Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

This may be an interesting topic of discussion. Are there any deceased US presidents that you believe have been treated unfairly by history? Any president glorified in the history books that you think he doesn't deserve, or are there any presidents you believe have been treated by history worse than they deserve?

Personally I think Harry Truman and Richard Nixon are vastly underrated, and FDR and Ronald Reagan are both grossly overrated.

At 8/24/14 09:23 PM, Light wrote: I don't want to be that guy who blames all of life's problems on President George W. Bush, but ISIS wouldn't exist if we didn't start the clusterfuck that was the Iraq War.

I see your point. It's very difficult to tell what would have happened had we not invaded Iraq. I believe the Arab Spring still would have happened, but Al-Qaeda may not have entered the picture, depending on how well we did in Afghanistan without the Iraq distraction. That's not to say the rebels would have been any more democratic than ISIS but it would not have been ISIS as we see it today.

At 8/22/14 01:58 PM, lapis wrote: Meanwhile, in London, slick pro-IS(IS) leaflets are being handed out in busy shopping streets.

Leaflets like that make me want to vomit.

At 8/21/14 11:11 PM, Warforger wrote: I was and am aware of that part. I was including the post-invasion people who were predicting that Radical Islam is on the decline because there were still people saying that it was.

What trips up people (not you, just others I've spoken to) is they look at events like the Arab Spring and the rise of terrorism in those countries and say "aha! That proves Al-Qaeda was still strong as ever!" The Arab Spring was not started by terrorists or foreign provocation. It was started by people angry at their government and wanting a better quality of life. Heck, maybe the Mubarak, Gaddafi, and al-Assad could have been saved if they did a massive stimulus package, even as a token gesture. But they did not, and Al-Qaeda took advantage of this anger to grow in strength. Because terrorism is at its core a business. You don't have young men joining their ranks because the thought of a non-Muslim existing is hateful to them. Al-Qaeda is seen by many (Sunni) Arabs the same way Western countries see joining the military: a status symbol and a way to get a paycheck. Al-Qaeda did not spread a whole lot in these countries pre-2011 because there was a strong government and an acceptable standard of living.

I'm not trying to paint the 2011 protestors as plucky little honest freedom fighters, either. I wish the Arab Spring had never happened. But the resurgence of Al-Qaeda was largely a result of the Arab Spring, not the cause.

At 8/21/14 10:33 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 8/21/14 05:31 PM, Ranger2 wrote: After all, Al-Qaeda seemed to be on the decline until the 2003 invasion.

I think this is wrong, it was an overly optimistic assertion IMO. People have been claiming that radical Islam is on the decline since 9/11, these people themselves are Middle Eastern experts, and even then all we've seen is the emboldening and spread of radical Islam; not its decline.

Read the whole sentence before responding. I said it seemed to be on the decline until the 2003 invasion. Now it's on the rise. Invading Iraq brought new life to Al-Qaeda, and so did the Arab Spring. Al-Qaeda does not spread through ideology; it spreads through fear and instability. Al-Qaeda and later ISIS were opportunistic and took advantage of the fighting going on in Syria and Libya. Who knows, maybe the war in Gaza will lead to more ISIS influence in Palestine, since Hamas is under fire and Fatah is losing support.

At 8/20/14 07:03 PM, Feoric wrote:

I think we're trying to keep the current Iraqi borders alive but once that ball starts rolling you can't really stop it. If we were just going to allow Iraq to be partitioned that easily there would not have been an effort to oust Maliki. Since then the Kurds have rejoined the Iraqi government but they've put out a disclaimer saying they'll leave it again if there isn't enough reform. Considering the language used I suspect they were under pressure by the US to join as a token gesture -- remember, Maliki was thrown under the bus because he wasn't doing anything to deal with the sectarian divide, if anything made it worse. The US has repeatedly emphasized the need for a government that is inclusive. If Iraq really can't be salvaged after Maliki is out then I don't see a way where Iraq doesn't just de facto become a 3 state entity.

The major problem are the Sunnis. I see no way to fill that power vacuum with the current Iraqi government. Is ISIS popular with the Sunnis in the lands it's taken over? I fear if we try to overreach and restore the original borders of Iraq, we will further incite more terrorism. After all, Al-Qaeda seemed to be on the decline until the 2003 invasion. I think the Sunnis, whether they like it or not, are stuck with ISIS or some other strongman dictator. Are there any areas of Iraq that are majority Sunni that are fighting against ISIS?

Well this goes back to the Kurds -- they're the only ones willing to fight at this point. Since the Mosul Dam was liberated this might be the start of getting enough momentum for other groups (Shia and Sunni alike) to fight ISIS. It shows everyone "hey, these guys aren't as invincible as we once thought" and might be more inclined to take up arms...the thing with ISIS is that they don't really produce things -- if they're allowed to be their own state as opposed to just being a de facto region you run the risk of them being backed by a decent military industrial complex instead of them just looting army bases.

Yes, we need to exploit the main weakness of insurgencies - they rely on outside aid, as opposed to states which are mostly self-sufficient. That'll involve pissing of the Saudis. It boggles my mind how wealthy Saudis can fund a group that threatens their own state and meal ticket.

At 8/20/14 03:14 PM, Feoric wrote:

Erdogan is definitely in a tough spot with the Kurds -- he needs conservative Kurdish backing, not just to secure his presidential victory, but also to get the AKP (Erdogan's party) a majority vote in order to pass their draft of the new constitution. He has to balance appeasing conservative Kurds while at the same time making sure the PKK and their affiliates don't use Iraq and Syria as a training ground, since the fear of domestic Kurdish militancy inside of Turkey is still alive.

I guess that explains why the US has been treating this as primarily an Iraqi issue. I thought we were treating it as such because we were still trying to keep alive the Sykes-Picot lines.

When two black Humvees—one flying the Iraqi flag—ferried Iraqi special forces back from the battle site to a checkpoint connecting the dam with the northern city of Dohuk, the soldiers caused a commotion, jumping out of the vehicles and yelling. "We are the Iraqi army!" said one, forcefully patting his special forces badge. "They say they liberated the dam? Long live the Iraqi army!"

At this point I think our best bet is to help consolidate a Shiite Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan as two separate states. I frankly have no clue who could fill the power vacuum for Sunnis besides ISIS. I don't like the idea of accepting ISIS as a permanent state, but I see little alternative besides helping strengthen its neighbors so that it is surrounded by enemies.

It's also difficult to tell how ISIS will evolve if it gains statehood. Successful revolutionaries come to power believing strongly in some sort of ideal, but give way to more pragmatic governance. Their raison d'etre goes from "liberating the people and installing XXX ideology" to just staying in power. But it could easily stay a radical regime bent on spreading itself. ISIS may either be the new Nazi Germany or USSR, and there's a difference between the two. Hitler was radical and nothing short of his removal would prevent his attempts at expansion. Stalin was an opportunist and while he wanted to expand, he backed down when faced with a credible threat. If no alternative to ISIS is found for the Sunnis, we better hope they become like Stalin and not Hitler.

And if ISIS's spread is not a fantastic reason to speed up transitions to green energy over oil, I don't know what is.

At 8/20/14 12:20 AM, Feoric wrote:
For the rest, I cannot overstate how complex Kurdish society is. In short they are absolutely not a monolithic group and should not be treated as such. Society in traditional Kurdish communities are immensely tribal, so much so that there are still deep tribal connections to specific geographical regions that have persisted for many hundreds of years.

So perhaps the Kurds are comparable to the ancient Greeks: they were fragmented politically but maintained a common Greek identity and would band together against outsiders like Persia. That sound about right?

It's quite hard for me to imagine a college educated Turk from Istanbul willing to move to Erbil as opposed to pushing for more Kurdish-centric reforms in his own home country, for example...If Turkish Kurds were going to start acting up they would do it to form a Turkish Kurdistan, but that seems unlikely.

I figured that even if Iraqi Kurdistan became officially recognized Turkish Kurds would not leave their homes to emigrate there. Had I thought that Turkish Kurds would leave their homes easily I would not have worried about their situation in Turkey. Have Turkish Kurds been content with the status quo in Turkey, given that you say they voted for Erdogan?

I was recently visiting DC and saw a Kurdish rally outside the White House. It was very moving to see people waving the Kurdish flag, shouting "Down with ISIS! ISIS is a crisis!" and holding signs saying "Thank you America for helping the Kurds." The Kurds have traditionally been democratic, stable, and are very pro-Western. They are an island of stability in an otherwise chaotic region. Al-Qaeda and other branches of Islamic terrorism have been unable to take root; their leadership is viewed as legitimate and strong.

They have been increasingly independent since the Iraq War started, and it seems inevitable that they will declare statehood in the Iraqi portion at least. These people seem like the perfect candidates for statehood, and understandably there is a lot of support for them. I am 100% for our recent airstrikes against ISIS and for aiding the Kurds. But I have some reservations about supporting an independent Kurdistan wholeheartedly. Let me know what you think.

The Kurds live in four states: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, each with substantial populations. I'm not incredibly worried about the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, and Iran declaring independence. Iraq and Syria are both falling apart-the Iraqi Kurds will never be part of Iraq again after they secured de facto independence during the Iraq War, and with the quagmire in Syria, Syria's Kurds have had time to consolidate their newfound control over their areas. I think Iran will maintain control over its Kurds, but action against it will only draw further sanctions, which it doesn't really need.

What worries me is Turkey. The Kurds have been fighting the Turks for years, supported by the US and other NATO countries. In 2012 it appeared that the conflict had finally ended, with Kurdish rebels withdrawing from Turkish Kurdistan into Iraq. However, with growing international support for the Kurds, I think it's possible Turkey's Kurds could rise up and declare independence from Turkey to join the rest of Kurdistan in Iraq and Syria. Turkey could invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter (as the US did after 9/11) and the NATO would be obligated to fight the same Kurds it is aiding. Turkey and Iraq share a large border; it's not inconceivable that Turkey's Kurds would declare independence to join their next door neighbors in Iraq.

Ironically, being too overzealous with supporting the Kurds could lead to us eventually fighting them. Doing so would not only lose the West one of its most faithful friends, but obligate us to fight a sworn and effective enemy of ISIS. I think this reason is why the US is only doing air drops and strikes over Iraq; we are still treating this as an Iraqi problem. I understand why, but I don't think this is just an Iraqi problem. This threatens the stability of a NATO ally, and the growth of ISIS.

Let me know your thoughts on the matter. Is this possible?

Here's my political compass. I don't think this makes much sense, though. It says Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Angela Merkel are all right-wing authoritarians. Take this with a grain of salt.

At 8/14/14 11:33 AM, Mr-Insanity97 wrote:

The social part because I believe the world should have socialism economic system, the democratic part because I believe the world should have democracy political system and cosmopolitan part because I believe the all countries in the world should be one and all the human ethnic groups should be all equal. That why I kind of pro for world government controlled the military, executive, legislature, judiciary and constitution with jurisdiction over the entire planet like Futurama.

That is a far cry from when you said that you were "pro libertarianism sort of." I think your labels are based off of a quiz instead of your actual reaction to world events. I think you ought to ditch the quizzes and just stay informed about what's going on. Your political opinions will develop and change over time. There's no hurry to declare yourself a member of any party. Don't worry about your political views or party. Just stay informed, learn a little, and you'll be better able to defend your views so people won't question you calling yourself a libertarian who wants one world government.

At 8/13/14 03:00 PM, Mr-Insanity97 wrote: Oh ok, ignore the libertarianism, I'm not really a libertarianism but I'm pro to libertarianism sort of but anyway I'm really a Social-democractic cosmopolitan because still the same reasons.

There's no rush to give yourself a label. Why are you a social-democratic cosmopolitan? What in your own words do those terms even mean? If you can't explain your views or labels in your own words then you shouldn't take those labels. Before trying to find a label, just do research, watch the news, and make your own decisions.

At 8/13/14 09:30 AM, Mr-Insanity97 wrote: I'm basically on the left side of the political spectrum. Aswell I'm a economic left and social libertarian. I'm a Social-democratic cosmopolitan because my political ideologically are cosmopolitan, secular, visionary, anarchistic, communistic, pacifist and ecological. I'm a left liberal. I'm a left, libertarian, non-interventionist and culture liberal.

That's an awful lot of labels, and some of them contradict each other. Communism demands a strong state at first to ensure that there is complete equality amongst all citizens. That doesn't mix well with libertarianism, which acknowledges that there is inequality, but it's not the government's business to intervene. And as for the labels "ecological" and "visionary", those are two incredibly bland things. Anyone can claim to be those things regardless of their political views.

I'd recommend you do some research on the issues and read the news so you can better react to current events and issues. That'll let you determine your own political views because they'll be based on your reaction instead of a test. And don't feel pressured to find some sort of political niche immediately. The best votes are ones done based off of research of each candidate and their views, not simply picking the person deemed more left/right.

At 8/10/14 01:18 PM, Feoric wrote: I don't think I'll ever understand how you can become an ISIS supporter when you live in a first world country. These guys are in the same league as the Khmer Rouge. It's hard to imagine how anyone could be more radicalized than them.

My own guess is that it's more anti-Westernism than pro-ISIS sentiments. A major reason why ISIS is growing is because it has beat out other options for Sunnis of Iraqi and Syrian descent. ISIS's radical beliefs are more rhetoric than causus belli. Radicalism didn't really take off in Iraq and Syria until after the wars started, and even then they took awhile. Until late 2003 for Iraq and late 2011 for Syria, there was hope for genuine democratic reform. But things didn't get better for the people and as a result radicalism forms. Perhaps some of these First World radicals support ISIS because they see it as the best (using it relatively) option for their countrymen overseas.

At 8/9/14 07:13 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Who would have ever thought there'd be a situation where we'd be making common cause with Iran? Honestly, the instability in the region, if watched carefully, could really benefit us as it's going to cause Iran to divert resources to quell the flaming bag of shit we inadvertently left on their doorstep.

I think if anything we should be opening relations with Iran. If we back the Iraqi government without warming relations with its buddy Iran we are not doing ourselves any favors. I think we need to ditch our Saudi-Pakistani "friends" and create a constructive partnership with Iran and Assad. Instability benefits no one, least of all the US because instability breeds extremists like Al-Qaeda. Yeah, ISIS is a pain in Iran's ass. But it's going to be a pain in ours too. Let's ditch this stupid antagonism that has benefitted neither of our countries. Plus we could muscle in on Russia's influence.

Possible it slows them down, or it strengthens the message. If terrorism could be beaten militarily, most groups would be dead, remember, ISIS is a direct result of an international coalition to push out a despotic regime and crush the elements in Iraq that ISIS has grown from. Not only did we fail to strangle them in the crib, we built them the damn crib and gave them the room to grow strong in. International pressure means nothing to these guys.

ISIS reflects more than anti-Westernism. It reflects a complete repudiation of Sykes-Picot borders, as well as the countries on the map now. ISIS is not completely a reaction to the invasion of Iraq. It's a reactionary movement that seeks to do more than "oust the evil imperialist West." It wants to remake the Middle East in its own image. Kingdoms such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and non-caliphate states such as Egypt and Syria are all targets. It's possible in a few decades, if this is left unchecked, Palestinian nationalism could be scrapped for pan-Islamism.

Aaaand here is another narrative problem. The idea that somehow you can democratically elect a non piece of shit in that region. They always go for strong men despots, that's what they produce because that's what the culture produces. Maliki is an asshole, but if you topple him, you just get a new asshole. This is why regime change will never work in the Middle East, because they will ALWAYS put a monster or group of monsters in charge.

That's a little bit too cynical. The reason why Iraq's government is horrible is not because "that's what the culture produces." Iraq itself is a mishmosh of different nationalities clumped together and told they are all one. Iraq would only be stable and united through a strongman dictator. Without fear of being crushed by a strong government, the place would naturally fall apart, like the breakup of Yugoslavia. If Iraq were partitioned by ethnicities Maliki would probably be less of a bastard running just the Shiite area.

I was once a few years ago.

America gets a lot of credited and uncredited hate. For what it's worth I wouldn't live anywhere else. G-d bless America.

Recently, President Obama ordered air strikes on ISIS targets in Northern Iraq. American combat troops have been flying over the country for the past several days. The two major objectives were to attack ISIS fighters near the Kurdish town of Erbil, and to fly humanitarian supplies to the besieged Yezidi people, who have been threatened with extermination by ISIS.

Fortunately, I do not think that we would send combat troops on the ground back to Iraq. The war in 2003 was stupid enough, but to redeploy ground troops to an unfinished, unpopular, eight-year-long war would be oustandingly, mind-bogglingly stupid. At its largest, I think this could evolve into a combat operation similar to the no-fly zones put over Saddam's Iraq from 1991 to 2003. The ground warfare is up to the Iraqi people.

The President says there is no timetable for the end of operations in Iraq. This is disconcerting, but fortunately we are out of that quagmire and nobody short of Rush Limbaugh has any intention of getting us back in.

I'm hoping that this humanitarian airlift reflects a shift in our counterinsurgency efforts. The United States is by far the best in the world when it comes to conventional warfare, but we suck at unconventional warfare. The Soviets were better at it than we were, partially because they were so ruthless.

What we should realize is that fighting an insurgency is not a problem you can blast away. Insurgencies are political wars, not conventional ones. Unless you have the love or fear of the people, you will always lose an insurgency. The Gulf War was a conventional war because the only problem was Saddam occupying Kuwaiti land; once he was gone the power vacuum in Kuwait was almost instantaneously filled by the popular old government. Blast the enemy to smithereens and go home. In Iraq, if we just blast ISIS out of there, that doesn't mean the people will rush to the Iraqi government in thanks.

What our next steps should be are continued strikes on ISIS targets from the air, and a massive Marshall Plan for Iraq, to be distributed either by us or the Iraqi government. And of course there Maliki needs to go too. But we must take care not to take out ISIS too quickly, lest the Iraqi government is not able to fill the vacuum quick enough. We cannot solve this just by blasting away ISIS. The humanitarian airlift is a step in the right direction to denying the Iraqi people any alternative to ISIS except the Iraqi government.

Your thoughts?

At 8/5/14 01:14 AM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Why doesn't the issue in Mexico get the attention the Palestine-Israel conflict does?

Because there aren't enough Jews in Mexico to blame for the conflict.

At 8/5/14 09:26 AM, Wongoof wrote: Two hot guys for bread, and me in the middle!

And what would you make as a meal after they've gone home and you're hungry?

At 8/4/14 07:37 AM, Ragnarokia wrote: Do you think it is ever possible to have a topic where it can't somehow be shoehorned in by someone unable to use actual logic to argue?

You know who else didn't like topics about Nazis? Hitler.

Let's face it, there's no better food in the world than your favorite sandwich. So for the culinarily inclined, why don't you share with us your favorite sandwich recipes? If you can't think of your absolute favorite, give us at least one that you know is a winner. Give amounts of ingredients if you can, but if you don't know the exact measurements no worries.

-In between two slices of whole grain rye bread, or whole wheat if rye's unavailable, I'd put...
-Lettuce
-Leaf spinach (lots of it)
-2-3 thin slices of roast beef
-1 Tbsp chopped horseradish
-Mustard, either yellow mustard with a dash of vinegar, or dijon mustard
-2 tomato slices
-1/2 Tbsp of chopped onions

To update, the United States claims Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Donetsk by a surface-to-air missile.

This brings back to light an issue that had been largely ignored by the media for the past few months, mostly because of the crisis in the Middle East. But is this the conflict in Ukraine flaring up again? Personally I don't think this will have much of an effect, but what do you think?

At 7/11/14 03:04 PM, zmosh wrote: Did you watch number 3?

Number 3 is actually insane.

He shows propaganda of the US in flames. Big deal. He's not launching any attacks, so what does it matter if he shows his people that propaganda? Anything to convince the North Koreans that he is all powerful and is not to be opposed. All dictators did the same thing; doesn't mean they're insane. The Allies showed videos of Berlin and Tokyo in flames during WWII too. Does that make them insane?

At 7/11/14 02:04 PM, zmosh wrote: He's insane! Proof,

Even though just showing a video is not an argument at all, I watched it anyway. Nothing in the video has convinced me that he is crazy. Flamboyant, sure. Loves his grandfather? Yeah, a little too much. But he is above all, a rational actor whose reign is in no danger.

I think you are confusing the term inconsiderate with crazy. I don't believe Kim Jong Un really cares about his people, either. But that doesn't make him crazy. Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Lenin were all brutal rulers, like the Kim dynasty. But none of them were crazy, because none of them did anything that endangered their own rule.

Why in the heck are people so eager to believe that North Koreans are that stupid? Let me address two things:

Kim Jong Un isn't keeping North Korea's communist system because he truly believes it's best for his people. He's keeping it because it's efficient at keeping him in power, and most dictators are concerned about their security more than anything else.

Second, are you really expecting most North Koreans to, when asked, say "I know that's a bunch of garbage about Kim Jong Un being born in a log cabin with double rainbows,"? If they give even the slightest hint that they disagree, they and their family are killed. And after 60+ years of indoctrination, I wouldn't blame most North Koreans for thinking it's true - they were born and raised under the regime. They would probably think we in the West are crazy because we support democracy, because that's what we've all been raised to believe in.

At 7/8/14 12:00 PM, Wriggle wrote:

Any questions?

Yes, when did you last take your medication?

I'm going to ignore your straw man argument and rebut against the real problem of irresponsible gun culture.

I have no problem with responsible gun owners. I've taught weapons courses at summer camp, and the most important rule about gun ownership is that you treat it with respect. It's not a toy. It's a weapon. Real training instills in each student that these guns are tools to be used, but you cannot treat them with a cavalier attitude. Real men understand that these weapons are for their own self-protection, but aren't symbols of toughness.

Gun owners, of all people, should be for gun safety requirements and gun control. You need to treat these weapons with respect, and you'd be infuriated at anybody waving them around like they're toys. Do you approve of the Open Carry nutjobs who went into Target, intimidating people and touting their guns on their backs like they were the coolest thing on the block? They were not using those guns as they are supposed to be used. They treated their guns like toys. It was shameful. They weren't treating them with the respect or dignity they deserve. We need mandatory gun safety training so people will treat these guns as tools, not toys.

If you feel guns are an integral part of your culture, fine. I understand that. But above all, gun owners like yourselves should be pushing for gun safety and gun training regulations so that you know that when you see someone with a gun he is trained to respect it and know how to use it. Otherwise you're creating a culture of where nobody knows how to use guns properly, and everybody is terrified of the other. Without proper safety regulations you will have too many people with guns who do not respect the fact that they are weapons, not toys.

It's been awhile since we've heard that phrase in the news, hasn't it? Gone are Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen's old leaders. Bahrain, Jordan, Morocco, and other countries' leaders have stayed in power. The only current battle left over from the 2011 riots is the Syrian Civil War, and even that's mixing in with the Iraq War, which I would not call part of the Arab Spring because that's been going on for a decade.

The protestors, which in early 2011 were hailed as democrats, have won in some countries. Are Libya, Yemen, Egypt, or Tunisia on a path towards democracy, or elsewhere? From what I've seen, if the Arab Spring was about democracy, then it died about a year ago.

Who knows? Do you think the Arab Spring is over, and if it's not, what must happen for it to end?

I was debating with a friend what the US should do in regards to ISIS in Iraq. We had a spirited discussion about what good long-term goals for the region would be. But at the end, my friend told me that what made his argument better was that it rested on the hope of allowing people to choose their own government - regardless if whether or not it was friendly to US interests. He said that his plan gave the people of the Middle East the option of democracy, and that in itself made it better.

And I thought to myself, "does that make it better?" I'm not talking about how to spread democracy in the Middle East, or anywhere at all. I'm not even talking about specifically Western, liberal democracy. I'm talking about the question: is the genuine, non-corrupt practice of democracy somehow inherently good? It that system of government somehow more inherently moral, and should it be considered something that should be aspired to?

Especially in the West, whether you're conservative or liberal, neocon or realist, everybody has gotten behind one big idea: Democracy is good. I'm not talking about whether or not certain groups or countries are compatible with democracy. But is there something that sets up democracy above all other forms of government?

So, NG, I pose this question to you. Looking only at the system, is there something that sets up democracy to be superior to all others? Is there something that is just better about people choosing their government? Keep in mind, I am not asking the question "should democracy be exported to other countries?" But is democracy at its basest form, in itself, inherently better than other forms of government?