With some vinegar and, of course needing to eat more because it's boiled, I could make a serious dent in those spinach figures. I'm not even fat - I'm pretty tiny. However, I love me some spinach.
Hmm... I usually avoid these types of threads. It's too long to explain.;-)
I only knew it because it was on NPR a long time ago.:/ It doesn't get much media coverage. They give the same amount you'd expect. I was kind of surprised and then someone said they didn't so, yeah... I figured I'd better look it up and, sure enough.
Well yeah, don't we all? If not then why would we be posting? If we didn't want attention, if we didn't think our opinions were valid or interesting, if we didn't want to share, if we didn't want to learn, then why would we bother? I, for one, do want attention - for a whole host of reasons. I like to share, I like to learn, I like to throw ideas out there and let people improve on them, I like to hear other opinions so I'll start a conversation, and more.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. I don't really think that I can conclude that it is anything of the sort Mr. Matrix007. It's not like it is forceful or unhealthy attention seeking - it's mutually beneficial and there seems to be just one person who complains. That makes me think that it is, indeed, not something I should concern myself with.
What is amusing is that you, Mr. 007, are giving me that attention. You can't help it. Which means you're giving me power. Why you'd do that is beyond me. I don't know what life must be like for you if you're so willing to meander around, follow me, make complaints, and sometimes get a few moderation points to waste on me. You don't have to be powerless, you know. You have choices.
I think such a resolution would need to come from the UN. Which, of course, makes it impossible. It would take buy-in, at the global level, for it to even have a chance at success. It is all, after quite a bit of thought, that I can come up with. As I have absolutely no say in the matter, I'm open to suggestions. As you said, it's a thought exercise. I'm not really sure what else we can, reasonably, try. It is, I think, the most acceptable of bad options and better than the false dichotomy that is being placed in front of us (Assad or IS).
Also, I have a stalker who's claimed their going to mod "every one of my posts down." (That's going to be difficult for them.) Or, alternatively, I've hit on a plan that someone doesn't like. If the former is true then them granting me the power to control their actions is a nice ego boost. If it is the latter then, more exciting, I've maybe hit on a plan that could work against the powers that be.
There are certain benefits to be had, for those people in power, by maintaining a constant state of conflict. The lion quote is nice and made me think of the adage. I don't have to be able to outrun the lion. I only need to be able to outrun you. If they can keep us afraid of the lion they can keep us distracted.
I was reading an interesting essay. Basically, it postulated that we, as a society, only think we're getting smarter. It was not that long ago that one had to know how to be a medic, blacksmith, farmer, food processor, mechanic, engineer, teacher, etc. Today, we have specific domain knowledge and can't do things that were required not that long ago - we don't have to fix our car, grow our food, invent new tools, or things like that. The lion was, perhaps, social advances?
I like your conservation of discontent. Look at the current Outrage Society we have. There is nothing, not one thing, that you can do that someone isn't offended by. There are even people who are offended by your very existence. No matter how polite you are, you will find someone who's willing to be offended. No, not willing, but eager. I sometimes wonder if this is intentional. I don't recall this being the case during the majority of my life and I'm almost 58 (close enough to where I might as well, and do, say it).
I'm not sure where this cultural thing came from but, I guess, it's probably a "good thing" that we're in that position - where we can be outraged over the trivial things means we've probably resolved the major things. I suspect we'll always have reason for outrage as perfection simply will not happen.
Thank you. I'd seen prior posts from you and, I'm pretty sure, you're not stupid. I was *really* a bit alarmed with your reply. It had me thinking that, maybe, there was an area where you were quite a zealot and irrational. The clarification certainly helps. We're basically on the same page. To put it mildly, I was kind of concerned that I'd made an error in judgment or that I was somehow missing something.
Would that I could, I'd offer some insight as to how to fix this. It's not without some thought that i say, I do not know. I've pondered and researched and even delved into some history of the region to see if I can better understand this, specifically more so since the Paris attacks on Friday. I simply can not come up with a solution and there appear to be only a couple of choices. While settling for the lesser of two evils, in the long run, I'm not sure what the lesser of two evils would be.
Bear with me for a moment... If you will - this is mostly digression but salient, I think, nonetheless.
Remember Stalin and his purges? They were *mostly* done for a very specific reason - some was megalomania, some was psychoses even, but the real reason was that he felt he needed to rid the country of privilege and dissidents. The goal was a utopia, "Communism in one country!" (At any cost.) I'm led to believe that there were no plans to expand beyond their immediate area. I imagine this is much the same.
Now, as horrific as this sounds, what if - just what if, we allow them their Caliphate? Of course, helping to extract those who do not wish to be members if given free choice to do so would be ideal. However, removing their victims and taking away those who are persecuted by these IS members and allowing them to have self-direction as a State might actually be a valid third choice. The extracting of those who wish to leave would be difficult but should such a plan be offered and the IS decline it then, by all means, we're going to need a different plan which may absolutely require violence on a level not seen in a long time.
--- "If you give your people freedom to leave, and we'll help them to do so, we will give you your own country so long as you remain within the current territories you're controlling. If, after this, you fail to behave like an acceptable nation, make no mistake - we will eliminate every last one of you and that means complete and total destruction of civilians who opted to remain within your borders.
We will even go so far as to protect you from invasions from other Nation-States during and after this so long as you continue to remain within your borders and uphold $this_level of basic human rights. We repeat, any attempt to stop people from leaving or any infractions beyond $date will result in every bit of infrastructure being destroyed and every single person being considered a legitimate target until the entire Islamic State has been eradicated from the Earth and erased from the history books." ---
So, only tangentially related, but I figured I'd share what I've concluded so far. I don't really think the problem is, specifically, religion. I think religion is the excuse and, probably, is what is the primary motivator for the common combatant. I can assure you that the common combatant is not, in fact, an actual representation of the motivations behind this group of people. Give them the right to self-determination, let them create their nation, ensure they've given those wishing to leave a safe passage out while retaining their assets, and then help them to become responsible. I know, that's an absurd thought to most but, perhaps, you'll understand where I'm coming from and what I'm envisioning.
I've kind of posted more than I should today so my post limit is pretty much used up. Slashdot has a 50/day post limit, regardless of how high your karma goes. It's arbitrary and silly but, there it is. I'll do my best to reply should such be warranted. I do apologize for the digression and the novella but, seeing as you managed to clarify, I figure that taking it to the next step may be an interesting conversation. I'm always open to other insights, views, and learning new things.
I went through your link and I'm not seeing anything from modern history in there. I did see about 20 Mormons listed from the 1800s. I'm not really seeing a whole lot of killing by Christians in the name of Christianity in modern history. I appreciate the link, and all, but I'm not sure that it actually addresses my question.
No, no I am not a Christian or anything. We can discuss my religion if you want but it's immaterial (I'm a secular Buddhist, atheist or agnostic - if you perfer) so I'm not standing up for them due to personal biases. What I am is doubting the legitimacy of pointing and saying, "They did it too!" More specifically, I'm doubting the validity of such arguments when they're premised on acts from quite some time ago.
At some point, historically, we've all been evil. What is the value in making false equivalences? (At this point, I am presuming them to be false as nobody has demonstrated anything in modern history where Christians where out killing others in the name of Christianity. However, I'm not all-knowing and could be missing something.)
What, exactly, is the point of pointing out (even if you want to go back to the middle ages) that Christians have done shitty things in the past? The very fact that they're not doing so currently should be taken into account. I think you'll find, should you crunch the numbers, that religion has been the actual reason for killing a very limited number of times. I dare say that the majority of the deaths would have been because people are, quite frequently, assholes and that they simply used religion as an excuse for them to control or harm others. But, I digress...
Those goalposts won't move themselves! You said that you don't see the Sauds [sic] helping out with famines in Africa. That's probably correct. *You* don't see it but that's only because you refuse to see it - further evidenced by your attempts to move the goalposts in your latter reply. While I showed you that you're willfully ignorant you continued to remain so. You've then attempted to move the goalposts and failed to simply say, "Oh, I was wrong."
It's okay to be wrong. You can remain ignorant all you want. You made a claim. It was a lie. I showed you the proof. You then decided to go with weasel words and continued to make further unsubstantiated statements that have no bearing on the conversation.
The powers that be don't want the wars to end. They have trained the Pavlovian dogs to respond. They see the defenders and squeak about emotions. (That's all a war crime is, it's about emotions.) If you're going to go to war (and this is why you shouldn't go to war) there are no rules nor should there be rules. That there are rules only leads to more conflicts. The enemy doesn't adhere to those rules.
They can hide behind a wall of civilians. You can not. Why? You're expected to maintain the moral high-ground. You're expected to adhere to the rules of war. You are expected to be the more moral of the two. This is not a reason to go to war - this is a reason to avoid it as much as possible. However, if you're going to war then you should do what is required. You must, indeed, "Do the needful."
The poster that you replied to is a puppet. They're played and manipulated. They'll respond (and did) with a fear based and emotional response. The powers that be don't want a time of peace. Peace gives time for introspection. Peace gives time to look at our individual rights and freedoms. Peace makes people see what powers have been usurped in their name. Peace is not good for the economy nor is it good for those seeking to maintain power and control.
But, you know... Emotions... Fear...
Again, this should be read as a condemnation of war and violence. They are horrific things. You don't "win" at war with obeying rules. No winning military has obeyed the rules since the days of the death of chivalry and maybe not before that.
I learned this as a child. A boy wanted to fight me behind the school because he didn't like my race. He didn't want me to punch him in the face or anywhere below the belt. I kicked him in the nuts, gave him a black eye, bloody nose, and split his lip open. If you're going to fight then do it only if you've enough reason to be willing to actually fight without restraint. In other words, stop fighting. It's fucking stupid and you end up with a black eye, bloody nose, sore nuts, and a slit lip.
I'd not be too surprised if France pulled a US-9/11-style response. I expect boots on the ground in short order. I might be wrong but I'd not be surprised. In fact, I expect it enough to be willing to wager on it. Hmm... Say a limit of 6 months? Yeah, I'd bet that they have boots on the ground (maybe just intelligence) in 6 months or less.
To be honest, I'm really not sure who to root for? I mean, I can't root for IS. I can't really root for Assad either. The situation is so complicated that, unlike some others, I simply am forced to admit that I don't know what is best. Maybe it would be acceptable to let Russia stomp in, do their dirty work, and then let them try to tame the populace? Sure, it's going to go down Russia-style but what other choices are we left with, realistically?
I don't really know. I am not qualified to give an opinion. I do know that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution. I'm not even sure that there's a good solution? It's disheartening that we're still doing this sort of stuff in 2015. It would be nice if the humans were a bit more intelligent and compassionate. However, that is entirely unrealistic as we have, at no point in our history, demonstrated a capacity to be peaceful, reasoned, and compassionate as a whole.
We probably climbed down out of the trees for the express reason of climbing someone else's tree to bonk them on the head with a stick.
I, for one, would prefer it if the US was not the World Police. I seem to recall that recent history also includes France also declaring that they did not want the US to be the World Police. In fact, I'm not sure the US should be involved in this at all. We should, on the other hand, sell those Europeans technology and weapons.
As someone who has traveled the globe, to some extent, including into areas with active conflict zones (a turn of phrase that I don't prefer but will save time by using it - clarification is available if requested) - I've been in majority-Muslim countries. I've been in areas where there are armed children on the street. I've been in areas where the people are truly desperate.
So, while this may seem an appeal to authority - that is not my intent, this is my experience so it is anecdotal and only my observations.
You're correct. No matter where I've gone (and I've had the State Department tell me that I'm on my own and strongly advise me to not go), the VAST majority of the people are just people. To varied degrees they put their head down and do what they need to do to make the best of their situation. They're not intrinsically evil - even the people we disagree with. Most of those, the armed folks, are just doing what they need to do in order to survive. There are exceptions, there always are. However, the overwhelming majority seems to support my conclusion.
Sorry - that was for storage purposes. However, they do make special restraints (called a Hans device) that tie one into the vehicle (since the death of a famous NASCAR racer they've been mandatory) that tie you into the vehicle, this was not the case with mine. No, the helmets were affixed to the backs of the seats when not in use. My bad. I probably should have been more articulate.
Yes you do. Well, no, you don't because you're a willfully ignorant twat. However, they do give aid to Africans. I can dig out a shitton of evidence but will you accept Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2006, the Saudi government gave $10 million in aid to the horn of Africa, through the World Food Programme, of which Kenya received $2 million.[19] Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal donated $1 million to help feed 3.5 million Kenyans during the drought.[20]
I'm sure that I can dig out more. So yes, I *do* see the Saudis giving out aid, specifically, to help with famines in Africa. You do not see it because you will not see it. I can see, now, why you'd want to post as an AC.
Over the past decade Saudi Arabia has been the 19th largest government provider of humanitarian assistance.
There are enough things to be angry about without having to make up new things to be angry about. Ignorance is catchy, others will see your post and believe it. Stop being ignorant or, if you must, do so in private.
The missus is now awake. My guffaw was loud enough to awaken her. I'd read your username prior to reading the post and that has made all the difference. *sighs* Go home, Pope, you're drunk! 'Tis okay, she gave me naught but an evil look and wandered back to sleep.
We have this thing, supposedly, called the rule of law. This means that you're not guilty until the state has achieved the burden of proof required to deem you guilty. As deplorable as these people are, I'd rather we not dismantle the very principles we've agreed on in an effort to contain or punish them. The adage about staring into an abyss is acceptable here.
Your kind of thinking is how we ended up with things like the PATRIOT ACT and other assorted rights restrictions. How many rights are you willing to give up? You know, any rights you give up for these people are also your rights and even if you don't make use of them personally, there are many others who do - and not for bad effect. The very idea of needing to prove guilt is not something that should ever be subject to debate unless it means increasing the burden of proof. Another adage, one that it is better for ten men to go free than to put one innocent one behind bars, is also appropriate.
Oh yes, they were a barbaric lot who infringed on the basic rights of humans and do still, to this very day. They've continued to be barbaric (some of them) and their actions are deplorable. The Arabic peoples were doing great things until they were "enlightened" and converted to Islam. I've plenty of scorn for them.
I could agree that religion isn't responsible for anything. I know that you were hoping I'd not but I do, if I think about it. People are responsible. Blame them, not their religion, if you're looking to blame something. And certainly, the call to arms was religious in nature. That doesn't mean that's the reason it was done. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq because of WMDs and 9/11. The boots on the ground felt that those were indeed the reasons, hell - lots of people joined just because of those reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
With some vinegar and, of course needing to eat more because it's boiled, I could make a serious dent in those spinach figures. I'm not even fat - I'm pretty tiny. However, I love me some spinach.
Hmm... I usually avoid these types of threads. It's too long to explain. ;-)
I only knew it because it was on NPR a long time ago. :/ It doesn't get much media coverage. They give the same amount you'd expect. I was kind of surprised and then someone said they didn't so, yeah... I figured I'd better look it up and, sure enough.
They are #19 in the world by GDP. They are #19 in terms of giving. You were saying?
Yeah? Well, what about dead babies? Huh? They won't let him eat dead babies! There's an affront right there!
I'm going back to sleep.
Well yeah, don't we all? If not then why would we be posting? If we didn't want attention, if we didn't think our opinions were valid or interesting, if we didn't want to share, if we didn't want to learn, then why would we bother? I, for one, do want attention - for a whole host of reasons. I like to share, I like to learn, I like to throw ideas out there and let people improve on them, I like to hear other opinions so I'll start a conversation, and more.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. I don't really think that I can conclude that it is anything of the sort Mr. Matrix007. It's not like it is forceful or unhealthy attention seeking - it's mutually beneficial and there seems to be just one person who complains. That makes me think that it is, indeed, not something I should concern myself with.
What is amusing is that you, Mr. 007, are giving me that attention. You can't help it. Which means you're giving me power. Why you'd do that is beyond me. I don't know what life must be like for you if you're so willing to meander around, follow me, make complaints, and sometimes get a few moderation points to waste on me. You don't have to be powerless, you know. You have choices.
I think such a resolution would need to come from the UN. Which, of course, makes it impossible. It would take buy-in, at the global level, for it to even have a chance at success. It is all, after quite a bit of thought, that I can come up with. As I have absolutely no say in the matter, I'm open to suggestions. As you said, it's a thought exercise. I'm not really sure what else we can, reasonably, try. It is, I think, the most acceptable of bad options and better than the false dichotomy that is being placed in front of us (Assad or IS).
Also, I have a stalker who's claimed their going to mod "every one of my posts down." (That's going to be difficult for them.) Or, alternatively, I've hit on a plan that someone doesn't like. If the former is true then them granting me the power to control their actions is a nice ego boost. If it is the latter then, more exciting, I've maybe hit on a plan that could work against the powers that be.
There are certain benefits to be had, for those people in power, by maintaining a constant state of conflict. The lion quote is nice and made me think of the adage. I don't have to be able to outrun the lion. I only need to be able to outrun you. If they can keep us afraid of the lion they can keep us distracted.
I was reading an interesting essay. Basically, it postulated that we, as a society, only think we're getting smarter. It was not that long ago that one had to know how to be a medic, blacksmith, farmer, food processor, mechanic, engineer, teacher, etc. Today, we have specific domain knowledge and can't do things that were required not that long ago - we don't have to fix our car, grow our food, invent new tools, or things like that. The lion was, perhaps, social advances?
I like your conservation of discontent. Look at the current Outrage Society we have. There is nothing, not one thing, that you can do that someone isn't offended by. There are even people who are offended by your very existence. No matter how polite you are, you will find someone who's willing to be offended. No, not willing, but eager. I sometimes wonder if this is intentional. I don't recall this being the case during the majority of my life and I'm almost 58 (close enough to where I might as well, and do, say it).
I'm not sure where this cultural thing came from but, I guess, it's probably a "good thing" that we're in that position - where we can be outraged over the trivial things means we've probably resolved the major things. I suspect we'll always have reason for outrage as perfection simply will not happen.
Thank you. I'd seen prior posts from you and, I'm pretty sure, you're not stupid. I was *really* a bit alarmed with your reply. It had me thinking that, maybe, there was an area where you were quite a zealot and irrational. The clarification certainly helps. We're basically on the same page. To put it mildly, I was kind of concerned that I'd made an error in judgment or that I was somehow missing something.
Would that I could, I'd offer some insight as to how to fix this. It's not without some thought that i say, I do not know. I've pondered and researched and even delved into some history of the region to see if I can better understand this, specifically more so since the Paris attacks on Friday. I simply can not come up with a solution and there appear to be only a couple of choices. While settling for the lesser of two evils, in the long run, I'm not sure what the lesser of two evils would be.
Bear with me for a moment... If you will - this is mostly digression but salient, I think, nonetheless.
Remember Stalin and his purges? They were *mostly* done for a very specific reason - some was megalomania, some was psychoses even, but the real reason was that he felt he needed to rid the country of privilege and dissidents. The goal was a utopia, "Communism in one country!" (At any cost.) I'm led to believe that there were no plans to expand beyond their immediate area. I imagine this is much the same.
Now, as horrific as this sounds, what if - just what if, we allow them their Caliphate? Of course, helping to extract those who do not wish to be members if given free choice to do so would be ideal. However, removing their victims and taking away those who are persecuted by these IS members and allowing them to have self-direction as a State might actually be a valid third choice. The extracting of those who wish to leave would be difficult but should such a plan be offered and the IS decline it then, by all means, we're going to need a different plan which may absolutely require violence on a level not seen in a long time.
---
"If you give your people freedom to leave, and we'll help them to do so, we will give you your own country so long as you remain within the current territories you're controlling. If, after this, you fail to behave like an acceptable nation, make no mistake - we will eliminate every last one of you and that means complete and total destruction of civilians who opted to remain within your borders.
We will even go so far as to protect you from invasions from other Nation-States during and after this so long as you continue to remain within your borders and uphold $this_level of basic human rights. We repeat, any attempt to stop people from leaving or any infractions beyond $date will result in every bit of infrastructure being destroyed and every single person being considered a legitimate target until the entire Islamic State has been eradicated from the Earth and erased from the history books."
---
So, only tangentially related, but I figured I'd share what I've concluded so far. I don't really think the problem is, specifically, religion. I think religion is the excuse and, probably, is what is the primary motivator for the common combatant. I can assure you that the common combatant is not, in fact, an actual representation of the motivations behind this group of people. Give them the right to self-determination, let them create their nation, ensure they've given those wishing to leave a safe passage out while retaining their assets, and then help them to become responsible. I know, that's an absurd thought to most but, perhaps, you'll understand where I'm coming from and what I'm envisioning.
I've kind of posted more than I should today so my post limit is pretty much used up. Slashdot has a 50/day post limit, regardless of how high your karma goes. It's arbitrary and silly but, there it is. I'll do my best to reply should such be warranted. I do apologize for the digression and the novella but, seeing as you managed to clarify, I figure that taking it to the next step may be an interesting conversation. I'm always open to other insights, views, and learning new things.
I went through your link and I'm not seeing anything from modern history in there. I did see about 20 Mormons listed from the 1800s. I'm not really seeing a whole lot of killing by Christians in the name of Christianity in modern history. I appreciate the link, and all, but I'm not sure that it actually addresses my question.
No, no I am not a Christian or anything. We can discuss my religion if you want but it's immaterial (I'm a secular Buddhist, atheist or agnostic - if you perfer) so I'm not standing up for them due to personal biases. What I am is doubting the legitimacy of pointing and saying, "They did it too!" More specifically, I'm doubting the validity of such arguments when they're premised on acts from quite some time ago.
At some point, historically, we've all been evil. What is the value in making false equivalences? (At this point, I am presuming them to be false as nobody has demonstrated anything in modern history where Christians where out killing others in the name of Christianity. However, I'm not all-knowing and could be missing something.)
What, exactly, is the point of pointing out (even if you want to go back to the middle ages) that Christians have done shitty things in the past? The very fact that they're not doing so currently should be taken into account. I think you'll find, should you crunch the numbers, that religion has been the actual reason for killing a very limited number of times. I dare say that the majority of the deaths would have been because people are, quite frequently, assholes and that they simply used religion as an excuse for them to control or harm others. But, I digress...
You've got a strange definition of modern. :/ Anything more recent? Say, the past 100, 150 years? Hell, even in the past 50?
Heh... It's gonna let me post this as a logged in user. Stupid Slashdot. Ah well... I thought I'd have to post this as an AC.
Those goalposts won't move themselves! You said that you don't see the Sauds [sic] helping out with famines in Africa. That's probably correct. *You* don't see it but that's only because you refuse to see it - further evidenced by your attempts to move the goalposts in your latter reply. While I showed you that you're willfully ignorant you continued to remain so. You've then attempted to move the goalposts and failed to simply say, "Oh, I was wrong."
It's okay to be wrong. You can remain ignorant all you want. You made a claim. It was a lie. I showed you the proof. You then decided to go with weasel words and continued to make further unsubstantiated statements that have no bearing on the conversation.
I think we're done here.
The powers that be don't want the wars to end. They have trained the Pavlovian dogs to respond. They see the defenders and squeak about emotions. (That's all a war crime is, it's about emotions.) If you're going to go to war (and this is why you shouldn't go to war) there are no rules nor should there be rules. That there are rules only leads to more conflicts. The enemy doesn't adhere to those rules.
They can hide behind a wall of civilians. You can not. Why? You're expected to maintain the moral high-ground. You're expected to adhere to the rules of war. You are expected to be the more moral of the two. This is not a reason to go to war - this is a reason to avoid it as much as possible. However, if you're going to war then you should do what is required. You must, indeed, "Do the needful."
The poster that you replied to is a puppet. They're played and manipulated. They'll respond (and did) with a fear based and emotional response. The powers that be don't want a time of peace. Peace gives time for introspection. Peace gives time to look at our individual rights and freedoms. Peace makes people see what powers have been usurped in their name. Peace is not good for the economy nor is it good for those seeking to maintain power and control.
But, you know... Emotions... Fear...
Again, this should be read as a condemnation of war and violence. They are horrific things. You don't "win" at war with obeying rules. No winning military has obeyed the rules since the days of the death of chivalry and maybe not before that.
I learned this as a child. A boy wanted to fight me behind the school because he didn't like my race. He didn't want me to punch him in the face or anywhere below the belt. I kicked him in the nuts, gave him a black eye, bloody nose, and split his lip open. If you're going to fight then do it only if you've enough reason to be willing to actually fight without restraint. In other words, stop fighting. It's fucking stupid and you end up with a black eye, bloody nose, sore nuts, and a slit lip.
I'd not be too surprised if France pulled a US-9/11-style response. I expect boots on the ground in short order. I might be wrong but I'd not be surprised. In fact, I expect it enough to be willing to wager on it. Hmm... Say a limit of 6 months? Yeah, I'd bet that they have boots on the ground (maybe just intelligence) in 6 months or less.
To be honest, I'm really not sure who to root for? I mean, I can't root for IS. I can't really root for Assad either. The situation is so complicated that, unlike some others, I simply am forced to admit that I don't know what is best. Maybe it would be acceptable to let Russia stomp in, do their dirty work, and then let them try to tame the populace? Sure, it's going to go down Russia-style but what other choices are we left with, realistically?
I don't really know. I am not qualified to give an opinion. I do know that there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution. I'm not even sure that there's a good solution? It's disheartening that we're still doing this sort of stuff in 2015. It would be nice if the humans were a bit more intelligent and compassionate. However, that is entirely unrealistic as we have, at no point in our history, demonstrated a capacity to be peaceful, reasoned, and compassionate as a whole.
We probably climbed down out of the trees for the express reason of climbing someone else's tree to bonk them on the head with a stick.
I, for one, would prefer it if the US was not the World Police. I seem to recall that recent history also includes France also declaring that they did not want the US to be the World Police. In fact, I'm not sure the US should be involved in this at all. We should, on the other hand, sell those Europeans technology and weapons.
Those would require risk taking and physical labor. I don't see that happening. ;-)
This folks, this response that I'm replying to, is how you end up with continual conflicts.
As someone who has traveled the globe, to some extent, including into areas with active conflict zones (a turn of phrase that I don't prefer but will save time by using it - clarification is available if requested) - I've been in majority-Muslim countries. I've been in areas where there are armed children on the street. I've been in areas where the people are truly desperate.
So, while this may seem an appeal to authority - that is not my intent, this is my experience so it is anecdotal and only my observations.
You're correct. No matter where I've gone (and I've had the State Department tell me that I'm on my own and strongly advise me to not go), the VAST majority of the people are just people. To varied degrees they put their head down and do what they need to do to make the best of their situation. They're not intrinsically evil - even the people we disagree with. Most of those, the armed folks, are just doing what they need to do in order to survive. There are exceptions, there always are. However, the overwhelming majority seems to support my conclusion.
People are people, no matter where you go.
Hmm... When, in modern history, have the Christians killed "each other over Christianity by the millions?" I'm no historian so, help me out.
Sorry - that was for storage purposes. However, they do make special restraints (called a Hans device) that tie one into the vehicle (since the death of a famous NASCAR racer they've been mandatory) that tie you into the vehicle, this was not the case with mine. No, the helmets were affixed to the backs of the seats when not in use. My bad. I probably should have been more articulate.
Yes you do. Well, no, you don't because you're a willfully ignorant twat. However, they do give aid to Africans. I can dig out a shitton of evidence but will you accept Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In 2006, the Saudi government gave $10 million in aid to the horn of Africa, through the World Food Programme, of which Kenya received $2 million.[19] Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal donated $1 million to help feed 3.5 million Kenyans during the drought.[20]
I'm sure that I can dig out more. So yes, I *do* see the Saudis giving out aid, specifically, to help with famines in Africa. You do not see it because you will not see it. I can see, now, why you'd want to post as an AC.
Over the past decade Saudi Arabia has been the 19th largest government provider of humanitarian assistance.
http://www.globalhumanitariana...
There are enough things to be angry about without having to make up new things to be angry about. Ignorance is catchy, others will see your post and believe it. Stop being ignorant or, if you must, do so in private.
The missus is now awake. My guffaw was loud enough to awaken her. I'd read your username prior to reading the post and that has made all the difference. *sighs* Go home, Pope, you're drunk! 'Tis okay, she gave me naught but an evil look and wandered back to sleep.
We have this thing, supposedly, called the rule of law. This means that you're not guilty until the state has achieved the burden of proof required to deem you guilty. As deplorable as these people are, I'd rather we not dismantle the very principles we've agreed on in an effort to contain or punish them. The adage about staring into an abyss is acceptable here.
Your kind of thinking is how we ended up with things like the PATRIOT ACT and other assorted rights restrictions. How many rights are you willing to give up? You know, any rights you give up for these people are also your rights and even if you don't make use of them personally, there are many others who do - and not for bad effect. The very idea of needing to prove guilt is not something that should ever be subject to debate unless it means increasing the burden of proof. Another adage, one that it is better for ten men to go free than to put one innocent one behind bars, is also appropriate.
Oh yes, they were a barbaric lot who infringed on the basic rights of humans and do still, to this very day. They've continued to be barbaric (some of them) and their actions are deplorable. The Arabic peoples were doing great things until they were "enlightened" and converted to Islam. I've plenty of scorn for them.
Wait...
You're using McAfee?
Do you complain that Tesla is offering free charging stations?
I could agree that religion isn't responsible for anything. I know that you were hoping I'd not but I do, if I think about it. People are responsible. Blame them, not their religion, if you're looking to blame something. And certainly, the call to arms was religious in nature. That doesn't mean that's the reason it was done. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq because of WMDs and 9/11. The boots on the ground felt that those were indeed the reasons, hell - lots of people joined just because of those reasons.
That's one recent example. I can go on.