Why arnt people in the middle east standing up against ISIS?

[BigNBAfan]

If they are truly a terrorist group and are causing outrage amongst everyone and doing these things under their interpretation of what their prophet wants, why are they not standing up against them?

I mean just read about the destruction of the temple of bel, if something like that was destroyed from belgium's history you would see outrage from the people.

[kurple]

:facepalm

comparing Belgium to the middle east

[Nick Young]

In the beginning of all this, Iraqi army outnumbered ISIS 4 to 1 but ran away and was afraid/refused to fight them.


Here's my opinion on the answer. Most people are afraid of standing up to them as they're violent killers and most people want to live. At the same time, many people in the middle east support ISIS, at least going by published surveys. Civilians got killed under US occupation, atleast in this case it's native guys in charge.


Look at the history of the middle east going back 3000 years even before Islam existed. Groups similar to ISIS have been going in and out of power in the Middle East for thousands of years.


If we go by the belief that people are allowed to govern themselves, this kind of violent chaos is seemingly what the people in the region want, judging on thousands of years of history.

[StephHamann]

:facepalm

comparing Belgium to the middle east

Brussels looks like middle east.

http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/20122005/806745/IMGP1496_wa.jpg

[UK2K]

They're a bunch of *******.

Its 'not my problem' until it becomes their problem. Look at how the Iraqi and Afghani army throw down their weapons the first chance they get, even when they outnumber insurgents 4-1.

They're just soft people, survival of the fittest, and they aren't it.

[9erempiree]

They will bow down to ISIS if approached by one.

Trust me.

[RidonKs]

They're a bunch of *******.

Its 'not my problem' until it becomes their problem. Look at how the Iraqi and Afghani army throw down their weapons the first chance they get, even when they outnumber insurgents 4-1.

They're just soft people, survival of the fittest, and they aren't it.
not the first time that's happened. an army of pay slips rather than an army of people. that is called pissing money into the wind.

you should bear in mind we are only a generation removed from iraqis dying en masse in war with iran. more iraqi combatants died in that conflict than there were total iraqis listed in the army shortly before the ISIS overrun. the country is also not far removed from hundreds of thousands who died in the 90s (these people would have been of age to constitute a big part of military), not to mention over a million dying as a direct or indirect result of the american occupation.

it's your problem not because they can't solve it, but because you helped hatch it.




bottom line; the army didn't fall because people in the region are soft. that's sort of like an ish troll argument.

it's because the type of person to sign up for the iraqi army post-occupation wasn't about to die for that cause. so when the going got tough, they all ran.
furthermore there was a ton of resentment, especially among officers rising in the ranks, when the traditional military was disbanded and dismantled. one of the dumbest tactical decisions in recent history.

what percentage of the officer class do you suppose stuck around? that's not an easy question to answer. but as we saw, not enough of them stuck around for long enough to make the neo-iraqi army, the american armed and trained and allied iraqi army, even close to the strength it had pre-occupation, let alone dating back to the 80s when it had reached peak strength.

one would think somebody with your military background would consider these issues with a lot more scrutiny, rather than casting them aside as irrelevant and deciding "THE IRAQI PPL R JUST WEAK"[/arnold]

[Trollsmasher]

the culture there is based on a pu**y mentality

if everyone in Europe ran away everytime a war broke out in the past, the continent would have been depopulated for the last 3 thousand years

that's why I have stopped worrying about an islamic takeover of Europe - a war will eventually break out and in that we will easily beat them even if there is 10 times as many of them at that point

we are lions, we have been moldeding our genes in blood for thousands of years and that blood still flows in our veins, regardless of how pu**yfied we have become

[RidonKs]

the culture there is based on a pu**y mentality

if everyone in Europe ran away everytime a war broke out in the past, the continent would have been depopulated for the last 3 thousand years
lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?

[UK2K]

not the first time that's happened. an army of pay slips rather than an army of people. that is called pissing money into the wind.

you should bear in mind we are only a generation removed from iraqis dying en masse in war with iran. more iraqi combatants died in that conflict than there were total iraqis listed in the army shortly before the ISIS overrun. the country is also not far removed from hundreds of thousands who died in the 90s (these people would have been of age to constitute a big part of military), not to mention over a million dying as a direct or indirect result of the american occupation.

it's your problem not because they can't solve it, but because you helped hatch it.




bottom line; the army didn't fall because people in the region are soft. that's sort of like an ish troll argument.

it's because the type of person to sign up for the iraqi army post-occupation wasn't about to die for that cause. so when the going got tough, they all ran.
furthermore there was a ton of resentment, especially among officers rising in the ranks, when the traditional military was disbanded and dismantled. one of the dumbest tactical decisions in recent history.

what percentage of the officer class do you suppose stuck around? that's not an easy question to answer. but as we saw, not enough of them stuck around for long enough to make the neo-iraqi army, the american armed and trained and allied iraqi army, even close to the strength it had pre-occupation, let alone dating back to the 80s when it had reached peak strength.

one would think somebody with your military background would consider these issues with a lot more scrutiny, rather than casting them aside as irrelevant and deciding "THE IRAQI PPL R JUST WEAK"[/arnold]
That's called being soft.

We agree on something!

I got news for you, whether I agree in a cause or not, the last thing I would do is throw down my weapon and run. ESPECIALLY when I outnumber an enemy by 400%.

I'm sorry, but running for my life just isn't in my blood.

I could take a mob of former and retired Marines, right now, drop them into ISIS held territory, and I bet you not a single one would try and run. Not one of them. No leadership, nothing. Not one would run. Fact.

Do you see how weak, and pathetic this is?


BAGHDAD — The infantryman and his colleagues were already worn down after six months of fighting militants in western Iraq, men flush with weapons and zeal. Army commanders had no answer for the daily deadly ambushes and no broader strategy for prevailing in the longer war.

The final straw was the death of a friend, killed two weeks ago by a sniper’s bullet. The infantryman, Bashar al-Halbousi, deserted, making the same choice as hundreds of other soldiers in his battalion, he said.

“The state is weak,” Mr. Halbousi said. “This will be an endless battle.”

The toll of the desertions came into sharp relief on Tuesday, as soldiers and their commanders abandoned bases in Mosul, all but ceding Iraq’s second-largest city to extremist fighters belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

The fleeing troops left weapons, vehicles and even their uniforms behind, as militants took over at least five army installations and the city’s airport. In a desperate bid to stem the losses, the military was reduced to bombing its own bases to avoid surrendering more weapons to the enemy. American officials who had asserted that the $25 billion that the United States had spent on the Iraqi security forces would prepare them to safeguard the country after American troops left were forced to ponder images from Mosul of militants parading around captured Humvees.


He said it himself. Shit soldiers, with no pride, no backbone, and no will. They are goat ****ers and sheep herders and cave people. A select few are good enough to work with our military (I worked with several Afghan Special Forces) but the majority are worthless cannon fodder.

They're weak.

[dunksby]

Iran has been fighting ISIS since day one, the problem is Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are funding and supporting them to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. Turkey goes as far as openly bombing Kurdish fighters.
PS: got to give credit to the Egyptian army for ousting their Muslim Brotherhood government and fighting off the Islamist there too.

[RidonKs]

That's called being soft.

We agree on something!

I got news for you, whether I agree in a cause or not, the last thing I would do is throw down my weapon and run. ESPECIALLY when I outnumber an enemy by 400%.

I'm sorry, but running for my life just isn't in my blood.

I could take a mob of former and retired Marines, right now, drop them into ISIS held territory, and I bet you not a single one would try and run. Not one of them. No leadership, nothing. Not one would run. Fact.
maybe you would run if you thought you might get killed for something you didn't believe in.

like i said its not unusual. check the casualty numbers in nicaragua when reagan was funneling money to the murderous contras.... who had every advantage at their disposal, better weaponry, ideal geography, a bigger fighting force thanks to migrants from el salvador and guatemala seeking more pay stubs. that contra army sucked ass for just the same reason. these boys just keep gettin dem checks til its not worth it anymore. not complicated.

even if you wouldn't, understand that's you and you're very different than most people in the world

most people are not storming into conflict for no reason just to prove their machismo

frankly i'm glad of that fact

u call it soft, i'll call it human

maybe ur the terminator




but u didn't respond to the crucial point of the post which was the nature of the iraqi army since the occupation... lol it was in tatters. and that fact is literally ALL america's fault. therefore when an american soldier comes back and says the domestic iraqi force sucked balls, you gotta raise an eyebrow a bit.

[kurple]

They will bow down to ISIS if approached by one.

Trust me.
i'd love to see what you'd do

[zoom17]

Iran has been fighting ISIS since day one, the problem is Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are funding and supporting them to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. Turkey goes as far as openly bombing Kurdish fighters.
PS: got to give credit to the Egyptian army for ousting their Muslim Brotherhood government and fighting off the Islamist there too.

I agree with this :applause:

[RidonKs]

Iran has been fighting ISIS since day one, the problem is Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are funding and supporting them to wreak havoc in Iraq and Syria. Turkey goes as far as openly bombing Kurdish fighters.
PS: got to give credit to the Egyptian army for ousting their Muslim Brotherhood government and fighting off the Islamist there too.
:rolleyes:

oh the revisionism

hell lets just equate the muslim brotherhood with whatever islamic organization u can think of. al-qaeda isis al-shabaab the mosque at ground zero, gotta oust those muslims! dangerous pesky invading muslims trying to ruin our peaceful democratic way of life!

[UK2K]

maybe you would run if you thought you might get killed for something you didn't believe in.

like i said its not unusual. check the casualty numbers in nicaragua when reagan was funneling money to the murderous contras.... who had every advantage at their disposal, better weaponry, ideal geography, a bigger fighting force thanks to migrants from el salvador and guatemala seeking more pay stubs. that contra army sucked ass for just the same reason. these boys just keep gettin dem checks til its not worth it anymore. not complicated.

even if you wouldn't, understand that's you and you're very different than most people in the world

most people are not storming into conflict for no reason just to prove their machismo

frankly i'm glad of that fact

u call it soft, i'll call it human

maybe ur the terminator




but u didn't respond to the crucial point of the post which was the nature of the iraqi army since the occupation... lol it was in tatters. and that fact is literally ALL america's fault. therefore when an american soldier comes back and says the domestic iraqi force sucked balls, you gotta raise an eyebrow a bit.

Yes, the Iraqi army was in tatters after we beat the shit out of them. One could assume that when one side loses, they probably aren't going to be capable of much of anything for a while. You'll notice though, they surrendered to us too, by the DIVISION. So surrendering isn't something new for them.


The U.S. discovered significant problems as it stepped up its assessment of Iraq's security forces in recent months, American officials said. They say they noted that more competent Sunni military tacticians in units in the north had been forced out by the Shiite-dominated government.

Across the military U.S. military personnel found the Iraqis were failing to properly maintain equipment. Training standards have declined sharply from 2011, when U.S. military forces advised Iraqi units.

The ISIS insurgents "are not strong, but the military is very weak," said Atheel Al Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province who said he fled its capital Mosul in the middle of the night on June 10 before the city fell. "There was no responsible leadership, there was no planning, there was no correct utilization for the military tools."

"The leaders and the soldiers have no military experience and have no convictions," he added.

Instead, the Iraqi command that ran Mosul by direct order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled the city like a fief, Mr. Nujaifi and other residents said.

"They are not an army, they just take money. No more," said a local Sunni militant in Mosul who said he fought alongside ISIS. "They don't care about orders, weapons or vehicles. They are paid just to get money."

Please read ^^that^^. Seriously. You can blame the US all you want for not rebuilding an army they were at war with a decade ago, but they have to help themselves at some point. If you can't even clean your shit routinely, then the fact that you suck is on you.

[9erempiree]

:rolleyes:

oh the revisionism

hell lets just equate the muslim brotherhood with whatever islamic organization u can think of. al-qaeda isis al-shabaab the mosque at ground zero, gotta oust those muslims! dangerous pesky invading muslims trying to ruin our peaceful democratic way of life!

Actually....

Muslims have killed more Americans than ISIS.

The last couple of shootings and bombings this past month and summer involved Muslims that were not affiliated with ISIS or any terrorist organization.

The media likes to tell you that Muslims are not violent and if they committed a horrendous act then they must belong to ISIS.

[BlakFrankWhite]

ISIS and their supporters are a very small minority in a area inhabitated by hundreds of millions of people.

And I agree with what Nick Young said...people are scared

Did anyone stand up against Sicilian Mafia in the 80s? ...no,because anyone who did was killed ruthlessly...Two brave Judges who stood up against them were blown to hell...

Btw reading from OP's post its obvious that Its easier to sit in your living room and whine and bitch about others.

[nathanjizzle]

cuzz they be skurvy

[Nick Young]

not the first time that's happened. an army of pay slips rather than an army of people. that is called pissing money into the wind.

you should bear in mind we are only a generation removed from iraqis dying en masse in war with iran. more iraqi combatants died in that conflict than there were total iraqis listed in the army shortly before the ISIS overrun. the country is also not far removed from hundreds of thousands who died in the 90s (these people would have been of age to constitute a big part of military), not to mention over a million dying as a direct or indirect result of the american occupation.

it's your problem not because they can't solve it, but because you helped hatch it.




bottom line; the army didn't fall because people in the region are soft. that's sort of like an ish troll argument.

it's because the type of person to sign up for the iraqi army post-occupation wasn't about to die for that cause. so when the going got tough, they all ran.
furthermore there was a ton of resentment, especially among officers rising in the ranks, when the traditional military was disbanded and dismantled. one of the dumbest tactical decisions in recent history.

what percentage of the officer class do you suppose stuck around? that's not an easy question to answer. but as we saw, not enough of them stuck around for long enough to make the neo-iraqi army, the american armed and trained and allied iraqi army, even close to the strength it had pre-occupation, let alone dating back to the 80s when it had reached peak strength.

one would think somebody with your military background would consider these issues with a lot more scrutiny, rather than casting them aside as irrelevant and deciding "THE IRAQI PPL R JUST WEAK"[/arnold]
Stop making excuses. Learn history. America had nothing to do with Iraq becoming a violent hell hole. It was like that for thousands of years before America even existed.

[dunksby]

:rolleyes:

oh the revisionism

hell lets just equate the muslim brotherhood with whatever islamic organization u can think of. al-qaeda isis al-shabaab the mosque at ground zero, gotta oust those muslims! dangerous pesky invading muslims trying to ruin our peaceful democratic way of life!
Muslim Brotherhood is THE father of Islamist extremism, Iman Zwahiri who's Bin Laden's mentor was a student of Saeid Qutb one of the most influential leaders of Muslim Brotherhood in history.

[Nick Young]

ISIS and their supporters are a very small minority in a area inhabitated by hundreds of millions of people.

And I agree with what Nick Young said...people are scared

Did anyone stand up against Sicilian Mafia in the 80s? ...no,because anyone who did was killed ruthlessly...Two brave Judges who stood up against them were blown to hell...

Btw reading from OP's post its obvious that Its easier to sit in your living room and whine and bitch about others.
Kurds are standing up against ISIS and are doing ok. Nothing stopping other clans and local war lords from doing the same.

The fact that more groups aren't rising up against ISIS says a lot. It's not like there aren't a ton of armed militant factions in the Middle East right now. Most are seemingly happy to live under ISIS leadership.

[NumberSix]

:rolleyes:

oh the revisionism

hell lets just equate the muslim brotherhood with whatever islamic organization u can think of. al-qaeda isis al-shabaab the mosque at ground zero, gotta oust those muslims! dangerous pesky invading muslims trying to ruin our peaceful democratic way of life!
You might want to actually research some history. The Muslim brotherhood actually did birth the modern Islamic extremist movement.

[BlakFrankWhite]

not the first time that's happened. an army of pay slips rather than an army of people. that is called pissing money into the wind.

you should bear in mind we are only a generation removed from iraqis dying en masse in war with iran. more iraqi combatants died in that conflict than there were total iraqis listed in the army shortly before the ISIS overrun. the country is also not far removed from hundreds of thousands who died in the 90s (these people would have been of age to constitute a big part of military), not to mention over a million dying as a direct or indirect result of the american occupation.

it's your problem not because they can't solve it, but because you helped hatch it.




bottom line; the army didn't fall because people in the region are soft. that's sort of like an ish troll argument.

it's because the type of person to sign up for the iraqi army post-occupation wasn't about to die for that cause. so when the going got tough, they all ran.
furthermore there was a ton of resentment, especially among officers rising in the ranks, when the traditional military was disbanded and dismantled. one of the dumbest tactical decisions in recent history.

what percentage of the officer class do you suppose stuck around? that's not an easy question to answer. but as we saw, not enough of them stuck around for long enough to make the neo-iraqi army, the american armed and trained and allied iraqi army, even close to the strength it had pre-occupation, let alone dating back to the 80s when it had reached peak strength.

one would think somebody with your military background would consider these issues with a lot more scrutiny, rather than casting them aside as irrelevant and deciding "THE IRAQI PPL R JUST WEAK"[/arnold]

Best poster on this forum :applause:

[dunksby]

Kurds are standing up against ISIS and are doing ok. Nothing stopping other clans and local war lords from doing the same.

The fact that more groups aren't rising up against ISIS says a lot. It's not like there aren't a ton of armed militant factions in the Middle East right now. Most are seemingly happy to live under ISIS leadership.
The coalition that is fighting ISIS within Iraq is consisted of what remains of the Iraqi Army, Iranian special forces, Kurdish pishmergas and a Shite/Sunni militia of Iraqi people.

[RidonKs]

Muslim Brotherhood is THE father of Islamist extremism, Iman Zwahiri who's Bin Laden's mentor was a student of Saeid Qutb one of the most influential leaders of Muslim Brotherhood in history.
its not. there are dozens of 'fathers' of islamic extremism. just depends who you want to learn from :lol

my point isn't the history though.

the muslim brotherhood is objectively more moderate than probably every other islamic organization you can name. it is distinctively less violent than the egyptian military regime which is now throwing journalists in prison at an ever higher rate.

i don't think morsi was perfect but don't pretend el-sis did some favour for the world putting him in prison. morsi is probably less ideologically minded than erdogen. certainly more sensible than allies in pakistan or afghanistan.

president obama actually broke american law by allowing state department money to continue to flow into egyptian state coffers. obama played crafty with language and refused to call it a coup even though the entire world knew what it was. now as per usual he offers the occasional censure with no repercussions and lets the status quo continue as it will.

[Nick Young]

Muslim Brotherhood is THE father of Islamist extremism, Iman Zwahiri who's Bin Laden's mentor was a student of Saeid Qutb one of the most influential leaders of Muslim Brotherhood in history.
Don't forget the **** still recognized as a hero across much of the Muslim world-Haj Amin al-Husseini

[dunksby]

its not. there are dozens of 'fathers' of islamic extremism. just depends who you want to learn from :lol

my point isn't the history though.

the muslim brotherhood is objectively more moderate than probably every other islamic organization you can name. it is distinctively less violent than the egyptian military regime which is now throwing journalists in prison at an ever higher rate.

i don't think morsi was perfect but don't pretend el-sis did some favour for the world putting him in prison. morsi is probably less ideologically minded than erdogen. certainly more sensible than allies in pakistan or afghanistan.

president obama actually broke american law by allowing state department money to continue to flow into egyptian state coffers. obama played crafty with language and refused to call it a coup even though the entire world knew what it was. now as per usual he offers the occasional censure with no repercussions and lets the status quo continue as it will.
As in compared to AlQ and ISIS? They don't have to be violent since they usually have others do their dirty work, they just theorize. Like Qutb theorized that since people didn't rise to establish a pure Islamic regime with Sharia and everything, after the Brotherhood infulenced officers assassinated Anwar Saadat, they were corrupt and hence OK to kill them as well.

[BlakFrankWhite]

Kurds are standing up against ISIS and are doing ok. Nothing stopping other clans and local war lords from doing the same.

The fact that more groups aren't rising up against ISIS says a lot. It's not like there aren't a ton of armed militant factions in the Middle East right now. Most are seemingly happy to live under ISIS leadership.

You don't understand...its much more deep rooted than that.

ISIS vs its reginal enemies...is basically sunni vs shia...those two sects HATE each other...ISIS are backed by the middle eastern powers while the kurds and others are backed by Iran.

Why you think US isn't involving itself?....because defeat of ISIS would mean Iraq and Syria going under the control of Iran again.

Many of local ISIS fighters are sunnis who grew up in the mid '00's Iraq...and they ere treated just as badly as jews were in Nazi Germany.

[LJJ]

What are you talking about? The local Syrians and Iraqis are standing up to Islamic State en masse and the only reason they are still going strong is because of all the money, supplies and help they've gotten from the US, Turkey and the extremist Islamist mafiosi.

However, when it comes to the ancient sites? Well the problem is that Muslim people don't really consider anything before Islamic times as part of their culture or heritage. If they can get financial gain from artefacts like the Pyramids and all the Roman ruins along the Mediterranean, they will be happy to exploit these sites. But it's not worth protecting, worth dying for, it's not part of their cultural identity. The average Syrian just doesn't give a shit about Palmyra in the same way an Italian would care about the Colosseum. Compare it to the lack of respect Americans used to show towards Native American sites.

[BlakFrankWhite]

What I'm saying isis is NEEDED and funded by the major Arab powers to fight the Shia influence...

They're just didn't sprout out of nowhere....they were formed after years of discontent by the minority Sunni's in Syria and Iraq...

If you're gonna take down isis...you need to punish their financial backers as well.

[Nick Young]

You don't understand...its much more deep rooted than that.

ISIS vs its reginal enemies...is basically sunni vs shia...those two sects HATE each other...ISIS are backed by the middle eastern powers while the kurds and others are backed by Iran.

Why you think US isn't involving itself?....because defeat of ISIS would mean Iraq and Syria going under the control of Iran again.

Many of local ISIS fighters are sunnis who grew up in the mid '00's Iraq...and they ere treated just as badly as jews were in Nazi Germany.
:facepalm

[BlakFrankWhite]

Just do a bit research on '00's Iraq....

Most of the leaders were Shia...all the construction, spending etc were done in the Shia populated regions...

[UK2K]

Just do a bit research on '00's Iraq....

Most of the leaders were Shia...all the construction, spending etc were done in the Shia populated regions...
And the people of Iraq (the government) is horrid. That's why they are where they are right now. That, and killing each other over who's tribe is better.

[BlakFrankWhite]

And the people of Iraq (the government) is horrid. That's why they are where they are right now. That, and killing each other over who's tribe is better.

Yup.

That's what I'm saying...isis was formed by sunnis who were treated like shit in their own country.

[DonDadda59]

They're too busy helping Dick Cheney find those weapons of mass destruction.


lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?

Please Hammer... don't hurt em :(

[RidonKs]

Muslim Brotherhood is THE father of Islamist extremism, Iman Zwahiri who's Bin Laden's mentor was a student of Saeid Qutb one of the most influential leaders of Muslim Brotherhood in history.
again, there have been dozens of muslim educators who have advocated extreme violence. the muslim brotherhood has a long history that doesn't start and end with assassination plots and vigilantism.

is the muslim brotherhood a terror organization in your opinion?

it certainly used to be since it used terror tactics for its own end. but those tactics more or less came to an end quite a while ago, apart from rogue elements doing their own thing.



As in compared to AlQ and ISIS? They don't have to be violent since they usually have others do their dirty work, they just theorize.
they are allied with other more extreme groups. so is practically every nation/faction in the world.

america doesn't have to be violent since they usually have others do their dirty work and just theorize.

i think my statement holds at least as true as yours...

[9erempiree]

again, there have been dozens of muslim educators who have advocated extreme violence. the muslim brotherhood has a long history that doesn't start and end with assassination plots and vigilantism.

is the muslim brotherhood a terror organization in your opinion?

it certainly used to be since it used terror tactics for its own end. but those tactics more or less came to an end quite a while ago, apart from rogue elements doing their own thing.

Muslim violence is still prevalent in today's society. It's their fundamental train of thought and their belief system that has caused this violence.

I do not believe they are just rogue or isolated incidents. If you put together all these isolated incidents it then turns into a trend. A trend usually means it is highly likely.

[Derka]

"People in the Middle East" is a bit vague.

The Iranians are fighting ISIS.

The Syrian government doesn't have the manpower to do much of anything except hold a few crucial territories.

In military matters, the Iraqis are about as close to functionally retarded as a nation-state can be.

None of the Sunni nations are going to take serious action against ISIS because Sunni/Shia strife is the major theme of all post-Mohammed Islamic history in that part of the world. Even thought ISIS has f*cking killed hundreds and probably thousands of Sunni Muslims, Sunni Gulf states are still going to fund them in the hopes of strengthening Sunni presence in previously Shia-governed areas. Why? Because f*ck those guys.

[Nick Young]

lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?
:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

Natural selection, bitch. If you can't defend yourself from foreign invaders, your culture isn't meant to survive. Good job trying to blame Europe for the Middle East being a violent shit hole. Don't blame the Mongols either.

Learn history. The Middle East was exactly the same thousands of years ago, before Islam even existed, as it is right now. There have been brief periods of peace and happiness, but it always goes back to the default setting of violent death.

This is what happens when a group of people live in a harsh desert climate and have opium and hash as the only ways to pass the time.



Loads of these guys are high on opiates and hash all the phucking time, especially in Afghanistan. That's what you people need to realize. It's a region dominated by violent megalomaniac opium junkies for thousands of years. The religion changes. The people stay the same.

[imdaman99]

lol

the past 500 years have essentially been an extended barbarian invasion from backward european tribes that weren't more advanced economically, in fact in many ways they lagged behind asian and persian industry. their advantage was weapons sophistication.

it's not because our ancestors are badass explorers. its because our ancestors were violent groups attempting conquest of the world.

now what group does that remind you of?
lol #REKT

To answer the question, it's a simple answer with a complicated attempt at a solution. Bad leadership. It is believed that a 'Messiah' will reappear to declare war on these fake Muslims (not just this group, all these groups that have caused dissension) and basically it will be the end of days. Day of Judgement could be right around the corner...

http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/arnold-schwarzenegger-end7.jpg

[RidonKs]

Please read ^^that^^. Seriously. You can blame the US all you want for not rebuilding an army they were at war with a decade ago, but they have to help themselves at some point. If you can't even clean your shit routinely, then the fact that you suck is on you.
i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.


The U.S. discovered significant problems as it stepped up its assessment of Iraq's security forces in recent months, American officials said. They say they noted that more competent Sunni military tacticians in units in the north had been forced out by the Shiite-dominated government.

Across the military U.S. military personnel found the Iraqis were failing to properly maintain equipment. Training standards have declined sharply from 2011, when U.S. military forces advised Iraqi units.

The ISIS insurgents "are not strong, but the military is very weak," said Atheel Al Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province who said he fled its capital Mosul in the middle of the night on June 10 before the city fell. "There was no responsible leadership, there was no planning, there was no correct utilization for the military tools."

"The leaders and the soldiers have no military experience and have no convictions," he added.

Instead, the Iraqi command that ran Mosul by direct order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled the city like a fief, Mr. Nujaifi and other residents said.

"They are not an army, they just take money. No more," said a local Sunni militant in Mosul who said he fought alongside ISIS. "They don't care about orders, weapons or vehicles. They are paid just to get money."



so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...

[Nick Young]

i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.





so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...
Stop patronizing and infantilizing Iraqis. They are grown ass men capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their actions. The United States did not force them to be a shitty national security force. In fact by arming and training them, the US did everything it could to help them. The Iraqi soldiers are the ones choosing to show up high every day and put in half-assed effort and then throw down their weapons and run away from ISIS/join ISIS. US is not to blame here. Stop belittling Iraqis and talking about them as if they are all helpless children.

[9erempiree]

lol #REKT

To answer the question, it's a simple answer with a complicated attempt at a solution. Bad leadership. It is believed that a 'Messiah' will reappear to declare war on these fake Muslims (not just this group, all these groups that have caused dissension) and basically it will be the end of days. Day of Judgement could be right around the corner...

http://www.movieactors.com/photos-stars/arnold-schwarzenegger-end7.jpg
:facepalm

[UK2K]

i read it. they said exactly what i said.

trying to build a fighting force some scratch with little more than a check book is a recipe for disaster. sure in a place that has lost a quarter of its population in the past 25 years will have lots of desperate young men willing to arm up for food on his table. but he's not willing to die for that food.





so we're arguing whether the iraqi military sucked mostly because it was made of iraqis or mostly because the united states acted as its commander in chief? i'm willing to take an even split here. i'm sure the typical iraqi who signed up for that was a soft weak ass b!tch. the hardened folks are either fighting for sovereignty with isis or gave up on the country years ago.

remember all that talk about the surge during the 2008 election? how all we needed were more troops? can i ask you: do you believe the isis uprising could have been prevented if say in 2010 president obama doubled troops in the country. do you think iraq would be a prospering country 25 years the road if america had of just doubled down?

i understand why you might feel that way, but if that's your opinion on the matter, i don't think theres any more either of us can say...

The US government didn't act like anything... Except a sugar daddy. What they did with the money (steal it) is more their fault than ours, I would think. We have given them $26 billion dollars, and they've done what with it? Gave it to ISIS, when they deserted and ran in droves, leaving behind weapons far more advanced than ISIS had. Well guess what, now ISIS does have it, so the Iraqis will continue to run.

The Afghans are the same way. We leave, they surrender and abandon their posts and run every chance they get, over the same area where I MYSELF KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF THE TALIBAN/INSURGENCY five years ago. It's not hard. I did it. We did it. All it takes is to be aggressive. We lost men, sure, but for every one we lost, we killed 50. It's a war of attrition, that's how you beat an ideology.

I think ISIS would have been prevented with a small force of trainers, and a small force of garrison forces ALLOWED to engage the enemy. Unfortunately, when you basically advertise we are not going to fight anymore, people take advantage.

Remember Korea? We won. Kinda. They let us win, then when we left, they took over anyway. That's how you beat America. Rely on their populations discontent for military involvement, and wait. That's it.

I dont even remember the feeling of the country at the time, but withdrawing troops from the ME was a mistake. It was from the beginning, and it is now. As I said, the problem is, once we leave, the America populace wont let us go back.

And as I have said on this board numerous times, a few thousand US troops, without their hands tied behind their backs, would wipe out ISIS by Christmas. That's the difference between an army and a militia.

[RidonKs]

The US government didn't act like anything... Except a sugar daddy. What they did with the money (steal it) is more their fault than ours, I would think. We have given them $26 billion dollars, and they've done what with it? Gave it to ISIS, when they deserted and ran in droves, leaving behind weapons far more advanced than ISIS had. Well guess what, now ISIS does have it, so the Iraqis will continue to run.

The Afghans are the same way. We leave, they surrender and abandon their posts and run every chance they get, over the same area where I MYSELF KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF THE TALIBAN/INSURGENCY five years ago. It's not hard. I did it. We did it. All it takes is to be aggressive. We lost men, sure, but for every one we lost, we killed 50. It's a war of attrition, that's how you beat an ideology.

I think ISIS would have been prevented with a small force of trainers, and a small force of garrison forces ALLOWED to engage the enemy. Unfortunately, when you basically advertise we are not going to fight anymore, people take advantage.

Remember Korea? We won. Kinda. They let us win, then when we left, they took over anyway. That's how you beat America. Rely on their populations discontent for military involvement, and wait. That's it.

I dont even remember the feeling of the country at the time, but withdrawing troops from the ME was a mistake. It was from the beginning, and it is now. As I said, the problem is, once we leave, the America populace wont let us go back.

And as I have said on this board numerous times, a few thousand US troops, without their hands tied behind their backs, would wipe out ISIS by Christmas. That's the difference between an army and a militia.
fair enough. honest as always. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

Yup.

That's what I'm saying...isis was formed by sunnis who were treated like shit in their own country.
What are you talking about? Iraq was a majority Shia country that was ruled by a Sunni until George W. Bush decided to take him out.

[UK2K]

fair enough. honest as always. :cheers:

My stance towards the armies in the ME and Afghanistan is the same as my stance on the poor here in the states... I will help you to an extent, but at some point, you have to help yourself.

We've given them all the tools to get the job done, they just need to do it. That's not a US thing, its an Iraqi thing, or an Afghani thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

That video explains my position to a T.

"You want everything from me. You want guns, and ammunition. You want fuel. You want trucks. But you're too ****ing ***** to go three kilometers down the ****ing road and get the people who are tearing this town apart"

I cant tell you how many times I saw that same thing in Afghanistan. The ANA and ANP joined up for money, and job stability. They dont give two shits about who's killing who as long as their tribe is winning.

[NumberSix]

My stance towards the armies in the ME and Afghanistan is the same as my stance on the poor here in the states... I will help you to an extent, but at some point, you have to help yourself.

We've given them all the tools to get the job done, they just need to do it. That's not a US thing, its an Iraqi thing, or an Afghani thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GrdTakvl8

That video explains my position to a T.

"You want everything from me. You want guns, and ammunition. You want fuel. You want trucks. But you're too ****ing ***** to go three kilometers down the ****ing road and get the people who are tearing this town apart"

I cant tell you how many times I saw that same thing in Afghanistan. The ANA and ANP joined up for money, and job stability. They dont give two shits about who's killing who as long as their tribe is winning.
At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

[RidonKs]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.
besides the fact that this post completely skirts over the responsibility of western powers for conditions in the 2nd and 3rd worlds both... whether you think that responsibility is like 75% or fcking 2% it should at least be acknowledged....

it nevertheless addresses the central point. between world war one and world war two, the united states fundamentally altered its foreign policy and expanded the monroe doctrine across the entire world. the bush doctrine is a continuation of this same plank. that it is not just the responsibility of the united states to intervene where it believes it should, but it is actually an obligation to bring "democracy and freedom" to the rest of the world.

that call is virtually identical in character to the british who tried to bring culture to the savages. its the same as the french who had a civilizing mission. the belgians with w/e the fk they were trying. in character, though not in degree of violence, its not very different from nazi praise of the aryan race.these national dogmas vary in scale but fall on the same spectrum.

or how about Humanitarian Intervention aka Responsibility to Protect? thats a favourite particularly whenever the united nations are involved, tho still occasionally present in unilateral missions.

america as isolationist is properly in the american spirit. on this issue, ron and rand paul have it exactly right. the road to hell is paved in good intentions. on this matter, foreign economic/military intervention in foreign territory, throughout history it has only exacerbated conflict.

if you want to play live and let live in the domestic world of free market capitalism -- speaking to UK2K -- it only stands to reason that you should believe the same level of lasse faire should operate internationally as well.

[UK2K]

besides the fact that this post completely skirts over the responsibility of western powers for conditions in the 2nd and 3rd worlds both... whether you think that responsibility is like 75% or fcking 2% it should at least be acknowledged....

it nevertheless addresses the central point. between world war one and world war two, the united states fundamentally altered its foreign policy and expanded the monroe doctrine across the entire world. the bush doctrine is a continuation of this same plank. that it is not just the responsibility of the united states to intervene where it believes it should, but it is actually an obligation to bring "democracy and freedom" to the rest of the world.

that call is virtually identical in character to the british who tried to bring culture to the savages. its the same as the french who had a civilizing mission. the belgians with w/e the fk they were trying. in character, though not in degree of violence, its not very different from nazi praise of the aryan race.these national dogmas vary in scale but fall on the same spectrum.

or how about Humanitarian Intervention aka Responsibility to Protect? thats a favourite particularly whenever the united nations are involved, tho still occasionally present in unilateral missions.

america as isolationist is properly in the american spirit. on this issue, ron and rand paul have it exactly right. the road to hell is paved in good intentions. on this matter, foreign economic/military intervention in foreign territory, throughout history it has only exacerbated conflict.

if you want to play live and let live in the domestic world of free market capitalism -- speaking to UK2K -- it only stands to reason that you should believe the same level of lasse faire should operate internationally as well.

I do.

I've said before I think we should pull our troops back into the states, and let the world kill itself if it wants.

I actually felt good about what we did in Afghanistan. The media won't portray it that way, but we helped a lot of people. I personally handed out food and water, medical supplies, bought random shit from villagers, watched schools and hospitals and bridges be built. Only for the insurgency to blow them all up again.

Six is right, some people in the world just dont want to live like us. It sucks because those Afghans I interacted with DID want to live like us. Unfortunately, they are not the policy makers.

Its sad. It really is. I still think about some of the truck drivers I worked with. Nice guys, we taught them things and they taught us things, but the more I see what is going on now in places I used to walk around wearing nothing but shorts and sandals, the more I think we just need to worry about ourselves.

No truer version of survival of the fittest. Cut off military and financial aid to other countries, and let them all go at it. We should sit behind our walls and watch the show.

[UK2K]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.

You're right to a degree, but as I just posted, the populations want to be like us, while the policy makers and the vocal minority do not.

Through terror and keeping the population stupid, they can continue to live in the time before the wheel.

[Nick Young]

At some point we have to just accept that some cultures don't want to live like us. We keep looking for a solution to a "problem" but maybe there is no problem.

We just assume that it's everybody's goal to have a modern western style society. We keep trying to figure out what keeping them from reaching this goal, without recognizing the obvious. Having a modern western style society isn't their goal. It's time to accept that people of these cultures are who they are and that the kind of society they have is exactly the kind of society they want.
Yep. It's racist and patronizing to try to force western style democracy and freedom on people who have repeatedly shown they don't want it.

[RidonKs]

I do.

I've said before I think we should pull our troops back into the states, and let the world kill itself if it wants.

I actually felt good about what we did in Afghanistan. The media won't portray it that way, but we helped a lot of people. I personally handed out food and water, medical supplies, bought random shit from villagers, watched schools and hospitals and bridges be built. Only for the insurgency to blow them all up again.

Six is right, some people in the world just dont want to live like us. It sucks because those Afghans I interacted with DID want to live like us. Unfortunately, they are not the policy makers.

Its sad. It really is. I still think about some of the truck drivers I worked with. Nice guys, we taught them things and they taught us things, but the more I see what is going on now in places I used to walk around wearing nothing but shorts and sandals, the more I think we just need to worry about ourselves.

No truer version of survival of the fittest. Cut off military and financial aid to other countries, and let them all go at it. We should sit behind our walls and watch the show.
but if that is the case....

are there any cases of american intervention in countries around the world you believe were fundamentally wrong and immoral? i can list out the countries if you like, for the sake of argument. some of them are bound in history/geography, others very unique and isolated

iran
chile
cuba
guatemala
nicaragua
haiti
venezuela
brazil
vietnam
laos
cambodia
indonesia
phillipines
congo
afghanistan
iraq
panama

etc

now some american experts will tell you these 'missions' went wrong only when they grew too costly. but i'm asking a different question; were any of these impossible to justify from the beginning in your opinion?

bear in mind that, for each and every case, i'm sure dozens of hospitals and schools were build. in some cases they might still even be there.

[UK2K]

but if that is the case....

are there any cases of american intervention in countries around the world you believe were fundamentally wrong and immoral? i can list out the countries if you like, for the sake of argument. some of them are bound in history/geography, others very unique and isolated

iran
chile
cuba
guatemala
nicaragua
haiti
venezuela
brazil
vietnam
laos
cambodia
indonesia
phillipines
congo
afghanistan
iraq
panama

etc

now some american experts will tell you these 'missions' went wrong only when they grew too costly. but i'm asking a different question; were any of these impossible to justify from the beginning in your opinion?

bear in mind that, for each and every case, i'm sure dozens of hospitals and schools were build. in some cases they might still even be there.

Well, as someone pointed out, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I believe, in terms of military involvement, that most instances of American intervention involving more than a few hundred soldiers (or 'advisers') came about out of good intentions.

I believe the war in Afghanistan was right, it just wasn't finished. I believe Vietnam was right to a degree, up until they started drafting men into service. The military should be voluntary, always.

Although, I do agree there have been several instances of American intervention that we had no business getting involved in. I don't trust our government farther than I can throw them, and I think there are numerous times where our government has tried to *nudge* a situation one way or the other.

The Bay of Pigs is a great example. We had no business ever getting involved in Cuba's affairs. Same with revolutions going on in the ME today. It's not our business.

[RidonKs]

well i think you're underestimating the number of cases that were strictly in the interests of american investors, or strictly in the interest of american 'diplomacy'... those cases far outweigh the number that produced any long term prosperity in the country in question.

its laughable to me that even when americans can remember all the countries their government have invaded, they still find a way to justify them.

hell what do we hear vietnam called? 'the defense of south vietnam against the north'... when kennedy officially launched the war, it began as an attack on south vietnam. and stayed that way for several years before the country really settled into civil war.

so not only is that a justification of violence, its also a misnomer of epic proportions, as if the south vietnamese were desperate for help from, heres another classic foreign policy term, 'internal aggression', yes the internal vietnamese aggressors attacking the vietnamese.

[Payton2Dipo]

What is YPG, YPJ, Syrian army, Iranian army....?


Goddamn ish is fvcking stupid.