Nobel Peace Prize winner allows troops to behead children

Page 4 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

15 Oct 2017, 7:22 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


Do you have Spotify?

How do you know that? Nuking 2 cities was the worst crime in history.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

15 Oct 2017, 10:24 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


Do you have Spotify?

How do you know that? Nuking 2 cities was the worst crime in history.


Do I what-a-fy?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

17 Oct 2017, 11:30 am

Spotify. There's a good Chomsky talk on there about intervention where he talks about the US's first actions in the war.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


EclecticWarrior
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2016
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,001
Location: Cool places

17 Oct 2017, 5:53 pm

Beheading anyone is a barbaric act. How would they like it if they were beheaded?


_________________
~Zinc Alloy aka. Russell~

WP's most sparkling member.

DX classic autism 1995, AS 2003, depression 2008

~INFP~


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

17 Oct 2017, 6:54 pm

JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


Do you have Spotify?

How do you know that? Nuking 2 cities was the worst crime in history.

While the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty bad, it was not the worst crime in history: humanity has always been good at doing evil, very very good.
The point still stand that Japan is better off today; back then, under a fascist government, life in Japan was very hard and had nothing to do with the prosperity and liberty they have today.(Peoples who grew up in Japan during the war certainly impacted kids around the world with some very dark children's anime. )

Don't look at things in such in a black and white way; the US may not have the best intentions in Syria, but Russia neither, and the life there won't get better under Assad.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

19 Oct 2017, 5:49 am

Tollorin wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
So for the US they now face a growing problem in extremist islamic groups like ISIS, they are making alliances with Assad for temporary benefit in fighting ISIS much the same way as the US made temporary alliances with Saddam Hussein when Iran was going "fundi" or the Mujahadeen militants (future Taliban) in Afghanistan when Russia was sending troops. Saddam Hussein overeached his licence and once he was deemed no longer useful was conveniently converted into a monster.


In all fairness, the US had sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran in their war, apparently hoping they would keep each other preoccupied indefinitely. Not that it was right, but it was Saddam who had cut his ties to America when he realized he was being used - and only later did he overstep his perceived bounds.


That's disgusting. It was war industry profits.


I never, ever, said that was the right thing to do morally. And while it did doubtlessly help the arms industry, the main point was to keep two aggressive powers at each others throats instead of attacking anyone else.
As for your previous post: what source do you have for America supporting the Nazis in North Africa, and for opposing Anti-Nazi resistance in Italy? America's first act upon shedding neutrality and entering the war had been to declare war on Japan.
Yes, Japan is better off today than it had been when they had been part of the Axis powers.


Do you have Spotify?

How do you know that? Nuking 2 cities was the worst crime in history.

While the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty bad, it was not the worst crime in history: humanity has always been good at doing evil, very very good.
The point still stand that Japan is better off today; back then, under a fascist government, life in Japan was very hard and had nothing to do with the prosperity and liberty they have today.(Peoples who grew up in Japan during the war certainly impacted kids around the world with some very dark children's anime. )

Don't look at things in such in a black and white way; the US may not have the best intentions in Syria, but Russia neither, and the life there won't get better under Assad.


You're right, it was the genocide of the native Americans, but maybe that's ok if the country is "better off today" right?

People are still suffering today because if the nukes. Would it be justified today to nuke two US cities, given their crimes across the world if that made them "better off" in 20 years?

Japan had already changed the government and agreed to a deal if the US left the Emperor alone.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,873
Location: temperate zone

19 Oct 2017, 9:38 am

JohnPowell wrote:
He's the only candidate and recent leader that done something different in Syria. Bush1, B.Clinton, Bush2, Clinton, Obama or Sanders would all have helped the conflict drag on, leading to more and more deaths and the destruction of the country.


Done something different?

What has Trump done differently than Obama, or from Bush?

When he campaigned Trump never claimed to have ANY foreign policy other than to spout occasional pieces of self-contradictory gibberish like "I want stop war, and I wanna wage war on ISIS".

So when he gets elected, surprise! surprise! he admitted he didn't know what he was doing. So ordered the generals to study how to win. And he ended up just continuing the same policy of Obama of "leading from the rear" which was slowly working, and continues to work (they've taken back both Mosul and Raquaa).

But lets forget about Trump, about how Trump is just following the same trajectory in the Middle East as both Bush and Obama.

If you don't like our policy then what is your better idea?

How would you solve it? Would you let ISIS win, or what?



JohnPowell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2016
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,806
Location: Palestine

02 Nov 2017, 12:28 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
He's the only candidate and recent leader that done something different in Syria. Bush1, B.Clinton, Bush2, Clinton, Obama or Sanders would all have helped the conflict drag on, leading to more and more deaths and the destruction of the country.


Done something different?

What has Trump done differently than Obama, or from Bush?

When he campaigned Trump never claimed to have ANY foreign policy other than to spout occasional pieces of self-contradictory gibberish like "I want stop war, and I wanna wage war on ISIS".

So when he gets elected, surprise! surprise! he admitted he didn't know what he was doing. So ordered the generals to study how to win. And he ended up just continuing the same policy of Obama of "leading from the rear" which was slowly working, and continues to work (they've taken back both Mosul and Raquaa).

But lets forget about Trump, about how Trump is just following the same trajectory in the Middle East as both Bush and Obama.

If you don't like our policy then what is your better idea?

How would you solve it? Would you let ISIS win, or what?


He stopped funding Al Qaeda in Syria.

He said you can't fight a war on two fronts, as in fighting Assad and his enemies.

I wouldn't have gone into Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, then there wouldn't be an ISIS. Support the people fighting them though now.


_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

13 Nov 2017, 3:48 pm

An update
UK celebrity and human rights campaigner Bob Geldorf has called Suu Kyi a "handmaiden to genocide"
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/bob ... b57de39756

He and a number of prominent UK individuals are calling for her to be stripped of her Nobel peace prize, The City of Dublin has yesterday revoked her "freedom of the city" award

This illustrates the problem with projecting western concepts of morality on other cultures, Suu Kyi was praised as a western educated, highly intelligent human rights champion but she always considers "her people" in ethnic terms. Her silence over extrajudicial killing of women and children ahould be a lesson to the Nobel peace committee to not hand out awards without due consideration