Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/17/13 03:59 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/13/13 10:20 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: not our problem

That didn't stop us with Iraq or Afghanistan so why should it stop us now?

They make decisions like a business, weighing the benefits and costs of their actions, they are unwilling to achieve their objectives at all costs. Russia's involvement to prevent foreign intervention means they cannot use airstrikes as they did in Syria and are limited to a proxy war.

At 6/17/13 04:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Sorry on my phone if forgot choice. It was a stupid choice.

What choice?

At 6/17/13 07:29 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 6/17/13 04:58 AM, HibiscusMallow wrote:

At 6/17/13 04:38 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Sorry on my phone if forgot choice. It was a stupid choice.

What choice?

to go into iraq and stay there for this long.

I'm a short-sighted, I don't care, look at the results kind of guy. So here is my assessment.

We're taking over the entire Middle-East and using a form of psychology to turn any Muslim with any longing for a traditional Islamic way of life into an enemy combatant. The Islamic way of life, I think, is incompatible to direct manipulation by a pure-capitalist entity.

In this way, Muslims who do not accept capitalism, are tortured, by the deaths of their loved ones, and the ridicule of their religion, and the greed of a fat world of overweight, out of touch, rich fucks.

In this way, we can kill anyone who disagrees, because the when the people are manipulated in such a large way, the only way to fight for their traditional life is to join together, form 'groups of resistance.'

It almost reminds me of FF7, but with no good guys at all. Just all evil characters.

At 6/17/13 09:56 AM, Psycho666 wrote: We're taking over the entire Middle-East and using a form of psychology to turn any Muslim with any longing for a traditional Islamic way of life into an enemy combatant. The Islamic way of life, I think, is incompatible to direct manipulation by a pure-capitalist entity.

The west is supporting the rebels and many of the rebels are islamists, naturally once these countries become democratic they will vote in an Islamist government, as they have in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. This has less to do with religion or foreign intervention and more to do with capitalism, what we are looking at is the result of the middle east's increasing population, industrialization and urbanization resulting in the growth of an educated middle class and plutocratic elite that competes politically with the military elite. Foreign intervention and religion are influencing factors but not the root cause.

The plutocrats are under constant threat of violence from the state while constantly looking for ways to influence the government and loosen restrictions on business. The state must apply violence carefully in order to eliminate opposition without turning people against them. The arab spring saw the middle classes protesting en masse presenting a difficult choice for the dictator.

Accept the tide of history and gradually transfer rule to a democratic government while tying up loose ends, as in the case of Suharto in Indonesia. The problem is if a dictator has too many enemies they will have nowhere to hide after the transfer of power.

Just flee to one of their allies like Tunisia's Ben Ali.

Continue to fight politically, as in the case of Egypt's Mubarak, this will preserve some of the power of the dictator's supporters, however there is no guarantee the dictator will preserve enough power to escape their enemies.

No negotiation, use force to end opposition, as in the case of Syria and Egypt. If the violence is excessive it will cause major political instability and may escalate the situation.

It almost reminds me of FF7, but with no good guys at all. Just all evil characters.

I have never played final fantasy, the turn based combat seems boring.

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 6/17/13 02:58 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: 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.

No and No. While he may have done those things, he spent the majority of the referenced post stating how there is a conscious and concerted effort to label all Muslims as dangerous for the excuse of getting rid of them. It was this conspiracy theory that was being ridiculed.

At 6/17/13 03:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No and No. While he may have done those things, he spent the majority of the referenced post stating how there is a conscious and concerted effort to label all Muslims as dangerous for the excuse of getting rid of them. It was this conspiracy theory that was being ridiculed.

While you may have to calibrate your ears to detect the dog whistle racism, this has certainly been part of the agenda for right wing warhawks for quite some time now. Look no further than the right-leaning posters here openly advocating for a regional war while we sit and watch.

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 05:59 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: 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".

they're talking about me. I advocate giving the rebels the weapons to keep the fight going, even go as far as trying to nudge them to retaliate against Lebanon and Iran for sending soldiers to assist Assad. keep em rolling, keep em fighting, keep em wasting resources fighting the rebels. 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.

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?

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.

At 6/17/13 07:25 PM, Korriken wrote: they're talking about me. I advocate giving the rebels the weapons to keep the fight going, even go as far as trying to nudge them to retaliate against Lebanon and Iran for sending soldiers to assist Assad. keep em rolling, keep em fighting, keep em wasting resources fighting the rebels. 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 wasn't aware North Korea was a country that needed to be weakened., or was involved in our geopolitical calculus in the slightest bit.

But hey, I'm sure anti-aircraft missiles are exactly the kinds of things you would want to potentially fall into the hands of groups like al-Nusra, right? You can hope that this will just remain a proxy war between NATO/Saudi Arabia vs Iran/Russia that will remain confined to just Syria and will spread only to the places you don't like, but somewhere at some level you have to know this is not going to happen. You have to know, at some level, that there is the alarmingly high chance that Not Very Nice People will wind up with these arms and start using them against us/our allies at some point in time. This happens over and over and over again, yet people still act surprised.

So when you start seeing headlines that say "US weapons used in ethnic purge" just remember what you asked for.

At 6/17/13 09:12 PM, Feoric wrote: So when you start seeing headlines that say "US weapons used in ethnic purge" just remember what you asked for.

It goes both ways honestly. The UN for example had an arms embargo in all of former Yugoslavia in response to the escalating wars. When it came to Bosnia it only hurt the Bosnian government i.e. the only good guys in the conflict. Serbia and the Bosnian Serb army (Yugoslavia at the time) inherited the arms and technology from the Federal Yugoslav army while Croatia and the Bosnian Croatian army had access to the ports in the Adriatic alliowing them to smuggle all those arms. Bosnia on the other hand has only one tiny access to the sea which was in Croatian hands anyway and it didn't inherit many of the arms from Yugoslavia. What ended up happening was that the Serbians and the Croatians used their superior weaponry to outmatch the Bosnians in every way leading them to lose many towns to the enemy along with the UN forces surrendering many towns. Deciding to launch an embargo there allowed the Bosnian government to lose the war and caused many innocent lives to be lost.

That's the difficulty in things like this, Syria is not Afghanistan, for one Syria is much more secular than Afghanistan ever was, hell they're one of the few countries in the world to ban the Burqa in certain public area's such as schools!

At 6/17/13 09:27 PM, Warforger wrote: It goes both ways honestly. The UN for example had an arms embargo in all of former Yugoslavia in response to the escalating wars. When it came to Bosnia it only hurt the Bosnian government i.e. the only good guys in the conflict. Serbia and the Bosnian Serb army (Yugoslavia at the time) inherited the arms and technology from the Federal Yugoslav army while Croatia and the Bosnian Croatian army had access to the ports in the Adriatic alliowing them to smuggle all those arms. Bosnia on the other hand has only one tiny access to the sea which was in Croatian hands anyway and it didn't inherit many of the arms from Yugoslavia. What ended up happening was that the Serbians and the Croatians used their superior weaponry to outmatch the Bosnians in every way leading them to lose many towns to the enemy along with the UN forces surrendering many towns. Deciding to launch an embargo there allowed the Bosnian government to lose the war and caused many innocent lives to be lost.

The difference here is we're not calling for an embargo. It's just a matter of arming the rebels or not. We could just as easily funnel money to Qatar/Saudi Arabia and let them do it as a proxy instead of having our name directly plastered on this mess if Obama really wanted to dance with Putin. I understand it's easy to let idealism to get in the way of how the real world actually works, but at this point in the game nobody can honestly say we're in this to help Syria. We're in this to bleed Iran and Russia, and this has priority over preventing more deaths. We're adding gasoline to the fire in an extremely fragile part of the world. Again.

That's the difficulty in things like this, Syria is not Afghanistan, for one Syria is much more secular than Afghanistan ever was, hell they're one of the few countries in the world to ban the Burqa in certain public area's such as schools!

Syria isn't even Syria anymore. This started out as a domestic issue between Assad and peaceful Syrian protesters, then the next thing you know the Islamist are here, Salafis are blowing up Shiite mosques, Saudi extremists are fighting alongside AQ-affiliated terrorist networks, Hezbollah is shooting at Chechen militants, etc. It's a regional war at this point.

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.

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.

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 05:59 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: 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".

You misunderstood me. I was referencing GOP figures like McCain who are itching to jump into Syria and other incidents which build a long trail of pro war sentiment (for example) and the pretty disturbing outlook the right has towards the middle east (i.e; arm them, let the bubble build as much as it can, let it burst and sit back, who cares if they die, fuck iran, fuck russia, etc). I wasn't putting you into that group, nor was I calling non-interventionists racist. I have no idea how you figured that.

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

I will just tell what are those so could rebels ho fight Assads regime
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdf_1368368251

At 6/15/13 06:41 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: I would burn the local church to the ground but there is to many mind locked fuck tards that would like to kill me if I did. Take that for what it is.

I think maybe fighting for justice and showing compassion to your defeated enemies is better, if you act little differently from your enemies then you are are your own enemy.