European countries (known as Exotics). The network was expanded in the 1960s into the Echelon collection and analysis network.
In July 2013, as part of the 2013 Edward Snowden revelations, it emerged that the NSA is paying GCHQ for its services, with at least £100 million of payments made between 201013.
Collection mechanisms
The UKUSA alliance is often associated with the ECHELON system; however, processed intelligence is reliant on multiple sources of information and the intelligence shared is not restricted to signals intelligence.
The "Five Eyes" in question are
USA National Security Agency
United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters
Canada Communications Security Establishment
Australia Defence Signals Directorate
New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau
Global coverage
Each member of the UKUSA alliance is officially assigned lead responsibility for intelligence collection and analysis in different parts of the globe.
Australia
Australia hunts for communications originating in Indochina, Indonesia, and southern China.
Canada
Formerly the northern portions of the former Soviet Union and conducting sweeps of all communications traffic that could be picked up from embassies around the world. In the post-Cold War era, a greater emphasis has been placed on monitoring satellite, radio and cellphone traffic originating from Central and South America, primarily in an effort to track drugs and non-aligned paramilitary groups in the region.
New Zealand
The Waihopai Valley Facilitybase of the New Zealand branch of the ECHELON Program.
New Zealand is responsible for the western Pacific. Listening posts in the South Island at Waihopai Valley just south-west of Blenheim, and on the North Island at Tangimoana. The Anti-Bases Campaign holds regular protests in order to have the listening posts closed down.
United Kingdom
Europe, Africa, and European Russia.
United States
Monitors most of Latin America, Asia, Asiatic Russia, and northern China.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023492002#post7
Devon Rex wrote:
'Might as well be signed in blood.'
That is true. Millions of people died in that war and that's still taken seriously. True, it was before most of us were born but it formed the world we live in.
Australia has supported the actions of the USA and UK for many years since WW2. Do you think NZ and Australia should leave this alliance now?
I'm not getting where the fire is coming from, all out of proportion to my point. I have neither said nor posted anything to offend Australia or NZ.
I made a narrow point, focused on the will of the American people to be involved in stopping ISIL. You have not addressed the point of my comment.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)I don't really think setting up hypothetical situations, by which you can accuse those who disagree with you of "actively dismissing the deaths of millions," is helpful.
Not taking the bait. Moving on to threads where cooler heads prevail.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)even for a person whose chosen name is a hateful ethnic slur.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Right on, DI. right wingers are black and white for war. left wingers are black and white against war.
Both are illogical.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)While reserving the right to be outraged that the Administration didn't act, when atrocities continue to occur.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)we must push back against those kind of people.
Little people like that masked, coward be header & 'leadership'people like hitler. Our country can not do this alone, it's a global effort against these kind of threats/dictators.
To me the worse thing is the foot dragging by countries like the Saudis, they need to wake up now, not 20 years from now. Not even a month from now. They should participate in a major way, right now.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Here's a thought, you tell the locals to stop thinking of this as Sunni vs Shiite and since Isis is Sunni that doesn't mean the local Sunnis should offer them fist bumps.
Then you cut their support.
That should be easy, just look at McCain's cell phone records.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)how Germany was resisting austerity and UK/US imperialism
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)And the League of Nations will mediate negotiations and send in peacekeepers.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)And we'll have a bunch of OSS agents crawling through the desert.
Plus ça change...
rug
(82,333 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)Czechoslovakia with the Fatherland.
Both the Nazi annexation of Austria in March 1938 and the signing of the Munich Agreement in September 1938 which ceded part of Czechoslovakia to Germany, were allegedly to protect ethnic Germans who were "being mistreated" in those countries.
Prior to that Hitler had not done much outside of Germany's borders. He was not really an international player in January 1938 other than supporting the fascist side in the Spanish civil war. In January 1938, Hitler may not have been 'JV' but he was not in the 'starting lineup' of world leaders either. After March 1938 he definitely joined the 'starting lineup'.
rug
(82,333 posts)Rhineland (1936), suggest otherwise. I won't mention WWII. It's a foolish and odious analogy.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)When do you ship out for basic training by the way? Surely you're willing to sacrifice yourself to defeat this generation's Hitler threat?
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)As much as I'm trying to stay out of this thread (it strikes me as unnecessarily incendiary; see my post above), this riposte of your, Union Scribe, was really funny.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Then how is this remotely analogous to Hitler and WWII?
As a vet, I wonder why some here yell so loud...but squirm away from doing something about it? The cut off last I checked was 36...plenty of time for people to put their money where their mouth is!
So easy to arm chair general these things, by people that have never had to sacrifice anything in their lives. They have a reckless mouth, but always play it safe...my, my where have I seen that from before?
cer7711
(502 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Hunt them down and arrest if possible; kill if not.
Bomb ISIS positions in Iraq to prevent the imminent slaughter of thousands of religious and racial minorities? Certainly.
"Cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war!" and begin flinging bombs willy-nilly all over the Middle East without regard to considerations like blow-back, length and cost of engagement in terms of blood and treasure, and what new forces might then arise to fill the power vacuum caused by the suppression of ISIS? Err, no. Haven't we had enough of that?
We must proceed coolly, thoughtfully, judiciously, in conjunction with our allies. President Obama has it exactly right here. We need to think carrot-&-stick: the elimination of immediate, violent mad-dog threats while assuring the Sunnis that we recognize their legitimate needs and right to healthy political representation and a viable future.
As to your Hitler analogy: If Britain and France hadn't insisted on a brutal, outrageously unfair and cruel reparations policy at the end of WWI, WWII would never have happened. (Basically, Germany was saddled with the costs of the entire war. The world-wide depression that started in 1929 thus hit the Germans exponentially harder.) Woodrow Wilson said as much; he warned the Allies of what would happen if they vengefully insisted on grinding Germany under their boot heels instead of securing a just peace.
They ignored him. Germans were "the hated other": Fritz, the Hun, the Boche, krauts. WWI was "a clash of civilizations", you see; "culture vs. barbarism"; "good vs. evil"; etc. Of course it was. It always is!
And that is the point. War is inherently genocidal and monstrous, dehumanizing and uncontrollable.
We must think before we kill. Debate before we bomb. And reason as soberly, wisely and truly as we know how before plunging ourselves and others into a violent, bottomless abyss--again.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Bring on the WAR!
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We should just allow this to continue.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And we will never be able to stop all inhumanity in this world. Humans have been acting inhumane since time began.
What we can do is teach by example (which we are doing a piss poor job of), quit trying to take over resources in other countries and quit breaking international laws ourselves.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)We helped al-Qaeda and ignoring their threat did us no good.
Sometimes you've got to kill the monster you've created.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)BTW, exactly how did we help create Hitler?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's pretty much commonly believed that had the U.S. not entered, Hitler would have never come to power since he fed off the nationalism of a defeated, and economically depressed, country.
Churchill once said:
"America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives."
So, dominoes. But regardless, ignoring ISIS isn't the answer. It'll continue to spread, just as al-Qaeda did in the 1990s, and we'll be forced to face 'em sooner or later. Better now when they're still fresh(ish) than when they gain even more influence in an already awful region.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That was the all the German people themselves, who were willing to think in large enough numbers they were special, the master race, and deserved the rest of the planet as space for themselves, and could kill the inferior people inhabiting that space so they could have it.
Even AQ and ISIS don't think like that.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because that's what you have here.
rpannier
(24,304 posts)We disagree on some things, but this I can't disagree with
You look at what happened to centuries old communities in Iraq (Christian, minority Islam, etc) and how they were ethnically cleansed and murdered after the fall of Hussein and people don't think this will happen in Syria with ISIS as well
I would rec it a million times
Behind the Aegis
(53,831 posts)This has been a very interesting thread. I am sure there would be some other responses in regards to certain aspects, we shall see.
still_one
(91,947 posts)less from DU
Vots
(24 posts)It's easy to look back in hindsight and say the US should've gotten involved in WWII sooner. We handled it well though. However, your thread is highly misguided.
You're probably acting on emotion, and that's understandable.
After Japan attacked the US and Hitler declared war, it was clear the US had to act militarily. ISIS is just a group. They're a terrorist organization, that make decisions on the best way to psychologically terrorize people. They do this because of US actions in their countries. ISIS is blowback from US foreign policy. US created ISIS. Just like every other mess in the Middle East. They don't hate us because were free (news flash, were not the only free country) they hate us because were over there! Simply getting out of their affairs, stops terrorism and will instantly make us safer. Attacking ISIS will make things even worse.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)but I agree with the just of your post. One thing is certain, killing them (and all the civilians or "collateral damage" along with them) will just fuel more hatred and another group to replace it.
When listening to ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc., their complaints are universal. The United States needs to stop occupying their lands. The United States is the instigator. I fully believe pulling every last presence of United States government from the Middle East would kill the motivation for these terrorists. Resulting in the United States being safer for doing so.
gordianot
(15,226 posts)Now Stalin committed Genocide in labor camps killing probably more than Hitler, Pol Pot had his killing fields in Cambodia many examples can be found in the last 20 years. For all time if not as many as say Stalin, Nazi Germany had to establish industrial murder and rendering of human bodies because even the SS soldiers could not stand the mental strain of mass murder and were becoming casualties themselves. ISIL has quite a way to go before that happens who knows they do seem to be dedicated killers.
still_one
(91,947 posts)cultural revolution if we are talking 20th century
gordianot
(15,226 posts)They established troops and facilities whose sole purpose was handleing intake, killing then processing bodies for profit and disposing of the remains with in the end minimum trauma on those perpetrating the crime. Even the ash was available for fertilizer. In essence industrial level genocide for a profit.
It will be interesting to find out to what degree and what price the ISIS members are paying for the slaughter of fellow human beings. Religious motivated mass murder is very effectivecbut that too has a breaking point.
Tom Ripley
(4,945 posts)still_one
(91,947 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)I wasn't happy with either group. I just wanted any excuse (even if as CTers claimed, he was still alive) to leave the region, have our people come home and take care of business here.
It was ironic that those who were most anguished at the thought of his death then complained about not seeing his body. As if there was something more to prove in any case. They didn't want him dead, but wanted proof he was. In other words, whatever the truth was, they didn't wan to know about it.
I felt no joy at Bin Laden's passing, he was master of his own fate. It just meant that another nightmare was over. But the troubles in that region go back over a millenia.
Doubtless ABL died in just the manner that he wanted to go. His death was merely a symbol of a greater divide between people on the planet. I don't fault those who lost loved ones in 9/11 nor in the wars for celebrating, either.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)loyalty to Obama.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"There sure are a lot of trolls showing up on our 1930s web forum!"
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)KG
(28,749 posts)literally
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Bunch of chamberlains around these parts.
ISIS isn't that big of a threat to the US though, but it is for middle east stability, and, you know, civilians.
pampango
(24,692 posts)about it. I don't see much historical analogy between the rise of ISIS today and Hitler's rise to power and conquest in the 1930's. ISIS may have all the attributes of a fascist organization (other than the adoration of one Strong Man and any kind of coherent economic policy) but it has nowhere near the military potential that Germany had in the early 1930's.
I agree with you that the current Russian government is a much closer historical comparison to Germany in the 1930's. Starting with concern for ethnic 'brothers' in smaller, weaker neighboring countries to annexing parts of those countries to idolizing the leader to mistreatment of gays, women and ethnic minorities to ultranationalism and militarism, there are many similarities. Of course, there are also many differences.
History does not repeat itself exactly but human nature is a constant. The conservative desire for power, greed and national glory have been and still are always around. Likewise, the liberal commitment to idealism, equality and the desire for peace have always been and will always be with us. What worked and did not work in the past should never be ignored even if you have to be smart in how you apply those lessons.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)I agree. I don't even bother to open a lot of threads these days.
RandiFan1290
(6,206 posts)This is almost verbatim from Limbaugh's show yesterday.
I wonder how many in your fan club realize this?
Will DU now allow Rush's monologues?
http://todaysmilitary.com/contact-a-recruiter
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)I see you didn't get a response from the drunk. Perhaps I should post a link to Limbaugh's show yesterday? I want to FEEL the spitting and HEAR the contempt we read in the OP.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)or did you imagine what he must have said?
He actually said He didnt even get close to making you think he was going to apologize for America, Limbaugh said of Obama. He didnt get close to making you think he thinks were responsible for this
But he got practically every important point dead wrong.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)he created.
We and our allies create these monsters both directly and indirectly.
It gives us internal and external enemies to fight to keep us from ever solving our own domestic problems.
sub.theory
(652 posts)Opinion would be as bitterly divided as now.
You'd have the German apologists explaining how it's really all America's fault for defeating Germany in The Great War, crippling their economy, and causing the German people such suffering. How America is the real aggressor in Europe for sending troops onto foreign soil. How the German people are just naturally opposing American imperialism and interference in their affairs. How Germany is no threat to the US, and we need to just leave them alone. That the threat of Germany is all propaganda so the US can conquer Germany. And so on and so forth.
Then you would have the crowd that sees the growing militarization of Germany coupled with it's increasingly bellicose rhetoric as a very ominous presence in the world. The sheer brutality shown to any and all opposing the Nazi government is another worrying sign. The sophistication and incredibly rapid build-up of the German war machine would suggest an enemy best confronted sooner rather than later. The Nazi ideology of Aryan superiority and the demonization of "inferior" races would seem to be an ideology demanding to be confronted too.
So, it would be much the same as now - deeply divided.
Of course, Germany hadn't vowed to drown us all in blood like ISIS has, nor was Germany openly engaging in ethnic and religious cleansing so it's really not the same thing at all.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)With the revenues from the oil fields they've captured, they can certainly purchase that.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)invoking Godwin in your title. Ooga booga back atcha.
distantearlywarning
(4,475 posts)Otherwise I agree with you. I've been quite surprised and dismayed by the Putin apologists around this place over the last few months.
sub.theory
(652 posts)It's The America's Always Wrong Brigade. According to them, everything is always the fault of either the American Government or American culture. Everything. No one and nothing can ever be worse. Putin invades and occupies other countries? America's fault!
They are a very small, but incredibly vocal segment of the left. They are utterly obnoxious, but completely predictable.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Or shouldn't you source him?
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)Since the Holocaust turned out to be so horrible, WW2 stands as basically the only "just" war like, oh, ever. A much better question would be:
How would today's conservatives react in the run up to all the other wars that turned out to be horrible mistakes?
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Into the trash where this boogeyman Hitler bullshit belongs.
FSogol
(45,357 posts)melm00se
(4,973 posts)the analogy is suspect.
if you limit yourself to the information that was available then (say in early 1937) and allowed yourself to consider only new information as it unfolded over time, the analogy is (only slightly) better.
As to DU specifically: Prior to the American entry into World War II, there were small anti-war pockets in the USA. They were comprised of Fascists, Socialists (sort of Communists) and true Pacifists.
The Fascists supported Hitler for ideological reasons.
The Socialists supported Hitler (as well as Stalin) due their mutual non-aggression pact (MolotovRibbentrop). Once, however, Germany invaded the Soviet Union (September 1941), their support of the Hitler-Stalin alliance disappeared overnight. The timing of this loss of support has stoked the "Commies are coming" and the "Commies are here" furnace for the decades that followed.
As for the Pacifists, this small community continued to protest against the war but, eventually, even their attitudes shifted as the war progressed.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)You fucking nailed it, DI.
Sid
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)You've actually got Putin ALREADY increasing oppression of minorities, stealing land from a neighbouring state and starting to throw intimidation ploys at another, and ISIS is where you go with a Hitler comparison?
ISIS WANTS the US dragged into war with them. We're exactly what they want in order to draw together the disparate groups around the Middle East that hate us, in order to further establish their proposed Caliphate by telling everyone that the Christian US is in larger war against Islam.
I'd say deny them the propaganda. Let some ally like France, Spain, or Germany be the 'face' of the west in this area. Support them, provide them intel, but deny ISIS what they want most as a means to growing even larger - a war with the infidel Americans. Don't pull a Bush and give the terrorists exactly what they're begging for.
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,780 posts)I'd wait until we were attacked, and then respond with extreme force. We did provide "covert" aid to both Britain and China.
Had Germany and Italy not declared war on us, it's an open question whether FDR could have gotten support for "Europe First." Granted, FDR knew about Nazi efforts to develop the atom bomb.
However, the better question was "what were we fighting for." Many would simply argue "capitalism" , given our expedient alliance with the USSR. I like to think that our liberation of France, Norway, Denmark, and BenNeLux was a defense of nation states that had representative, democratically elected governments, and allowed for the free and open practice of any religion -- or allowed one to opt out of religion. When I look at the Middle East, I see no such states. I see monarchies that engage in excesses that include, but are not limited to: slavery; oppression of women; religious persecution' and funding of terrorism. There are theocracies that have engages in violent suppression of non-believers. There are military dictatorships that have jailed and murdered their opposition. And there are non-state actors (read: terrorists) who engage in politics through bombings, shootings, kidnappings, and staged executions. There's nothing worthy of our support. There are no "good guys" here.
What is there? Oil. Wouldn't it be an easier, cheaper, and more moral choice to simply learn to live without the oil -- through more efficient use of our current resources and building of renewables?
Rex
(65,616 posts)otherwise, where would they get their daily fix?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Sounds like a good idea. But you have got to realize there may be differences of opinion where best to start.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)1) Invoking Hitler as a basis for military action against this threat or that threat always ends badly. When it comes to evil he was sui generis.
2)) And this is as important as #1, history suggests that Hitler was pretty much dismissed as not a threat and a joke, up to the point where he posed an existential threat and was no joke.
3) Ideologues don't do nuance well.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)who had done that. What's more, we would have suggested helping the Germans rebuild Germany after WWI, as the far left Dems did after WWII.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Excellent OP.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)This is a BS, faulty, fact-free analogy.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Oh,noes!! The rolling-on-the-floor smiley!!1 I lose!!!
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Not a surprise coming from that particular DUer. Obama could turn into Cheney and they would still support him.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And yet, here we are 54 days from the mid-term elections, and those people couldn't care less if the House of Representatives is controlled by Pelosi next year or not.
What's particularly sad is how many members have made personal attacks on Drunken Irishman for simply making a post supporting the President.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)No, this is not "simply a post supporting the President."
And neither was the other one, the one that got hidden by a jury.
librechik
(30,663 posts)The fascists who rule us know we are already helpless, so they don't fear us. They have won.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"Weird."
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)This entire OP was lifted from Limbaugh's show yesterday. Methinks we have some entrenched trolls on DU and swooning admirers.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The President
Executive Order
Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas
Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);
Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. The designation of military areas in any region or locality shall supersede designations of prohibited and restricted areas by the Attorney General under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, and shall supersede the responsibility and authority of the Attorney General under the said Proclamations in respect of such prohibited and restricted areas.
I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.
I hereby further authorize and direct all Executive Departments, independent establishments and other Federal Agencies, to assist the Secretary of War or the said Military Commanders in carrying out this Executive Order, including the furnishing of medical aid, hospitalization, food, clothing, transportation, use of land, shelter, and other supplies, equipment, utilities, facilities, and services.
This order shall not be construed as modifying or limiting in any way the authority heretofore granted under Executive Order No. 8972, dated December 12, 1941, nor shall it be construed as limiting or modifying the duty and responsibility of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with respect to the investigation of alleged acts of sabotage or the duty and responsibility of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice under the Proclamations of December 7 and 8, 1941, prescribing regulations for the conduct and control of alien enemies, except as such duty and responsibility is superseded by the designation of military areas hereunder.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The White House,
February 19, 1942."
I'd imagine all of our self-proclaimed FDR Democrats would lose their fucking minds.
Sid
treestar
(82,383 posts)But no, it's Obama who who expanded war powers!!!!
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)President Obama is following in the path of all Democratic Presidents for over 100 years. Using moral persuasion, diplomacy, and sometimes military force, they have sought to prevent major wars, promote democracy and world development.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)See Post #114.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)he claims to listen to. I have always assumed that Democrats didn't listen to that kind of show.
What Limbaugh actually said He didnt even get close to making you think he was going to apologize for America, Limbaugh said of Obama. He didnt get close to making you think he thinks were responsible for this
But he got practically every important point dead wrong.
So 114 tries to discredit the OP by aligning him with Limbaugh and it isn't true.
That pretty much proves the main point of the OP.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)which has been soundly torn apart for its analogically illogic and useless ad Hominem by almost all other posters here, is a "voice of sanity."
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)since the lie about it being from Limbaugh is untrue.
Which claim was torn apart, the one not made by Limbaugh, or the one made in the OP?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I never assumed it was literally from Limbaugh.
Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)make a literal claim. So now it was literally untrue, but it had some truthiness.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Progressive dog
(6,861 posts)SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)and I believe the 4th was a woman who "shamed" her family.
So when do we start dropping bombs? Oh wait, those beheadings are ok because Saudia Arabia, except for that whole 9/11 hijacking thing, are our allies.
Sorry man, this isn't 1930, I have more information at my fingertips in seconds than Americans had in the entire Library of Congress in 1930. Is ISIS a problem. Yes. Do we need to start dropping bombs because ISIS is a problem?
Let me ask you a question. How many innocent lives would you say ISIS is worth? How much collateral damage do you think is too much when dealing with this "problem"? If your child was in the line of fire, would you be so quick to tell me how "disconnected" I am?
Kill them all, is not an actual viable foreign policy. However we are doing our best to make it so.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)would be accused of ableism.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)if the Allies after WWI hadn't gone for vengeance against Germany after their defeat. A Marshall Plan rather than forcing an impoverished Germany to pay reparations would have short-circuited the Freikorps and later the Nazi Party and given democracy a fighting chance in the early post-Kaiser years.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Congratulations. The BOG has actually morphed into Fox nation.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)Just wow.
Iggo
(47,487 posts)WarKillGood.
Marr
(20,317 posts)There are violent groups all over the globe. The only thing special about ISIS is that it operates on ground that has oil underneath it. That is ultimately why combating it is deemed a priority by our establishment.
If you want to argue that it's important to control those oil reserves, or certain US allies in the region, fine. Who knows-- I might even agree with you.
But don't sit there and wag your finger at people, saying they're full of shit when they express humanitarian concerns. You're the one who is full of shit on that point.
Dick Cheney could have written this crap.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)without flailing like this.
The U.S. caused Hitler to come to power????? WTF??
Logical
(22,457 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)There was quite a large contingent of anti-war folks here in the US.
It was not until Pearl Harbor was bombed that many came to the war camp.
Nobody said that Hitler was not a problem. We were sending supplies to Europe for years before we entered the war.
Hitler spread himself too thin, suffered a harsh Russian winter, and could not maintain long supply lines. So maybe with the help of the Americans he was defeated. Without us, it might have taken a bit longer.
As far as other presidents, they are ALL swayed by the war mongering generals. Many who don't see an iota of combat. They all succumb to their propaganda, and not that the industrialists have a good interest in war, our leaders are swayed by them as well.
Tired of beheading, than you should be tired and want to attack Saudi Arabia. They beheaded 22 people in August.
So don't think that you can bomb ISIS or any other terrorist organization out of existence, because violence only begets violence. You bomb them but if you don't kill EVERYONE, the kids grow up to become more virulent terrorists, and have more kids who also become terrorists. And what of the innocent people that get killed and maimed.
No, each and every president who oversaw any military action where people were killed, especially innocent people, has a debt of karma to pay. Each and every one.
How we get this terrorist, and other terrorist groups to go away is to MAKE them irrelevant. We should start a Manhattan Project style program to get the entire country off of fossil fuels. And when we are done with the US, send it to any country that wants it, free of charge.
We can also stay out of others' civil wars. Who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong? The US is NOT the world's police force, nor are we superior beings to make these decisions. Oh, and did I mention that time and again, when we interfere, and arm one side of these civil wars, the folks who were on our side, become our enemies, shortly after they have done what we ask them.
Find out what kind of military armaments that these folks are using, and where they originated from. I would bet the mortgage that they originated in the US. So we must stop producing these weapons, and buy back any that we have sold or given to other countries. We are not the world's arms salesmen. We must also stop producing the propaganda that glorifies war, violence, and the like, and go to a culture of peace, understanding, nurturing, and community.
Isn't one of the definitions of insanity doing the same stupid thing over and over, and expecting different results. I find it insane that people think that we can bomb our way out of these things. Haven't we learned, after doing this over, and over, and over again that it just does not work?
Perhaps some of us just have to open our eyes a little wider, and look outside the box for REAL solutions. Long lasting solutions that will promote peace, prosperity, and community. After all, Earth is still our only home. There is no plan(et) B.
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)The whole post should be an OP.
We can also stay out of others' civil wars. Who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong? The US is NOT the world's police force, nor are we superior beings to make these decisions. Oh, and did I mention that time and again, when we interfere, and arm one side of these civil wars, the folks who were on our side, become our enemies, shortly after they have done what we ask them.
There it is. One does not need to have the IQ of Einstein to understand it either. Just a little common sense and vision. If the US had wanted to be energy independent it would have started down the path. Instead, we get Chevron Logos on the stage with Victoria Nuland in Kiev while she proudly announces that we've "given" Ukraine 5 BILLION DOLLARS.
Brilliant. Thank You. Now if only people would listen.
840high
(17,196 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was a group of volunteers from the United States who served in the Spanish Civil War as soldiers, technicians, medical personnel and aviators fighting for Spanish Republican forces as part of the International Brigades, against the Fascist forces of Francisco Franco and the Spanish Nationalists.
Of the approximately 2,800 American volunteers,[1] between 750[2] and 800[3] were killed in action or died of wounds or sickness.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)phil89
(1,043 posts)Hitler references,more "we don't want evidence in the form of a mushroom cloud" because Isis will nuke us!) nonsense, etc.
phil89
(1,043 posts)I don't suppose we should allow North Korea to continue their atrocities, and we'd better get over to Africa too. We can't fix these problems and Isis is just the flavor of the month. We have so much to fix at home it's absurd to be wasting resources on Isis. I don't think our "allies" in Iraq are any better, incidentally.
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)I remember being told that the Japanese were bad people and Hitler was a bad, bad man.