You better ready yourself Western Europe, because here they fucking come!

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34155701

 

 

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

 

When did they get pissed off? When we supported Israel? When we taught them how to get oil out of the ground and sell it on the open market? When we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait? or do they just blame us because they can't form their own governments with leaders they can follow without killing everyone around them? The region is utter chaos and they are a miserable people that can't govern themselves, therefore they must be contained or annihilated.

 

You say you live in a neutral country... then be neutral, and stop calling my country assholes. If you can do better you should step up and kick in. It's really easy to do nothing and complain about any outcome.

 

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

 

When did they get pissed off? When we supported Israel? When we taught them how to get oil out of the ground and sell it on the open market? When we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait? or do they just blame us because they can't form their own governments with leaders they can follow without killing everyone around them? The region is utter chaos and they are a miserable people that can't govern themselves, therefore they must be contained or annihilated.

 

You say you live in a neutral country... then be neutral, and stop calling my country assholes. If you can do better you should step up and kick in. It's really easy to do nothing and complain about any outcome.

 

It's the basic idea of Salafism/Wahhabism, which is basically a movement against foreign intervention in the middle east. Although Israel plays a huge factor in it's popularity, I don't think the movement can be attributed to any one specific thing. More like over a century of constant foreign dictation and intervention in the affairs of the Muslim world is what created this movement. 

Yes, it is the wests fault. America is a great nation, but it's foreign policy is going to destroy it.

 

 

He wasn't able to predict the power vacuum or the civil unrest that would follow

 

This is not true Foxy. Everyone knew what would happen if we left. Obama didn't care, and just wanted us out of everywhere. He got his wish because he is in charge. If we were going to get involved, I think we should have just built a massive permanent base in Baghdad and just keep control of the entire region, but no that didn't happen either. So now we have all this.

 

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

 

When did they get pissed off? When we supported Israel? When we taught them how to get oil out of the ground and sell it on the open market? When we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait? or do they just blame us because they can't form their own governments with leaders they can follow without killing everyone around them? The region is utter chaos and they are a miserable people that can't govern themselves, therefore they must be contained or annihilated.

 

You say you live in a neutral country... then be neutral, and stop calling my country assholes. If you can do better you should step up and kick in. It's really easy to do nothing and complain about any outcome.

Kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, after telling him that any conflict between Kuwait and Iraq is not American concern, green lighting your ally Saddam to go invade after arming him for 2 decades, turning a blind eye, supplying and even supporting his chemical attacks.

 

You weren't going to keep in charge of anything, troops or no troops. Nobody likes occupation by invaders, be it but job terroristd or a level headed person with an iota of self respect, integrity and dignity.

 

Case in point: Afghanistan. You're now negotiating with Taliban, you are urging all the players to negotiate, you have reached this conclusion after trillions down the toil

 

 

 

 

my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

 

I'm absolutely positive that we would still be there... with targets on our foreheads. Iran would not have a deal, and ISIS would not exist. Assad would be gone. I'm entitled as well to my own version of positive, but we'll never know for sure because Democrats had to have their turn.

 

 

I really don't think so. I mean, the pull out plan was indeed Bush's plan and we're talking about a guy who couldn't strategize to save his life. He wasn't able to predict the power vacuum or the civil unrest that would follow, while people who knew something about Iraq were screaming it the whole time. ISIS would also still exist. Maybe not as powerful, but the separate groups that created ISIS were around long before Obama took office. The same exact group already existed before we withdrew. The only reason they are now an army and a functioning state is because of the Arab spring in Syria and the fact that AQI were already heavily embedded in Syria as a safe zone just across the border from Iraq. That's why constant fire fights and attacks always happened in the east. The soldiers who fled the west side of Iraq were actually used to constant attacks and firefights. Only on that day, the attack was considerably larger, lasted over 24 hours with numerous car bombs, and by the next morning, all the commanding officers had fled.

And that's how ISIS took 1/3 of Iraq in a day. Because they were able to gain power, organization, consolidation, recruits, weapons, and everything else they needed being embedded in Syria and working with Al-Nusra. Not because there were no American troops there. Before that, the Iraqi army was holding them off on a daily basis just fine.

As for Iran, I'm pretty sure Bush would never go for an Iran with nuclear capability. But IMO, IDC whether Iran has nukes or not. I'm not stupid enough to think that nuclear technology can actually be contained. If a nation wants nukes, they're going to build them and not give two fucks what anyone else says. Pakistan, India and Israel are fine examples. Pakistan with nukes is honestly more terrifying to me than Iran with nukes. Iran is not nearly as aggressive and evil as the west makes it sound. No more evil or aggressive than Israel or the United States. Like all nations, it's not Irans job to please other nations. Only their own.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes, We'd end up like Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, bunch of nations in Latin America, the list goes on.

 

Those who are addicted with military muscle only understand the language if military muscle.

 

Don't worry about our nukes, they're much safer then say some nations having them in Europe, research on recent whistle blowing events in that space. Don't mind the propaganda from so called lobby funded research institutes, after its the same guys who pushed you into Iraqi quagmire. ;-)

 

As for the rest, Lys continues to live an alternate reality, but at least he doesn't pretend that there is some sort of moralistic angle to all the invasions, its about conquest and keeping them down so you remain up even tho they can't really touch you but yea, why even let them off, 30 years latwr they may challenge you for regional power..so cut them down now, that he's gotten right. At least he isn't naive enough to believe all the democracy, freedom, human rights bs etc.

 

 

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

 

When did they get pissed off? When we supported Israel? When we taught them how to get oil out of the ground and sell it on the open market? When we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait? or do they just blame us because they can't form their own governments with leaders they can follow without killing everyone around them? The region is utter chaos and they are a miserable people that can't govern themselves, therefore they must be contained or annihilated.

 

You say you live in a neutral country... then be neutral, and stop calling my country assholes. If you can do better you should step up and kick in. It's really easy to do nothing and complain about any outcome.

Kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, after telling him that any conflict between Kuwait and Iraq is not American concern, green lighting your ally Saddam to go invade after arming him for 2 decades, turning a blind eye, supplying and even supporting his chemical attacks.

 

You weren't going to keep in charge of anything, troops or no troops. Nobody likes occupation by invaders, be it but job terroristd or a level headed person with an iota of self respect, integrity and dignity.

 

Case in point: Afghanistan. You're now negotiating with Taliban, you are urging all the players to negotiate, you have reached this conclusion after trillions down the toil

 

 

my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

 

Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

 

I'm absolutely positive that we would still be there... with targets on our foreheads. Iran would not have a deal, and ISIS would not exist. Assad would be gone. I'm entitled as well to my own version of positive, but we'll never know for sure because Democrats had to have their turn.

 

 

I really don't think so. I mean, the pull out plan was indeed Bush's plan and we're talking about a guy who couldn't strategize to save his life. He wasn't able to predict the power vacuum or the civil unrest that would follow, while people who knew something about Iraq were screaming it the whole time. ISIS would also still exist. Maybe not as powerful, but the separate groups that created ISIS were around long before Obama took office. The same exact group already existed before we withdrew. The only reason they are now an army and a functioning state is because of the Arab spring in Syria and the fact that AQI were already heavily embedded in Syria as a safe zone just across the border from Iraq. That's why constant fire fights and attacks always happened in the east. The soldiers who fled the west side of Iraq were actually used to constant attacks and firefights. Only on that day, the attack was considerably larger, lasted over 24 hours with numerous car bombs, and by the next morning, all the commanding officers had fled.

And that's how ISIS took 1/3 of Iraq in a day. Because they were able to gain power, organization, consolidation, recruits, weapons, and everything else they needed being embedded in Syria and working with Al-Nusra. Not because there were no American troops there. Before that, the Iraqi army was holding them off on a daily basis just fine.

As for Iran, I'm pretty sure Bush would never go for an Iran with nuclear capability. But IMO, IDC whether Iran has nukes or not. I'm not stupid enough to think that nuclear technology can actually be contained. If a nation wants nukes, they're going to build them and not give two fucks what anyone else says. Pakistan, India and Israel are fine examples. Pakistan with nukes is honestly more terrifying to me than Iran with nukes. Iran is not nearly as aggressive and evil as the west makes it sound. No more evil or aggressive than Israel or the United States. Like all nations, it's not Irans job to please other nations. Only their own.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes, We'd end up like Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, bunch of nations in Latin America, the list goes on.

 

Those who are addicted with military muscle only understand the language if military muscle.

 

Don't worry about our nukes, they're much safer then say some nations having them in Europe, research on recent whistle blowing events in that space. Don't mind the propaganda from so called lobby funded research institutes, after its the same guys who pushed you into Iraqi quagmire. ;-)

 

As for the rest, Lys continues to live an alternate reality, but at least he doesn't pretend that there is some sort of moralistic angle to all the invasions, its about conquest and keeping them down so you remain up even tho they can't really touch you but yea, why even let them off, 30 years latwr they may challenge you for regional power..so cut them down now, that he's gotten right. At least he isn't naive enough to believe all the democracy, freedom, human rights bs etc.

 

Well I only say Pakistan is frightening because of the vast anti-American sentiments that come form there. Though I'll be honest. It's hard to tell how much of that is directed at America out of wahhabism and how much is directed at us for the simple fact that Pakistans government has been completely bought off by the US. Maybe it;s a bit of both. I've talked to a few Pakistanis though, and I'll admit, I have yet to actually meet one who fits this type of profile. I've only met maybe 3 people (supposedly) from Pakistan (online). They all seem fairly tolerant, but I still see anti American protests are quite frequent there.

 

Lys reminds me of pretty much the vast majority of people in my state. I disagree with his views, but he has his moments where he shows compassion and really means it. His concerns I feel are very legit, though we have differing opinions on how to address them. I'm actually quite used to his type. Which is why I spend so much time on the web, debating and the like. There's practically no liberals where I live unless they're gay.  

 

 

 

 

They didn't just wake up one day with a plan to attack America, no you pissed them off first and then they woke up with a plan.

When did they get pissed off? When we supported Israel? When we taught them how to get oil out of the ground and sell it on the open market? When we kicked Hussein out of Kuwait? or do they just blame us because they can't form their own governments with leaders they can follow without killing everyone around them? The region is utter chaos and they are a miserable people that can't govern themselves, therefore they must be contained or annihilated.

 

You say you live in a neutral country... then be neutral, and stop calling my country assholes. If you can do better you should step up and kick in. It's really easy to do nothing and complain about any outcome.

Kicked Hussein out of Kuwait, after telling him that any conflict between Kuwait and Iraq is not American concern, green lighting your ally Saddam to go invade after arming him for 2 decades, turning a blind eye, supplying and even supporting his chemical attacks.

 

You weren't going to keep in charge of anything, troops or no troops. Nobody likes occupation by invaders, be it but job terroristd or a level headed person with an iota of self respect, integrity and dignity.

 

Case in point: Afghanistan. You're now negotiating with Taliban, you are urging all the players to negotiate, you have reached this conclusion after trillions down the toil

 

 

my real point is that really you earned more terrorist attacks on US soil.

Yes I understand now. We were supposed to remain content with the amount of terrorist attacks we were getting.

 

 

 

Oh, I'm absolutely positive that Bush would have followed through with his plan and pulled out just like Obama did, when Obama did. Bush wasn't very bright. The fact he invaded Iraq to begin with requires a level of incompetence that's off the charts.

I'm absolutely positive that we would still be there... with targets on our foreheads. Iran would not have a deal, and ISIS would not exist. Assad would be gone. I'm entitled as well to my own version of positive, but we'll never know for sure because Democrats had to have their turn.

 

I really don't think so. I mean, the pull out plan was indeed Bush's plan and we're talking about a guy who couldn't strategize to save his life. He wasn't able to predict the power vacuum or the civil unrest that would follow, while people who knew something about Iraq were screaming it the whole time. ISIS would also still exist. Maybe not as powerful, but the separate groups that created ISIS were around long before Obama took office. The same exact group already existed before we withdrew. The only reason they are now an army and a functioning state is because of the Arab spring in Syria and the fact that AQI were already heavily embedded in Syria as a safe zone just across the border from Iraq. That's why constant fire fights and attacks always happened in the east. The soldiers who fled the west side of Iraq were actually used to constant attacks and firefights. Only on that day, the attack was considerably larger, lasted over 24 hours with numerous car bombs, and by the next morning, all the commanding officers had fled.

And that's how ISIS took 1/3 of Iraq in a day. Because they were able to gain power, organization, consolidation, recruits, weapons, and everything else they needed being embedded in Syria and working with Al-Nusra. Not because there were no American troops there. Before that, the Iraqi army was holding them off on a daily basis just fine.

As for Iran, I'm pretty sure Bush would never go for an Iran with nuclear capability. But IMO, IDC whether Iran has nukes or not. I'm not stupid enough to think that nuclear technology can actually be contained. If a nation wants nukes, they're going to build them and not give two fucks what anyone else says. Pakistan, India and Israel are fine examples. Pakistan with nukes is honestly more terrifying to me than Iran with nukes. Iran is not nearly as aggressive and evil as the west makes it sound. No more evil or aggressive than Israel or the United States. Like all nations, it's not Irans job to please other nations. Only their own.

If Pakistan didn't have nukes, We'd end up like Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, bunch of nations in Latin America, the list goes on.

 

Those who are addicted with military muscle only understand the language if military muscle.

 

Don't worry about our nukes, they're much safer then say some nations having them in Europe, research on recent whistle blowing events in that space. Don't mind the propaganda from so called lobby funded research institutes, after its the same guys who pushed you into Iraqi quagmire. ;-)

 

As for the rest, Lys continues to live an alternate reality, but at least he doesn't pretend that there is some sort of moralistic angle to all the invasions, its about conquest and keeping them down so you remain up even tho they can't really touch you but yea, why even let them off, 30 years latwr they may challenge you for regional power..so cut them down now, that he's gotten right. At least he isn't naive enough to believe all the democracy, freedom, human rights bs etc.

Well I only say Pakistan is frightening because of the vast anti-American sentiments that come form there. Though I'll be honest. It's hard to tell how much of that is directed at America out of wahhabism and how much is directed at us for the simple fact that Pakistans government has been completely bought off by the US. Maybe it;s a bit of both. I've talked to a few Pakistanis though, and I'll admit, I have yet to actually meet one who fits this type of profile. I've only met maybe 3 people (supposedly) from Pakistan (online). They all seem fairly tolerant, but I still see anti American protests are quite frequent there.

 

Lys reminds me of pretty much the vast majority of people in my state. I disagree with his views, but he has his moments where he shows compassion and really means it. His concerns I feel are very legit, though we have differing opinions on how to address them. I'm actually quite used to his type. Which is why I spend so much time on the web, debating and the like. There's practically no liberals where I live unless they're gay.

Fair enough, you might get that picture, I admit there are problems, but anti Americanism stems from the following:

 

1. Soviet war: US funded with ISI and CIA schools the vast majority of madressahs and religious extremism to kick out Soviets, after the war, USA disappeared, leaving Pakistan to deal with a neighbouring country in ruins, its various extremist factions and millions of refugees, then soon afterwards, sanctions were imposed on Pakistan, Pakistan has paid for F-16s which it never received until when they were obselete, we were paid some fucking vegetables for that money. So the generation before mine has that very well in its mind.

 

2. Pakistan, thankfully, does not have wahabism problem it has problem of armed and trained extremists who were nurtured to fight Soviets and later left alone with Pakistan to deal with and then sanctioned Pakistan for decades for a nuclear program which started as a response after India had weaponised its programme. Main sunni sects in Pakistan are deobandi, barelvi and sufis. The extremists in Pakistan actually dislike the ISIL doctrine and Taliban are actually fighting them as they try to encroach.

 

3. Current war on terror, Pakistan suffered over 60 bn in economic damages, got peanuts in return. Bushs plan was stupid with no boots on the ground, allowing many fighters to cross over into fiercly independent tribal lands, that even govt until recently had little or no control. It's defacto open border because Pasthun families live across, they don't give a shit if some Brit officer drew a line and made a border. US kept asking Pakistan to do more for nothing, asked us to man the border while nobody was seen on their side of the broder, our defense budget at the time was what 4 bn, vs 500+ bn of US. So give me a break. Pakistan has suffered more civilians and soldier casualties in war on terror than all of NATO and Sept 11 combined. What we got in return was more threats, and the inevitability that eventually US public is going to get tired, not finish the job and get out, which is happening, so we hedged our bets accordingly, they say we talk to or sometimes harbour extremists, tho they have no problem doing the same in Syria, anyway, US seems to have listened somewhat, and now supports dialogue with Taliban.

 

4. All the idiots that were trained against Soviets and all the madressahs etc, they are the ones that are the trouble makers. They hate anything that does not conform to their extremist views, be it Americans, or Pakistanis, the vast majority. These religious outfits have little or no mass support, sure they can gather some numbers and take out the rally, but just look at the make up of Parliament in Pakistan, they're a minority and even the ones that have seats aren't doing the armed fighting, but mostly rhetoric. Pakistanis don't dislike Americans as people or vast majority of the policies, tho, they do remember vividly the betrayel after the soviet conflict and the general interventionist policies in the region.

 

5. West has provided assylum to gangsters and those viewed terrorists by vast majority of Pakistan. So Pakistanis don't like the fact that double standards are applied to them so openly.

 

All in all, we are a democratic country, the parties that will win election are centrist or left leaning seculars. The army when it takes over tends to be again moderate with exception of Zia Ul Haq, who frankly did it to stick it to Soviets with Americans in bed during Afgan invasion. That guy isn't well liked, every time an extremist blows himself, people are quick to remember Zia Ul Haq, bff and the puppet of Americans :-)

 

6. Hell, actually Wed have preferred trade deals than aid money, most of the aid money that was received ws actually against the expenses incurred by Army for operation, our budgets don't allow us to be in cobtienous fight. The economic aid generally went thru the NGOs, and you know, much of it doesn't reach the people actually.

 

7. -Install anti Pak government in Afghanistan, then tell us to play nice with them, :-) told you Karzai was an idiot, hope those trillion dollars were well invested.

 

 

After the Peshawar massacre, thankfully everybody woke up and we've fucked the terrorists real bad, but hey, no surprise, US again dragging its feet on support, which ones again, highlights the point that no matter what we do, US isn't going to be happy, and they'd rather see us keep fighting and keep the region in flames, from Libya to Pakistan, burn them all down. :-), now, thankfully. Unlike those countries, we actually have a professional standing army that can deal with trouble makers at home and we got a good nuclear deterrant in case someone from outside thinks they'd want to bomb us. What we need to do is now work on ICBMs, we have achieved the technological threshold, I guess, when the political timings are more suitable or someone is saber rattling too much, Wed test one.

 

At the end of the day, if you are weak, you'll get owned no matter the reasons which are generally bs. We need to keep improving our nuclear deterrent. ICBMs and the sub launched vehicles, so we have a triad of ground air and sea launch capability and second strike capability.

 

Sure, we are absolutely no match for US, but a nuke risky intervention is too much for any one :-) we can't fight US nor we want to fight US, a war with US is stupidity. Just want them to understand that we won't jump blindly when you say jump :-). I guess that's the root of the problem. Sure, well take your money but only work till where the interests are aligned, after that, sorry bro.

 

Every time Pakistan has involved itself with US, we got the short end of the stick, there's a saying in Pakistan, the friendship and enmity with US is equally dangerous :-) so yea, lets keep it civil, no need to get chummy or start a brawl. All in all, there are underlying common interests, the interests that are real, anti Pakistan or anti American rhetoric is rhetoric, that can go up and down depending on how things are playing out with those common interests.

Edited September 6, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Oh and we host the highest number of refugees in the world, a country that can't feed all of its own population, those millions came in, we were sanctioned in return :-) so yea, all the complaining from some corners of Europe to me at least looks bizarre. When we can host them in millions with no resources, you surely canz especially those who instigated the whole mess by arming the factions that later turned around and joined ISIL or Al Nusra (aka Al Qaeda).

I'm quite fond of both of you too. You make life a little more interesting

I'm quite fond of both of you too. You make life a little more interesting

Yep, would rather hear a hostile opinion than another bobblehead. I know what Americans in my part of the country think. It's difficult to know what people in other parts of the world think unless they speak up.

 

When it comes to Syria, the only country that can really make a difference there is Turkey. They've got proximity both geographically and culturally to Syria that the United States cannot match. I would be more than happy to support a Turkish intervention, but U.S. intervention is a non-starter. No matter what the U.S. does in Syria, aid or military, the native population will hate. Best to let that part of the world handle their affairs to the best of their ability. We can support Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey, but nothing should be U.S.-led, which is what a lot of posters seem to be calling for.

 

The current War in Yemen is the model I would follow, with interested neighbors and culturally-related nations taking the forefront on the stabilization of troubled nations. Providing funds or support for that is better than any amount of direct aid.

 

U.S. money to Syria will be wasted and pissed on. U.S. military action will just create further hostility. Let other nations police their own people or neighbors. Spend some of that military money on immigration services in the U.S. so we can keep tighter track of high-danger individuals. Surgical strikes are fine provided it targets weapons production capacity or terrorist leadership.

 

I merely give the U.S. as a model of what a country is capable of managing on its own. We've come from a nation that pushed mass extermination of natives and enforced slavery to a nation that recognizes the basic right of people to love each other. This has not been done without pain. Just the Civil Rights movement involved hundreds of dead, even though ti was largely nonviolent. Violent resistance gets more casualties (obviously).

 

Other cultures should walk on their own path to modernization, rather than being pushed down the Western one at the end of a gun or pulled with cash.

Turkish already intervened by attacking the people attacking ISIS.

 

 

 

but nothing should be U.S.-led, which is what a lot of posters seem to be calling for.

Those Arab guys probably don't want US led things or anything led by west, the main problem with the US is they only do things to benefit themselves and in most cases they're the only one who benefits substantially. 

The part that pisses people off is labeling it as giving freedom to those countries by allowing corporations to exploit them, after all the only reason the US attacks them is in the interest of removing someone who doesn't play ball with their interests.

US doesn't give a shit about freedom of the people which should be obvious with republicans and democrats removing the rights of Americans themselves in the latter years. 

The only thing they care about is the freedom of money and resources into their pockets and the pockets of corporations in the US.

Turkish already intervened by attacking the people attacking ISIS.

 

 

 

but nothing should be U.S.-led, which is what a lot of posters seem to be calling for.

Those Arab guys probably don't want US led things or anything led by west, the main problem with the US is they only do things to benefit themselves and in most cases they're the only one who benefits substantially. 

The part that pisses people off is labeling it as giving freedom to those countries by allowing corporations to exploit them, after all the only reason the US attacks them is in the interest of removing someone who doesn't play ball with their interests.

US doesn't give a shit about freedom of the people which should be obvious with republicans and democrats removing the rights of Americans themselves in the latter years. 

The only thing they care about is the freedom of money and resources into their pockets and the pockets of corporations in the US.

Again, quite a broad brush to paint 300 million people with. I know quite a few people who would like to abandon the whole U.S.-hegemony thing, but I have a difficult time getting them to be politically active. Too much Netflix and not enough attention span. Part of the issue is the news media pushing American cultural superiority, when there's quite a bit we could take from Europe or even the Middle East. Not everything is about material well-being, although that can be blasphemy to some conservatives. Once a baseline wealth has been developed, relationships and experience become much more important, and people would do well to remember that. Sadly, the media has brainwashed everyone into their two-car garage life and European vacations. Europe is beautiful, but it's not worth half of your income and tons of carbon emissions to go.

 

As I've told Lysistra before, you would be surprised with the reaction against conservatism in the Millenial generation. The Internet has been a tremendous blow to the materialistic point-of-view in the U.S. More understand that the world has multiple viewpoints, and fewer believe in imposing their own on others.

 

As for "only going to war to benefit Americans", that's kinda the nature of motivation. You're more likely to lend money or give time to friends and family rather than to strangers. If a stranger wants you to do something for them, you ask for money and it's called a job or you do it anyway and it's called charity. I don't mind people giving money to help other countries, but it should be limited to what the receiving country can actually use without creating a corruption culture, like charity has done in some of Africa. More is not always better.

 

Wars have been fought over resources for millennia, whether it be African tribes grabbing slaves for sale or British boats enforcing opium sales. I doubt the resources in Iraq or Afghanistan were worth the money put into them, and it isn't like the U.S. government will be taking those resources by fiat. They'll go on the world market to be sold like everything else. Kinda odd that the elites would pay for the war, pay for the reconstruction, and then pay for the resources at market rates if they truly intended to be self-serving.

 

Afghanistan wasn't really a war for resources, since they don't have any easily-accessible ones. It was a war born out of insecurity and a misguided belief that you can change an entire culture over a few short years. Iraq was different, and I still have no idea how much coke W. Bush was snorting when he came up with it. Last thing we can do is leave them now, but we don't need to be getting involved in Libya or Syria.

 

Edit: And good on Turkey getting involved. If they need support, they should get it, but they should remain in the leading role.

 

Ultimately, Shepard, it sounds like you and I agree on the future role of the U.S. in international politics. Now I just have to convince more of my fellows.

 

Second Edit because I think too much: If the rest of the world wants to help get the U.S. off of their backs, they need to stop portraying themselves as victims. They need to show themselves as cultures developing in their own way and that don't need political help from the U.S.

 

The problem with constant victimhood is that the U.S. is a lone-wolf hero culture. We see ourselves as Batman, as Superman, as Spiderman. For the older generation, it's the renegade cop who disobeys orders to take down the drug kingpin and rescue the girl. We will never, ever, see ourselves as villains because that is a basic psychological defense mechanism. Otherwise the whole race would have committed suicide already. And sorry all you well-wishers, but that ain't happening. You have to deal with us just like we have to deal with North Korea and Cuba.

 

If you portray another nation or people as an innocent victim, the American instinct is to form up a rescue. That comes in the form of aid, yes, but also as bombs and guns and troops. The U.S. will come in guns ablazin' ready to get the girl. That's a deeply-ingrained part of our culture. One that I think needs to change, but that will take decades.

 

Instead, you'd be better off taking the North Korea and Cuba route. Do we hate them? Yes. Could we get resources from them? A definite yes in Cuba's case. Why doesn't the U.S. invade them constantly? Because these countries have always been careful to portray themselves as equals. Not just enemies, but equals. They refuse victimhood. And that means the U.S. treats them as hostile, but legitimate nations. You play the victim card, and the U.S. will treat you like a cat stuck in a tree. If you want respect as a culture, stop playing the victim and show that you are capable of solving your own problems like Egypt and Ukraine did.

Edited September 8, 201511 yr by Duderonomy

I agree with those who mostly blame the US for general shit disturbing in the region. Every single place where there has been US/Nato intervention there is now chaos.

 

They talk about wanting to stop ISIS but refuse to co-operate with the only forces in the region capable of seriously opposing them: Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. Instead they just drop bombs around indiscriminately and kill as many civilians as ISIS fighters. Same old, same old.

 

Best would be for all western powers to stay the hell out of it and let the locals sort it out.

 

My country Canada is also part of the problem, not the solution. Hopefully we get rid of Harper next month but the other guys don't inspire much confidence either.

I agree with those who mostly blame the US for general shit disturbing in the region. Every single place where there has been US/Nato intervention there is now chaos.

 

They talk about wanting to stop ISIS but refuse to co-operate with the only forces in the region capable of seriously opposing them: Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. Instead they just drop bombs around indiscriminately and kill as many civilians as ISIS fighters. Same old, same old.

 

Best would be for all western powers to stay the hell out of it and let the locals sort it out.

 

My country Canada is also part of the problem, not the solution. Hopefully we get rid of Harper next month but the other guys don't inspire much confidence either.

For sure. If we actually want to stop ISIS, we need to get over our ego and actually work with Syria and Iran. Turkey should just piss off and stay the fuck out. They pretend to be helping us while actually helping ISIS. Our allies in that region are ass backwards. 

 

"Let's fight Sunni extremism by opposing Shia governments!" 

 

But overall, yeah, we should just stay the hell out of the middle east. None of our allies there even like us. They pretend to like us out of convenience... And oil...

A million have come in 2015, more to follow: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35158769

 

Fucking ridiculous, and I'm still not seeing any definitive action from the EU.

I agree with those who mostly blame the US for general shit disturbing in the region. Every single place where there has been US/Nato intervention there is now chaos.

 

They talk about wanting to stop ISIS but refuse to co-operate with the only forces in the region capable of seriously opposing them: Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. Instead they just drop bombs around indiscriminately and kill as many civilians as ISIS fighters. Same old, same old.

 

Best would be for all western powers to stay the hell out of it and let the locals sort it out.

 

My country Canada is also part of the problem, not the solution. Hopefully we get rid of Harper next month but the other guys don't inspire much confidence either.

Congrats on getting rid of Harper!

*Looks at a few of the comments* Okay, to interject some simpleton-ness into this:

Go ahead, blame the US, but mind you, not ALL of us here in the US wanted this crap, nor do some of us want to deal with more migrants/refugees/whatever when we have so many problems here, that it's almost uncanny. I say we let the people migrating/whatever into the states that were more active to desiring the wars/bombings that caused this mess.

 

Am I for helping? Sure, but after we get at least our shit together first. Pretty sure there is more than enough civil unrest here to go around...oh wait...

*Looks at a few of the comments* Okay, to interject some simpleton-ness into this:

 

Go ahead, blame the US, but mind you, not ALL of us here in the US wanted this crap, nor do some of us want to deal with more migrants/refugees/whatever when we have so many problems here, that it's almost uncanny. I say we let the people migrating/whatever into the states that were more active to desiring the wars/bombings that caused this mess.

 

Am I for helping? Sure, but after we get at least our shit together first. Pretty sure there is more than enough civil unrest here to go around...oh wait...

And that is why it is important to differentiate criticism of government and or people.

 

In almost all the cases, the criticism is directed at governments and not the "people", but normally, on the flip side, the criticism coming from other side is directed at " people", stuff like Refugees are lazy, Refugees dont want to fight, they're there because they're off to leech into the system etc. Yea they're all stupid and dumb and take their kids of the land and out them on the boat and some crazy lunatics were roaming around their houses, destroying their homes, raping their daughters using funds, weapons and training coming in from you-take-a-guess.

 

My friend, where is the public pressure to alter the policy? Where is the democracy in action? You come out once 4-5 years, pt in a ballot paper on whoever sold you the dreams and sit back and then get apalled, "yo what's going on".

 

And BTW, I'm very much the same as mentioned above. Just sayin'. West generally has a more educated "public". And it's not like, once elected, politicians give a shit. Iraq war hadntje biggest demonstrations, politicians didn't do shit, and turns out, the collective mind of the masses protesting out there was right on.

 

And to be honest it's bit hypocritical of me as well to say all this, i VE voted once, before that I didn't really believe in the system, election process here is full of holes and often gets rigged and my vote doesn't matter, but yea, I figured, my vote makes it yet another vote the cheaters would need to rig, why make their life easier , I voted anti establishment politically rebel party, out with the old rot, in with the new.

Edited December 30, 201510 yr by Shahenshah

This is what happens when you unconditionally let scum into your country:

 

http://www.thelocal.de/20160104/refugees-blamed-for-mass-sexual-assault-in-cologne

 

This is only going to get worse though, so brace yourselves Europeans!

It's mostly the US's fault, we should send the extremists to America so they can have their fun.

You keep 'em. We have republicans, they're extremist enough.

This is what happens when you unconditionally let scum into your country:

 

http://www.thelocal.de/20160104/refugees-blamed-for-mass-sexual-assault-in-cologne

 

This is only going to get worse though, so brace yourselves Europeans!

*awaits the people being identified as 3rd generation lowlifes*

 

This is what happens when you unconditionally let scum into your country:

 

http://www.thelocal.de/20160104/refugees-blamed-for-mass-sexual-assault-in-cologne

 

This is only going to get worse though, so brace yourselves Europeans!

*awaits the people being identified as 3rd generation lowlifes*

 

 

Man would that be a relief. Then we could continue to retain the belief that the new arrivals can be successfully integrated into European societies like they have been for the past few decades. Oh wait.

I'm not sure why people are ok with this, I hope one day it explodes and we chase these guys out of Europe. 

 

It's mostly the US's fault, we should send the extremists to America so they can have their fun.

You keep 'em. We have republicans, they're extremist enough.

 

 

Or politicians in general; YAY two party system!

I'm not sure why people are ok with this, I hope one day it explodes and we chase these guys out of Europe.

Dude..

 

This thread actually makes me damn proud of my 'third world' nation, which has accepted millions of refugees over the years even when all of the so called developed nations can't even handle even half of that number

 

I'm not sure why people are ok with this, I hope one day it explodes and we chase these guys out of Europe.

Dude..

 

This thread actually makes me damn proud of my 'third world' nation, which has accepted millions of refugees over the years even when all of the so called developed nations can't even handle even half of that number

 

 

I'm mainly talking about Muslims and generally people who do harm as such in this case by raping and mistreating women on a grand scale as they did do in their own countries as well. They treat women like shit, we don't need them here. 

I think it would be a good policy to only allow women and young families (mainly just women though) to enter Europe, at least that way Muslims would be forced to integrate.

 

India isn't exactly a country that is capable of taking care of it's own citizens never mind refugees so there's nothing really to be proud of except that you have some landmass you can throw more people you don't care about in just to boost the workforce.