ISIS forms IS
- Thread starter chopstickchakra
- Start date
chopstickchakra
Active member
South Korea's not even close to the same situation. In South Korea we positioned bases of a country with a common government to oppose the invasion by the North. Pakistan we didn't have conflict with so I'll ignore that and Iraq was an overthrowing of an established government with no intention of replacing it, if the US had stopped in Korea and not listened to MacArthur they would have given control to the South Koreans.
Oh.
I don't know.
Perhaps this:
[video=youtube;RLkQm5kDEbk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLkQm5kDEbk[/video]
I mean - far be it from me to criticize how people go about having fun and enjoying themselves.
But it is generally frowned upon in civilized nations to shoot other motorists.
On another point - you have absolutely no idea what the media is or isn't doing.
This is the problem with Western media - people know something is horribly wrong - but they never quite figure out what it is. That is actually by design.
You see - the media discusses the who. They never discuss the what. They never address the reality or the facts - only what people say and only what people accuse. It is an ingenious divisive tactic that gets people to polarize along the lines of their preferred gladiators rather than actually come to an understanding with regards to the facts.
Even the dreaded "Faux News" is part of this scheme. It exists merely to placate conservatives just enough to keep true news sources from gaining much traction in the U.S. It pretends to be the opposition - it pretends to ask the hard questions - but it still focuses on the 'who' and never dares to address the 'what.'
Because once you start presenting people with reality - they become capable of making their own decisions and will be less likely to adhere to the gladiators they believe are championing their cause.
Which is why you don't see the discussion of the facts regarding the missing IRS e-mails. You don't hear a discussion of the facts regarding the sudden storm of immigrants coming from the south - or the fact that they are being bussed (and FLOWN) around the country with diseases such as Scabies, Tuberculosis, and Leprosy. You might see brief mention of it - but you won't see any discussion of the details and you won't see the work of the reporters who are trying to get through the security (instructed to prevent filming and witnesses to the scenes) broadcast on the evening news.
Because those are facts. Facts destroy corruption.
The media is well designed to make you think that by choosing to be "somewhat skeptical" of both 'sides' of the media - you are grounding yourself in some variety of truth and developing a rational outlook on the world. It's not that they present lies - it's that they do not discuss the events and the facts of reality - only beat around the bush while grabbing as many opinions from politicians and talking-heads as possible.
It's actually a very ingenious machine when you sit back and watch it so efficiently polarize our society and how effectively it gets us to silence each other. This has been aided by the era of Facebook - where people simply share pithy memes with each other and the site is designed almost expressly to give the illusion of being connected with people while being completely obstructive to discussing ideas.
Try debating with people on Facebook and watch how fast you get put on an ignore list. It's designed to allow you to drown yourself in mental masturbation of your ego, devoid of conflict and 'negativity.' Simply share things that you agree with, see the number next to the thumbs-up rise, and squash anyone who ruins the sweet bliss of being an awesome and enlightened human being connected with friends.
But I digress (and am intentionally speaking in an unconventional/uncomfortable way).
I'm from the generation that started socializing on internet forums before MySpace even existed. So I don't see Facebook as this marvelous, wondrous thing. I see it as a gimped (but popular) way of trying to keep in relative contact with people (particularly those who are distant). It's effective for that.
But try doing anything remotely serious with it - and the interface completely falls apart (not to mention the people who are completely incapable of dealing with someone commenting in a manner that is not sucking off their ego - I've driven family members to 'unfriend' me because I refuse to comply with the "thou shalt only comment support" commandment of Facebook; I don't hate them, and I would not turn them away - but it just goes to show you the type of behavior Facebook's structure promotes).
Anyway - I digress, horribly.
I am not so sure about this.
There are numerous issues with what happened in Iraq. There are talks of traitors within the ranks, of commanders who failed to give orders. Further, many in the army didn't exactly know what they were up against (or what they were fighting to protect).
I think some of that has changed. The Iraqi military has rebounded and recovered some resolve. They are not at all where they should be - but they have avoided a complete collapse.
ISIS had the advantage of being something of an unknown element in the beginning. When even the Sunni population is beginning to resist the advancement and actions of ISIS - you know that the gains ISIS has enjoyed are going to be harder to earn. People know what they are about, now - and not just the "Islamic Caliphate" - but the random killings and disregard for established power structures.
Holding power within Iraq will be a bit more challenging for them than I think they are counting on.
While many in the U.S. have been quick to say that the Iraqi people did not learn from or take to heart the experience of freedom - and they do have a point - I think this is one of the learning lessons that will either solidify their will to be sovereign or destroy any possibility of an independent sovereign will.
In other words - the very act of allowing ISIS to advance is teaching them precisely why our lessons and training should have been taken to heart. They are learning exactly what they can lose if they don't figure it out.
Our president just needs to shut the hell up about "bipartisan" and "reaching across the aisle" - because he's not helping. If a group like ISIS coming through to throw them out of power and shoot motorists for fun does not force them to settle into a functionally cooperative relationship - then nothing will.
That, and not everything that happens requires government action. He really needs to stop leading them down the road to fascism and totalitarianism. The smartest thing they might be doing right now is ignoring him.
Anyway - when it comes to conquering the established nations... that is going to be a much more difficult fight. If every sovereign nation over there crumbled every time some warlord preached about forming a caliphate - then there would never be sovereign nations in the middle east. The fact is that the reality of agreeing to this 'caliphate' means many of the people who currently enjoy a position of power/influence would no longer have it (or have serious contest to it). That usually tends to rain upon the parade of those who speak of such large goals.
Taking on a country like Iran or Saudi Arabia is a much tougher cookie. Iran is struggling against the expansion of western influence - economics means ideas spread with the money - so an enriched Iran means a solid flow of ideas, few of which are conducive to Sharia Law as a whole.
I don't see the public over there welcoming ISIS with open arms. While there are some who will - the same can be said of just about anywhere. Reports are coming in that there are quite a few young Americans from muslim communities who are seeking to join in the establishment of a Caliphate. Because they are young and full of ambition without really having the wisdom to see what it is they are getting involved in.
The challenge will be for ISIS to actually appeal enough to the people for them to be able to destabilize other nations. And that will be hard, even in the Muslim regions of the world.
And it's simply not going to happen if they want to push as far north as the Balkans.
The Serbs and Bosnians were able to throw off Ottoman rule back in the days when they were merely peasants prohibited from having much of anything other than agriculture. While there are enough Muslims in those regions to potentially destabilize them - it's hard to tell exactly which side of the fence they will fall on. The collapse of Yugoslavia has necessarily caused populations to concentrate to some degree. When you suspect your neighbor might just try to cleanse you from existence - you tend to find new neighbors.
That means causing a destabilization is much harder - as people can draw a very clear line in the sand and say: "people on that side of the line are part of the Caliphate, and people on this side are not. Try to cross that line and we'll slaughter you."
There were numerous times the Turks tried to invade the Christian lands - and there were quite a few borders they were never successful at breaching. I don't think time has shrunk those borders - but has expanded them, instead. Lands that were once incapable of mounting organized resistance are now independent, sovereign lands that cannot simply be regarded as rural peasants.
That, and I'm starting to get friends over in that region of the globe - and if I have reason to believe The Caliphate is Coming to their region - I'll be there to teach them how to make it exceedingly difficult for the Caliphate to accomplish its goals and to stand beside them in helping them do so. They will just have to accept that I celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December (the Winter Solstice) - because I like my heretical protestant traditions. ... Actually - I really don't care. Any day is a good day to make lots of food and have lots of people over for various antics.
Actually - I'd have to do a bit more research on Eastern Orthodox Christianity to better understand what separates it from Catholicism (which is what Protestantism broke from...).
Anyway - the point is - while ISIS is certainly 'on the radar' - the fact that they are 'on the radar' mean they are going to be facing challenges that they have been spared, so far.
It's a different culture and a different campaign.
When we landed in Japan (and in Korea) - we already had their Constitution drafted for them. We told them how their government was going to work and they were made to comply with that. They were made to understand that we won the war and they lost.
Same thing with Germany.
Korea was a bit different than Japan and Germany in that Japan -destroyed- them when they withdrew. Before the Japanese left their occupation of Korea - they cut down every tree on the peninsula. Which is why, even to this day, you can see that all of the trees on the mountains are planted in rows (easier in the spring). It's also why the Koreans will go ape-shit if you damage a tree while you're there.
So they were just ****ing glad to have people give them food (since they were boiling grass and all).
As we rebuilt them - they began to prosper because their culture is naturally rather industrious. They started cutting terraces into mountains to grow food, etc.
Then their demented family to the north decided it wanted to invade - and it wasn't exactly a secret that they were not doing so well up there.
So why, pray tell, would they want to let that guy come in and ruin what they were enjoying down there?
As a result, everything outside of the Pusan Perimeter (a very small region that we and the South Korean army were able to maintain through both major pushes the North made) was shelled to rubble (spare for a few temples). The Korean war was absolutely devastating. There are still a few of the older Koreans that, when you get them drunk, will tell stories of loading bombs onto American airplanes that would take off and drop their bombs while circling back to land (that is how close they were to being over-run) - just to load more on as quickly as possible.
The biggest difference is that Korea fought for her independence alongside us. They took the stand, and saw how we jumped in and died right alongside them so that they (or at least their kids) could live in a free society.
Iraq has a long history of trying to kill itself. You have the Kurds, the Shia, and the Sunni. The cultural context is a bit different, there. While, yes, we did get rid of Saddam (who was hated because he kept them from mounting efforts to cleanse each other from existence), we also were seen as something of an interloping 'peacemaker' who had this alien idea that those people should be allowed to be a part of our government.
Think 1994 Yugoslavia, except all Muslim.
So when we left - the result was predictable. Those people were shunned and stomped on by the government with more of our people and then the insane Sunnis from Syria came in (who just happened to be aligned ideologically with the muslims who were being oppressed in Iraq).
So the result was all predictable.
Which is why we needed to smack them upside the head with a constitution. It would have gone a long way toward breaking up the 'old lines' and showing them that those distinctions didn't need to exist (as we did with Germany - politics of division and ethnic cleansings are very normal in Europe - particularly in the eastern sections that have only recently killed each other to the point where they've settled into relatively peaceful borders).
But, you know, if we did that we would have been mean.
SHARINGAN_USER UCHIHA_ITACHI
Active member
Awards
whether its Al Quaida, Taaliban, Abu Sayyaf or ISIS (Daaesh) etc , they are all branches of the same tree, every time they come up with a new name to gain ppl's sympathy and then they show their real faces! fuk em all!
Jin Hayami
Active member
We'll bomb ISIS. Arm the Kurds and encourage them to handle it in whatever way they desire. Then the government is gonna let Iraq rely on Russia to save their asses and put the last decade of war there to waste when Russia get priority over us on the oil contracts. And once again the Obama Administration shoots America in the foot.