seriously. while i agree with what you're saying jim, that's still a bullshit answer. just cause we don't in one place justifies not doing it in another? that's a crock of shit. and yes, its logical that we want to influence a region that's strategic to us. pretty much the only reasons for intervening in any conflicts are: 1) to honor our alliegences and ally agreements (ie. backing the UK's play for example) 2) to protect our interests economically or strategically (ie. iraq) 3) to prevent another country we're not allied with from gaining influence in a neutral area (ie. ukraine, germany in the cold war) 4) to stop an atrocity so horrific that the world can't stand any more of it #4 is probably pretty loose as we don't just rush in to every bad situation to save the day. i'm sure UK and France and Japan attacking had more to do on paper with us entering WWII than anything about saving Jews. every once in a while though we'll do the righteous thing and save somebody innocent from being annihilated. pretty much that's it though. Rwanda had about zero of those first 3 things happening... #4 has to play on people's heart strings a lot usually, and following a shitty operation like Somalia, it makes it hard to push thru.
Now, that's a damn solid idea. It would certainly be a hell of a lot cheaper than what we're doing now. :up:
that has been studied and proven pretty substantially actually. even though it was a halfway joke post. job opportunities and schooling and future prosperity go hand in hand with people not really wanting to throw their life away. its the same with all these young fighters as it is the same with all the young dudes who join gangs in america. if you have something to do, or a job, or something you're working towards, or expendable income that you can use for fun and activities, or access and a push towards higher learning, you're less likely to engage in destructive behaviors. when you have no prospects, no food, no clothes on your back, no hope for a better life, you feel like you don't have a place in the world... then its way easier to get sucked in by a smooth talker or promises of brotherhood and a better life thru conflict or negative activities.
I dunno.. Iran was all modern and chit back in the 70s, until the revolution there. Then they went backward 50yrs.
Tehran is still all modern and pretty damn liberal as far as that region goes. and there's a bunch of money there. that place is a weird fucking mix of stern religious bullshit and government control, and wannabe-european chic and style and culture... Chanel bags and new Range Rovers and stylish fashions abound. it isn't Saudi Arabia that's for damn sure.
Sorry, that's BS. I was in the military during the Rwanda deal. I was reading the newspapers. I figured I was going. There was barely a peep about sending anyone over there. It was a huge shock to me. We sat on our collective asses and let 800,000 people get hacked to death with machetes. Like it or not, ISIS is a country. They won it via conquest, just like everyone else who has started a country. Unless we plan to go in there and kill them all, we may want to start dealing with their leaders.
silly. dont you know that only we are allowed to seize land through conquest, murder the indigenous people, and sell the resources of that land. American moral imperative and all that shit.
One would hope the Administration would do one or the other. It is painfully apparent the fence sitting "dont want to offend the rest of the world but want to give the impression we are doing something" approach is not that effective.
I was actually thinking the first option but was trying to be non confrontational today so put the "beer summit" photo op option out there too.
Are they terrorosts, or are they partiuclarly violent empire builders? Right now I'd lean toward the latter. If they start blowing up buildings in New York, I'll reconsider.
Don't get huffy. My comment was aimed more at crashman because I know his leanings. I'm not ready to write ISIS into history as freedom fighters either though. In fact I'd say your characterization is particular flattering. They don't need to pick a fight with me for me to form an opinion of them.
I used to think an abundance of porn and videos games might distract them. Nope. Many of these guys traveling thousands of miles to get in the fight come from well-off families have all this shit already. It's not important to them.
That's funn, I'll let my friends know that they really weren't flying recon missions over Rwanda. Yes, in fact, P-3's were flying recon missions over Rwanda. I would guess, that they may have been supporting some sort of activity on the ground, since that is what we do. Are they recognized by any countries as a country? Do they have a central government? Do they have any means of governing their people? No. They are not a country.
You do realize they are Al Qaeda right? They kinda did that whole 9/11 attack that killed 3,000 people in the WTC in New York, the Pentagon, and in PA. Your nation builder is in fact a terrorist.
