Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

So I just wanted to make a thread about the current major geo-political crises on most of the world’s mind right now, specifically the civil wars in the Ukraine, Iraq/Syria, and Israel’s recent incursion into Gaza.

I understand the topics are varied and this thread could switch between conversations frequently, but since there doesn't seem to be any topics that reflect the current situations (As the revolution in the Ukraine has turned to a full fledged war, and the war in Syria has expanded into Iraq, and could quite possibly outside of even these two countries).

What are some possible solutions you could see put in place to solve these issues, and if this thread could answer some questions some of us might have.

I know one I have right now is the capability of Novorossiya and their armed wing. While I believe the Islamic State is a greater threat to the West, at the same time the Iraqi military has no interest in holding Sunni lands, so their rout was somewhat expected. Meanwhile the separatists have managed to put up some resistance to much better disciplined and equipped force. And they're shooting down of the MH17 flight is abhorrent, but impressive as it shows their capabilities, and separates them from a mere ragtag group of armed dissidents.

Secondly, how active is Russia in their co-operation. I can see Putin investing some resources into the movement, but is this claim legitimate or mere specualtion?

How bout instead of having a partisan pissing contest, we just discuss the issue at hand.

What are the cold hard facts behind this (Im looking go Husky and warforger for this one since yall two seem to be able to sleuth out good neutral information)?

I doubt a physic wall does much as the surrounding geography of the border is pretty harsh to begin with.
Also how accurate is the idea that illegals strain the economy, is that just conservative talk or are there actual facts behind it?

And a little out of topic, but whats the Cartels status as of now? I always hear the whole gang culture aspect of immigration (even those these groups have graduated way beyond a mere gang) as a reason to keep em from coming over. Do they still have much of Mexico in a vice or have they largely been pushed back

first and fore-most people should understand that evil is an entity in this world. Whether you chose to believe in a God or not is irrelevant to the question of morality, so please do not drag religion into this debate as we will get nowhere.

That being said you can not disprove it. Morality is not malleable, despite the clamoring of social rejects online, trying to find ways to justify their revenge fantasies, or the self-absorbed popular jock/cheerleader trying to justify their apathy to the plight of others.

When we see evil we recognize it, murder is murder, despite the ritualistic sacrifices of some cultures, no out right killing of an individual for no reason, hell even for revenge, in all societies has been tolerated, not by the Nazi's, Vikings, nor even the Aztecs. Did they believe some were less human than they, yes. But there in lies the idea, they do not justify killing their fellow man.

Only by deeming these people less than man, did they allow for the violence against them occur.

What does this have to do with school shootings you ask? Simply thus: Evil exists and we must get used to it, and by doing so prepare for it.

Stop blaming these acts on guns/ violent culture a la videogames, movies, etc./ mental illness.

There are people in this world that enjoy inflicting harm. These twisted demons find excuses to justify their sick urge for it, some are more truthful than others and admit to this lust, others still indoctrinated by society to hold to an idea of a conscious must find some way to justify it.

Let me also say this, there is no difference between Osama Bin Laden and James Holms, other than scope and setting.

One was simply born into a society, where his bloodlust could be directed to a population his own were largely against, and had as other cultures have before labeled as less than human in order to justify their violence.

There is a difference between a terrorist and insurgent, Al Qaeda and Taliban. One seeks a tangible idea, to establish a government they feel is right, or act on revenge against a killing of a loved one. The other seeks a fantasy and uses violence to achieve it, they don't go abroad to fight, they go abroad to learn how to harm their native society.

How many international jihadisst are terrorists, I ask? Is it ever a case where a fighter survives a few clashes with the government, only to then hop on a plane and then blow himself up? Instead they stay where they are and fight, it is a particular individual who wants to kill himself and others in a grand scale.

A suicide bomber vs a mass shooter are the same beast, they target not prey not predator. Too weak to ever last a prolonged fight with equals, they target those weaker then themselves. Using weapons that place them untouchable to their victims, knowing retaliation will be minimal or non existent.

And such acts often end in the suicide of the perpetrator, they want to die, but not before making a statement. Their acts of violence is their podium, not because they truly believe it, but because they want to belong, lie to themselves that what theyre doing is for any other reason than bloodlust.

These people are obvious to spot, because it is innate. Like a sheep knows to identify a wolf, we push these people to the fringes of society, because we see through them. We can't explain it and often times we just label them weird or distant, but its no coincidence these people who commit such senseless acts of violence find themselves of the fringes to begin with.

They don't belong, and it is unfortunate that they exist only to be raised in such a cruel manner, but nature is nature and sometimes that's the way it is.

I've tried to keep up with the whole geo-political situation in the Middle East, So if I say anything here that's incorrect or seems in factual feel free to correct me.

Wouldn't Obama's best bet be to fund the Kurds. I understand the need to fund the moderate rebels (and by this I'm assuming he means the FSA in particular). They' seem to be honest revolutionaries who wanted to oust a tyrant, only that their movement was swept up in radical jihad, whose attention has (if the media is to be believed) shifted to the East in Anbar, and other Iraqi Sunni provinces, and have thus been largely left to die after being both battered by Assad and ISIS.

But what's the military situation to the West like anyway? It was my impression that Assad has a firm grip on the coast and much of Syria, and has simply allowed ISIS to burn itself out in Iraq. Last I heard they bombed some of the border towns that ISIS holds, so wouldn't that mean that they are secure enough in the West to divert ordinance and manpower against ISIS, or was that more a PR stunt to gain favor with the Shi'ites? And how are the FSA faring in the war, haven't they lost most of their fighters and territory to either ISIS or Assad.

And why does it seem like we (the US) always give the Kurds the short end of the stick. They're the only secular and pro-West group it seems like. Hell ISIS is due to fall any day now it seems, what if the Maliki's gang getting pushed back to Baghdad, the Sunnis are just gonna rise up against them as their help in pushing out the Shi'ites is over, wasn't this the same move they pulled on AQI when they pushed US forces out pre-surge?

It seems to me like the Kurds are the only ones who can keep their shit straight, and are honestly willing to take the time and energy needed to maintain a state, one which would be pro-West and moderate. Hell they stood with us against Saddam and Al-Qaeda, now with Turkey easing off them, and Israel clamoring for their independence, why bother keeping them back all in order to uphold some invisible meaningless lines drawn in the Sand hundred years ago?

At 7/21/13 10:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/21/13 10:16 PM, Korriken wrote: so, if it's ok that a black or latino politician wants to focus on helping black/latino children, would be it fine for, say, a white politician to say he wants to help the white children?

You're assuming that the system doesn't already favor white children, which it clearly does.

What "system" government?

See this is the stuff that people on the right are talking about.

Yes no doubt whites enjoy more benefits than blacks, and yes it's a shame the African community is what it is, but look you have a black man in office.

Before him in one of the more conservative administrations (Georige boy II) , despite being labelled as "not caring for blacks", most important people in his cabinet were black. And before him there have been prominent black politicians in office, are they uncommon sure, but they're there none the less.

Despite what the media claims the whole issue of race is not the same as it was before the day of MLK, just because one black kid picked the wrong fight and died over it does not mean that racism is now somehow back with a vengeance.

And besides the Blacks, there are other races in this country.

Look the Latinos, have brought this on themselves, and I'm not saying their mistreatment is deserved, but when you flood this country in droves without even going through the proper legal channels or getting a proper education what did you think would happen?

You'd be granted instant citizen ship and a nice 6 figure job? That's just sheer ignorance on your part.

And finally here's what I have to say, slavery was bad yes, no doubt, socially crippling even, but it's been 160 years since.
The Jews have made a glorious comeback from the practicalbrink of extinction only 50 years ago.

The Asian Americans who came to this country in the mid 19th century have also made great strides in this country and are upholding, peaceful citizens.

Other races have gone through shit before the blacks are not the first, at some point the blame falls on them for doing nothing about their situation.

At 7/16/13 10:02 AM, NewgroundsMike wrote:

At 7/14/13 11:36 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: He's British he let's unarmed police "protect" him. He doesn't understand the concept of protecting yourself.

The police are there to keep order. It's their f***ing job, let them do it. But no, that's "communist".

He's trying to say an unarmed police officer is useless since they have no power without a weapon to intimidate criminals, and to his credit he's not far off.

Hell even armed police officers are still a target here in the United States, I can't believe some sort of criminal uprising occurred when that law was passed

How, it's night and the kid is wearing a hoodie, any person without Night vision goggles or cat eyes would have some degree of difficulty identifying the race of such an individual in that environment.

At 7/15/13 05:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/15/13 01:25 PM, Ceratisa wrote: But it wasn't racial. Why are you making it sound like it was? The FBI said it wasn't, and Zimmerman didn't even know TM's race initially.

I don't believe that for a second. EVEN IF it were not racial, Zimmerman still targetted a young man, overtly acted threatening toward him, and proceeded to engage him when every indicator would have told a normal person to stay back. Because he engaged well beyond his boundaries and those of a normal person, Martin ended up dead. That places a good deal of the responsibility (not legal, but moral) upon him.

In short, if Zimmerman wasn't a fucking idiot, Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would be free and clear, not only of jail as he is now, but of the massive stigma he intentionally brought upon himself.

Dude I'm an affluent white kid decked out in vineyard vines and sperry's and I was still questioned by cops one time simply for walking around after dark, so to say it was racist, considering this Latino showed no such previous racial tension before is simple pandering to "black injustice" outrage.

This type of profiling happens to everyone, yes greatly more so to Blacks than any other race I will not say otherwise, but to say it's only exclusive to blacks is stupid, also anyone wandering around at night on a fucking Sunday no less is suspicious in the first place.

Second, George had a gun. He killed Martin because he felt threatened. If he was the supposed aggressor (and I will admit he most certainly was the one who started it in terms of following and heckling him, but not the one who threw the first punch) why would he wait til he was thrown on the ground and having the shit knocked out of him to react?

If he was approaching a suspicious person he felt was dangerous would he not have had his hands on the gun while confronting this kid, and if so, would he not have shot him then and there rather then on the floor after having his ass handed to him?

The fact that Trayvon had no other bruises save for his knuckles, and given his size compared to Zimbo's, I highly doubt this kid knew some martial arts or at the very least street smart fighting techniques to bring this hefty man to the ground in a frontal assault then wail on him for half of minute before being gunned down.

Now If I'm wrong then I'm wrong and I'll admit to such, but it seems to me Trayvon jumped him and lost the fight since he initiated a gun fight, with out a gun.

At 7/14/13 12:00 PM, RokaJak wrote:

Christians sprewing garbage about prayers and faith, but that was online. Nothing pertaining to the legitimacy of the judicial

I think you just topped him by saying something even more ignorant and stupid, and mind you completely unrelated to the trial, and f.y.i. a vast majority of the black population are christian. So go show off your Atheism elsewhere where it's relevant.

And no it's not murder, the man was found innocent in a court of law. As it is murder is a legal definition in the first place, the kill was the kill and nothing more, and since he was found NOT GUILTY of murder, no murder took place.

And let's take a deep breath, forget all this white guilt or racism nonsense and look at the evidence.

A Kid is wandering around a Neighborhood at night, my question that seems to have not been answered is why. Now before any libtard starts pointing fingers calling me racist because I 'believe' some wandering black kid must be up to no good, shut up. I've done the same in my own neighborhood and even been stopped by cops at night as a white, so no I know he might be coming from.

Now the reason I say might is because what is the answer, was he coming back from a party or was no reason given. Did any of his friends say what it was that he was doing out that night?

Second his character, there's been a lot thrown at Zimmy but not as much towards Martin. From what it seems he was suspended 3 times. Now I've been suspended before and I'm not calling him a bad kid. People do stupid shit, we all do, so I don't hold it to him.

However to call this kid some perfect angel is not entirely correct either, you don't get suspended thrice without having some sort of issue. Whether or not that makes him violent is another thing. However some of the photos on his phone shows that probably wasn't adverse to fighting.

Now does all this mean he deserved to die, no. But what it does show is that the kid got a hothead and fought someone, gained the upper hand apparently, and the coward resorted to his handguard immediately.

Now I will say this, how it all went down matters. If Martin struck first after feeling threatened than it's his fault, he had a right to be mad, but turning to fight some one stalking you rather than calling the cops or help, or simply talking to the man instead was stupid.

However if Zimmerman continually harassed the kid even if they did tell him to stop or back off and yet initiated a fight with a kid instead of simply threatening him off, or trying to talk to him, than all the blame falls to him.

But as it seems the latter option may have been the more accurate account of events considering the Jury ruled in his favor.

Look, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty.

I hate all this racial shit that was forced onto this case, and to try to make Zimmerman as some 'oppressive racist whitey', please.

Yes an altercation occurred that could have been avoided, but No One save for Zimmerman was there that night.

He was tried in a due process and was found not guilty, despite ALL the handicaps he had, not only was the Public calling for his death (in some cases literally), but the Judge herself clearly favored the prosecution, and yet he was found guilty by 6 women no less.

I don't know what to say, that they're all racist and acquitted him as some symbolic 'Fuck You' to Civil Rights or the Black Population?

Justice has been served today, In the state of Florida there is the Stand Your Ground Law, and Georgie's actions that day were found in compliance with that law, so this ruling is nothing but lawful.

Whether or not George's actions were moral that night is a different story, but one that I find Gray. There is no evidence that suggests the man purposely went out to kill him. Trayvon made the mistake to confront the man and engage in a fight with him, he entered a gunfight unknowingly.

That being said it was also not right for George to play Batman and try to apprehend the kid for simply waltzing around his neighborhood.

Honestly, the real tragedy of this is how retarded the Media has played this to be Rodney King 2.0, hell probably right down to the race riots as well given the happenings in Oakland.

At 5/8/13 05:25 PM, darkjam wrote: If anybody doesn't understand how the story will continue, find all the picot things in Assassins creed 3. Or if you're too lazy, I'll explain. Basically the Animus gets and upgrade allowing other people to go into memories of others and we will play as a Templar agent in Abstergo, tracking Desmond's memories using his DNA.

Thank God.

I don't know about you guys but I abhorred the whole sci-fi plot twist the series built up. I'm not talking about the Animus that was original and clever, DNA memories make a shit-ton of sense, fiction yes, but not at all something out of left field.

Then at the end of AC1 you get hit with this object that took a backseat (and continually did for a majority of each and every installment, at least for the numbered games) and derp-de-herp Ancient Aliens are behind every conspiracy and the assassins parkour because they're part alien, etc.

It was so fucking stupid and convulted I can't believe they actually went with this for so long.

I mean we already suspended disbelief for the idea of DNA memory and giving into NWO/Templar conspiracies and then they lay the whole alien thing on top of us?

Please is it so fucking hard to simply have a game set during your period. I mean the whole subplot (meta-plot really I guess) had little to do with the actual game, AC1 showed it's power for a boss fight, Ezio had no interaction at all with the stupid things til the end of the game (then they started cranking out those shitty spin-offs, which I thankfully never bought).

Connor had the most interaction with them, but even still they were so forced into the story, he could of found Achilles by word of mouth or just running into him, instead they HAVE to have Juno show him.

I mean they could have scrapped that whole alien/pieces of eden shit and the game would be no different.

Haytham would still go to America, just to spread the Templars and wipe out Assassins, and boom the rest of the plot is easily set in motion from there.

I just hope for once, when this game starts, all that happens is some Abstergo goon saying here's the Animus, here's Edward Kenway, go see what he did, have fun, end of story, and LEAVE ME IN THE ANIMUS.

At 6/25/13 11:23 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 6/25/13 10:42 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Sheer Cold Logic

Thank you for that, that was a much better post of what I was trying to convey.

I find it laughably ironic how the idiots of this generation openly endorse social media, and yet condemn the NSA "snooping".

Please, I give more a shit of a picture of me black out drunk with a multitude of dicks sharpied into my face avaiable for all employers and family members to see with a simple google search, compared to some obscure suit in a cramped office somewhere in Washington sifting through emails, forums, and posts to see if I plan on bombing a national landmark or event in a crowded metropolis.

The problem with people is they foresee some 'big brother' '1984' conspiracy where the government will track us to make sure that when we step out of line they'll drop a hellfire missile from above, when in reality the government has neither the power nor the will to follow on such actions.

For fuck's sake it took us 20 years to finally kill Bin Laden, you expect the government to be able to mobilize some hit team on every truther conspiracy nut based on emails/blog posts? Even with this system, we've only stopped 50 terrorist attacks, and yet the Tsarnaev's managed to maim hundreds and kill 5.

Don't you think if this government was so corrupt and so overseeing as you people claim these numbers would be in the triple digits.

And even if it was at the end of the day, the government has responsibilities. Keeping it's citizens safe is one of them, if you don't trust it to handle such given power properly, than the responsibility is on YOU, to ensure you elect the right people.

I'm sick of huge numbers of people refusing to vote for president claiming they're votes won't count because they were too god damn lazy to vote in the people who WOULD be voting in the Commander in Chief, Democracy only works if you work with it.

Clearly any attempt from me to argue with you will just end in you shaking your head and screaming religion is for the irrational sheeple or some other nonsense like that.

And for your counter to my Crusades, you don't follow history much do you? If you did you'd actually have a counter to my argument other than "LOL YOU'RE SO STUPID IT TOTES WAS RELIGIOUS"

At 6/18/13 08:27 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 6/18/13 07:37 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Would it be so hard to waste 1 hour every Sunday (or whatever prayer ritual needed for the certain religion), and live your life in an ethical manner that would be no different than any other moral human being.

You really do have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

Except that the modern ethics if religions are completely different from the ones that were used to found each religion.

How so? Murder is outlawed by every religion, as is Adultery, Theft, and the likes. There is hardly any difference between what a religious person would find moral with a secular person.

:Except that the ethics of modern religions are the result of erosion caused by the progression of western philosophy.

Wrong this was a result of the Dark Ages. And guess who during these times kept most of the classical works written by the ancients such as Plato and Socrates, the Church. Specifically in the Monasteries found in Ireland as they were not a target during the many invasions that ravaged the rest of Europe.

:Except that the vast wealth of modern religions, held as millions of acres of prime real estate, beautiful billion dollar architectural feats in the midst of broken economies, corrupted officials who use their positions to ruin the lives of children, lie to practitioners, start wars against other religious communities, and oppress certain sectors of the population.

That's a fault of the individual not the person. Religion can't stop a corrupt King from bribing or threatening others to let his son into the Clergy. There's a thing called free will, God won't just send a bolt of lightning to whoever he chooses on Earth for choosing their actions, that judgment comes at the end of their life.

Except that the Bibles have been rewritten many times over the course of history.

Yeah, Dead Sea Scrolls basically thwarts this idea.

Except that the Quran (and other books) has been used to murder, rape, and oppress.

So too has ethnic divisions, political ideals and social strife.Should we then discard the very idea of government because it can fall into the hands of evil.

And please, fuck the Crusades. It was never a holy war, that was just the bullshit fed to the peasants to justify it. It was a cry of help from the Byzantines who were losing their lands inch by inch every day to the Muslims. The Europeans simply jumped on the idea for war to simply gain more land.

If it was a holy war as you say it was, then these kings wouldn't have sat content with their new founded kingdoms for decades before actually launching an offensive at Jerusalem. Nor would they have sacked Constantinople, merely for plunder during the "Fourth Crusade".

Nor would the European kings immediately turn on the Church by killing every last templar they could get their hands on simply because they were in debt to them. Nor would the Kings of England and France immediately return home to simply wage a war for land, when merely a year or two ago they were such "friends" under the Crusader Cause.

Except that the Baghavad Gita is used to promote necrocannibalism, unhealthy practices, and intolerance.

I can't speak for that religion as a Catholic

Except that many religious leaders say that God would not allow Climate Change to happen, and so it should not worry us.

That's evangelical kooks, as a Catholic I was taught not only to fear Global warming but also learn Chemistry, Physics, Biology (and yes that means Evolution), and Earth Science.

And trust me, writing down God as an answer simply got you an F and ridicule from the Class.

You also show blind ignorance about religion by merely listening to most vocal of them and allowing a single sect to speak for the entirety of a religion, when in reality the Catholic Church is the original and true Christian Faith.

By your logic I should judge the entirety of the German people based on the actions of the NAZI's or the entirety of the Muslims based on the Jihadists, give me a break.

And for a society devoid of religion, that didn't work too well under the Soviets and Directory of France now did it?

Ultimately, I just see it as insurance.

So here we are, and despite all the science you have and statistics can you really be sure 100%? Sure the adult who denies heaven is active, but what about the child who learnt to fear hell?

Would it be so hard to waste 1 hour every Sunday (or whatever prayer ritual needed for the certain religion), and live your life in an ethical manner that would be no different than any other moral human being.

You really do have nothing to lose, but everything to gain.

Honestly, who here would actually be glad he left?

I mean, yeah as ignorant as he may be the forum is more lively because of him, and on the plus side, when conservatives and liberals clash too much, at least they can always come together to attack Poniboii.

The political forum would get that much more dull.

If Mc'Cain seriously wants to invade syria he's off his rocker. Look I respect the man for his service and think he get's too much shit from the left, look the man served this country in an exemplary manner, sure he maybe a right wing kook at times, but the man has earned the right if anything to babble like an idiot.

No one's asking you to listen. I hate it when some of the more weasley guys take shots at him.Say what you want about him the man has a steel set on him for what he did and should have some respect. It kinda annoys me whenever Stewart attacks him, meanwhile he'll give just a much respect to any other veteran on his show.

So his respect for Mc'Cain's service is void, because of his political view points? That's certainly mature of him.

And in regards to right wing hardliners wanting the middle east to self implode, it's just xenophobia. They'd be saying that shit about the Chinese if we were never involved in these wars. To them any foreigner is a bad thing.

Though I must admit from an entirely 'realpolitik' standpoint, we would be better off if we just let the Syrians self implode and take out everyone with them, while being as far away from the resulting fallout as possible, whlie keeping our borders iron-clad

At 6/17/13 11:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/17/13 11:31 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: shit like this

The use of prior inconsistent statements is a very good and very proper debate tactic. It's not shit to call someone out for saying one thing and doing another.

You do realize he was saying how the media paints people as something merely by picking the information/traits that best suit their intended description.

That's what he was doing with the Obama/Hitler comparison.

And to Feoric, I wouldn't take this guy's views on politics seriously.

At 6/17/13 08:37 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/17/13 04:53 PM, Korriken wrote: nothing other than what the same people defending him said made Bush into Hitler.

Personally, I'm tired of all the 'he's hitler' remarks.

I'm guessing you're a changed man.

I read that to mean If he so choose, he could make Obama comparable to Hitler.

Just as the Left media can choose to view Rush as some far right kook (which to me I believe he is a bit).

Though it was a stretch to begin with.

Dude no offense, but it seems to me the short time I've been on this forum a good bit of the personal fights stem from you by posting shit like this, just saying.

At 6/17/13 09:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/17/13 08:58 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

At 6/17/13 07:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/17/13 07:25 PM, Korriken wrote: get the rebels to bring down Assad to weaken Russia's hand in the middle east, then go after Iran to weaken North Korea and Iran.

I seem to remember a couple of buildings in New York that don't exist anymore largely because of course of action exactly like the one you're suggesting. Do we really want another Afghanistan?

Back it up there buddy, that's a can of worms you just opened up.

No, not really. You'r trying to tell me that a mandarin and an orange are not related because of minute details, when in reality they are extremely similar.

Sure, there was other stuff in Afghanistan. Yet, the bottom line i exactly the same. We gave weapons to a group with questionable views toward us and then once the direct job was done, we left with all of our weapons still there ready to take part in a mssive poweder left by the very event we were there to assist in.

The Muhj were mostly afghan, they were friendly to the US, mostly because we gave them the arms needed to fight off the soviets, but hey 10 years later, even though we abandoned them they still came to our aid during the war. When Massoud (the man whom we did business with mostly) was double-crossed,those who stayed loyal to him became the Northern Alliance (aka the only guys who continued to remain friends with us) and fought Gulbuddin's boys.

When the Taliban came in Gulbuddin and his boys folded into their's, while the N.A. (the true muhj) were forced back into the North where they would fight for a solid decade before we came in.

So no, their views were never questionable towards us, they were allies, and it's only when the Paki's fucked everything over. The average fighter Pre-Taliban Afghanistan was friendly to the U.S. but when we simply left them after the Soviets withdrew they were bitter against us, and once the Taliban came in (who are staunchly Islamic/anti-West) did they adopt their views when they folded into that larger group.

We took a volatile situation got our gain and left the place rife for upheaval. Not just general upheaval, but the kind of upheaval that breeds terrorism against the US. If we merely arm the rebels and then they win, we will have done the same. Their loyalties are very questionable and many of them have already expressed anti-US sentiment. When Assad falls there will be a MASSIVE power vaccum. Cue the infighting and voila, we're right where we left Afghanistan in the 1980s. On top of that, there are numerous powers in the region who drool at the opportunity to plant terroristic anti-US sentiment.

I agree with that part, I will say we did leave the Muhj to their own once the Soviets were dealt with, and that was wrong, but Reagan was getting too much shit from the Contra's I doubt the public or Congress would let him continue to fund more rebellions, and Bush just backed off the whole idea, probably due to that fallout.

But as with this, again just leave it be, we can do anything that won't hurt us.

At 6/17/13 07:31 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/17/13 07:25 PM, Korriken wrote: get the rebels to bring down Assad to weaken Russia's hand in the middle east, then go after Iran to weaken North Korea and Iran.

I seem to remember a couple of buildings in New York that don't exist anymore largely because of course of action exactly like the one you're suggesting. Do we really want another Afghanistan?

Back it up there buddy, that's a can of worms you just opened up.

First what we did in Afghanistan was justified, every power during the Cold War did nothing different than what we did there, so a) let's not blame the U.S. for being alone in such actions.

b) You are the one telling us to help aid the rebels in their fight, why? Because Assad is a horrible despot whose killing off civilians left and right, you mean just like the Soviets and their puppet government in Afghanistan? I fail to see why aiding them there should be any different then aiding the Syrians.

c) We did good there. We gave them weapons to fight them off, did it bite us in the ass. No. Why? Because once the Soviets and Afghan marxists were removed we left, because our job was over. We aided them and that was it, we did the right thing there and let the Afghan people build their own government. And what happened next? Civil War that disrupted the nation for 10 years.

D) "IN OUR ATTEMPT TO DEFEAT COMMUNIST WE GAVE WEAPONS TO EVERYONE THAT FELL INTO THE HANDS OF AL-QAEDA, DOH!". Wrong. We gave weapons to the Mujaheddin, a ragtag group of collected individuals all fighting for a jihad to remove the Soviets.

However, the difference here was we knew the leader and was in good terms with the man, who was a quite admirable and noble human being, Ahmed Shah Massoud.

Then he got double crossed by his chief lieutenant, and in the midst of their war, Pakistan fucked them all over by sending in ISI funded and trained Taliban to snatch the country.

Then that fucked them over, as the Taliban became a rabid dog that the Paki's couldn't control.

And finally we did jack shit to help Al-Qaeda, because first of all, it didn't exist during that time period, the whole organization was an offshoot of Maktab al-Khidamat, which Bin Laden only co-founded.

He then broke it up into Al-Qaeda, killed off everyone associated with the former organization went into to Terrorism shortly after the Gulf War, and no we didn't give the man a dime. He had plenty of his own wealth.

The only thing we did was pump money into the ISI. They're the ones who should take full blunt of the blame for the situation that happened in that country, because every time they lost control of one of their proxy armies they just decided to build a new one to cover the loss.

I fail to see how, to the posters (as conservative and racist as they may be) that advocate sitting back and doing nothing constitute a "war-hawk".

Look If I ever gave the vibe that I dislike Islam, Muslims, or Arabic Culture, than that was never my intent, I do find flaws with those cultures and that religion (and be aware it's not exclusive I know there are faults with all religions and cultures), but at the end of the day, no I'd rather not see the entirety of the Middle East Destroyed.

That being said, please, just because we don't want to enter into a war we have no business in being, whether that be with troops on the ground, or supplying of arms through proxies, does NOT make such people holding these view points as racist.

That's every bit as childish and ignorant as blaming this war on the Syrian People and claiming they some how "deserve it".

At 6/17/13 02:13 PM, Fim wrote: At 6/17/13 09:56 AM,Psycho666 wrote:

what an incredibly ill informed and narrow minded point of view you have there, read a book.

I fail to see what you're point of view on his, he was merely stating the facts and the situation that leads to such civil strife. He merely gave us the multiple outcomes of such rising strife and the different outcomes they took in the various countries in the Middle East.

Assad is simply clinging to power, because he doesn't want to end up like Gaddafi (not that that's a justification for what he's doing under any circumstance).

At 6/15/13 01:58 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 6/15/13 01:20 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: Seriously just ban this guy already, and while we're at some one needs to get around to banning Super Hitler as well, I mean are the trolls out today or what?

Sure lets ban a guy because you don't agree with his opinion LOL. Grow up.

I don't care about banning you, you actually hold some good political views, albeit some.

At 6/15/13 02:21 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 6/15/13 01:12 AM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: stuff

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said here.

Than my bad for laying down that rant on you. Glad we see eye to eye.

Seriously just ban this guy already, and while we're at some one needs to get around to banning Super Hitler as well, I mean are the trolls out today or what?

Oh stop it, these people have never hated our freedom, true, but that doesn't mean they don't have a burning hatred of us already.

And no we will never send boots on the ground I know that but we shouldn't send them small arms either. The last time we tried that in bit us in the ass.

The only noble and decent leader in that mess of mountains and sand was Massoud, and even he, with all his charisma and loyalty was doubled crossed, and had his country overrun by ISI-trained goat-herders who subsequently let Al Qaeda in and gave them their weapons to use freely on Americans and undeserving Afghans and others.

Now look, if we give these people guns they WILL give them to the Extremists. They can not afford not to.

Do you really think they won't give them these arms and lose potential allies, crucial to the overall cause, for some country half the globe away who has done nothing for the Middle East other than rain destruction and death amongst it (in their minds, though in some cases they are correct), just so they can gain an embassy and some distant man's "seal of approval" for the new government.

They don't give a shit about the U.S. or it's interests there, so even if we do arm them, they won't return the favor by stabilizing the region or exerting influence to end sectarian violence. What has Iraq done for us? Go out and make friends with Iran, and China. So what do you think they will do in turn?

And do you think when these men take power, they will be the most calm and rational, one can hope so but it won't be the case. Most likely whoever subdues the population and controls the largest militia will lead the war-torn country.

These people don't give two shits about us, if the roles were reversed do you think they'd be so eager to help the U.S. Fuck,what country other than the U.S. has been so pressured to police and care for the world? I haven't seen France or any other European power be so inclined to go out and remove dictators and establish democracies without frequent request for support from the U.S.

And where has this policy led us? To the country with the lowest approval rating around the globe and treated with scorn abroad.

Look I don't like the situation, and I don't like innocents being killed, but we can not so much as give these people a single bullet. What we can and should do is give them aid in healthcare and diplomacy, work with other countries to try and oust Assad, enforce sanctions on government held cities and the like, but what we can not is aid the rebels, it will only back fire.

History repeats itself, and there is no instance of which the U.S. has successfully armed an outside proxy to our benefit.

It didn't work in Cuba, it didn't work with Nicaragua, it didn't work in Angola, it didn't work in S. Vietnam, it didn't work in Iran, it didn't work in Afghanistan, so why should it work now?

For fuck's sake a black man's in office just accept that.

Every president has taken such trips on the tax payer's dollar, what Obama is doing is nothing new. Even Reagan and Teddy the most Republican presidents.

Let's get one thing settled, if you hated Iraq and yet are so eager to enter this, then the real "fuck you" is reserved especially for you. And no Fim or Feoric I'm not targeting you, I will however do so if you also believed Iraq to be a mess.

This is the shit that pisses me off, when we entered that hell-hole all the liberals flipped out about what would happen and how we'd fuck up the country, then we booted Saddam and his Baathist asshole com padres and we had a stable country.

Then Dubya retardedly disbanded the army and let all hell brake loose, and liberals continually bitched about us making a mistake how we're doomed and we fucked over a country we had no right in being (Ironically despite all the bloodshed that's occurred the country is actually a relatively stable democracy).

Now we have Assad, who unlike Saddam, has showed no intention of aggression on us in recent and past times, and now all the people on left, ironically those who opposed US involvement in Iraq, want us to throw away more lives for some low-life jihadists who will turn on us the second they handle Assad.

Now I know Assad's a tyrannical despot, and he should be ousted, but these rebels will be no better than them. Yes there are good moral people involved in the rebellion, and it's unfortunate that innocent lives have been killed.

These rebels though are not a combined resistance they're a ragtag group made of ordinary citizens taking up arms (who are the real heroes in all of this and should be applauded) to some Chechen/Afghan/Persian Mujaheddin pissed off at any secular.

They are the enemies in this, and the rebels are doing nothing to repel them from their ranks.

Now let's be big boys here, the world is not black and white, my country has done shady deals with sick people in the past, but it was done for their own interests just as the rebels are doing, and I understand that, they need them to help them depose Assad, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and to the Syrian rebel that is true and should be encouraged.

But as the United States of America, our enemy IS that Muhj shit head, and we can not simply arm the rebels as they will then pass such ammunition to their radical allies, who in turn will only use that to hurt us.

So to those of you asking you see no solution, when in reality there is, nothing.

Face it we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't UNLESS, these rebels will kick out the radical elements, which are as a rebellion they shouldn't and more importantly won't then we can do nothing to aid them. There is no bonus for us in this.

Now you can complain about the unfortunate families that are being killed by Assad and his cronies and how awful it is to simply let this happen, and it is, but what we shouldn't allow is an American family crying over the loss of their loved ones because they're mother/father/brother/etc. was killed over seas fighting to remove a dictator only to be shoot dead in the streets by the rebels they were aiding.

And let's stop the bullshit right here, no an American Life has no more value than a Syrian's, but as an American myself, I feel for my countrymen first, and don't think for a fucking second that any Syrian rebel would put your life over their own countrymen's first.

I'm sick of this bullshit where because we're the Superpower it's our job to cry for everyone and help other countries before our own, when hardly any country on this planet would ever do the same.

This syrian situation sucks,and the only thing we can do is diplomacy, and that's it, aiding anyone on either side is going to bite us in the ass.