Dr.Strangelove Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Then please travel to Ottawa to make a case for war and not Washington, DC. Im not making no case thats for Obama to decide. I've seen enough war to last me several life times but I think we have to support the ground war on ISIS even if it's with a volunteer force in the vein of the International Brigades of the Spanish civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Who? http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/03/intl_world/amanpour-didier-francois/index.html London (CNN)A French journalist's ISIS captives cared so little about religion they did not even have a Quran, Didier François -- who spent over 10 months as the group's prisoner in Syria -- told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an exclusive interview on Tuesday. "There was never really discussion about texts or -- it was not a religious discussion. It was a political discussion." "It was more hammering what they were believing than teaching us about the Quran. Because it has nothing to do with the Quran." "They didn't even have the Quran; they didn't want even to give us a Quran." François was released in April last year, but has only rarely spoken about his ordeal. He is one of the rare ISIS hostages who was freed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Rand Paul? I agree with a decent amount of what he says so if he's elected, hopefully he'll stay true to his word. Obama sure didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 We (the US) do have the most powerful military in history, but that doesn't mean that we should keep risking US lives and US treasure in order to screw up that cesspool more than we already have. I was against attacking Iraq whether they had WMD's, real or not real. George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in US history. A united Europe can handle a ground offensive against ISIS. Add in Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. and ISIS wouldn't last even 6 months. *edit* Added a few words to correct my sentences. I'm having a problem writing properly today... lol You don't think other countries are risking lives? This isn't about national interest at this point when literally the entire world is united against ISIS. I think it's wrong to expect America to "save" the Middle East, it's not possible for any single nation to do that. But when every year shows annual spending like this for America, the country is near obligated to spearhead international military aid. Also, along with Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, let's not forget Iran and Israel. They have more than capable military forces to aide in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianLoonie Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Im not making no case thats for Obama to decide. I've seen enough war to last me several life times but I think we have to support the ground war on ISIS even if it's with a volunteer force in the vein of the International Brigades of the Spanish civil war. I would donate to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Im not making no case thats for Obama to decide. I've seen enough war to last me several life times but I think we have to support the ground war on ISIS even if it's with a volunteer force in the vein of the International Brigades of the Spanish civil war. The US armed forces is a 100% volunteer military already. I'd just rather see the other world powers take care of this one. Canada has the connections in Europe (especially in the UK) to try and make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 Jordan executes ISIS hostages. I disagree with the move as Jordan lowers themselves to similar levels. Had a chance to take the high road and missed it. Absolutely not. These prisoners were failed suicide bombers, and on top of that they have been on the death row for a long time. These people were dead no matter what, so it's not any "lower" than in a country with capital punishment for being responsible for injuring hundreds ends with a death sentence. How is that similar to burning a pilot alive and beheading journalists to recruit militants in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You don't think other countries are risking lives? This isn't about national interest at this point when literally the entire world is united against ISIS. I think it's wrong to expect America to "save" the Middle East, it's not possible for any single nation to do that. But when every year shows annual spending like this for America, the country is near obligated to spearhead international military aid. Also, along with Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, let's not forget Iran and Israel. They have more than capable military forces to aide in this situation. Of course other countries are risking lives. America is only obligated to defend itself and protect it's interests. Saving certain parts of the Middle East isn't in it's interests. Like I said, let Europe and Canada handle this one. Just the UK and France have plenty of advanced weaponry and could take care of ISIS if they joined forces. Add in the other countries and ISIS wouldn't last long at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Of course other countries are risking lives. America is only obligated to defend itself and protect it's interests. Saving certain parts of the Middle East isn't in it's interests. Like I said, let Europe and Canada handle this one. Just the UK and France have plenty of advanced weaponry and could take care of ISIS if they joined forces. Add in the other countries and ISIS wouldn't last long at all. It saddens me that the only lives you really care about share the same passport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Absolutely not. These prisoners were failed suicide bombers, and on top of that they have been on the death row for a long time. These people were dead no matter what, so it's not any "lower" than in a country with capital punishment for being responsible for injuring hundreds ends with a death sentence. How is that similar to burning a pilot alive and beheading journalists to recruit militants in any way?Regardless of the reason they are executions. The Jordanian probably bombed some civilians too. Just like a suicide bomber would. Now I'm not backing ISIS but just looking at the situation and thinking about the best choice. I think the best choice is also the hardest, no executions. Not to mention these are suicide bombers. You're giving them what they want by killing them. Probably worse for them to grow old in a prison. I used to believe in excecuting until I read the biography of a well known british excecutioner. I will look him up when I have a moment but basically he executed more people than anyone and disagreed with it at the end.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pierrepoint Pierrepoint allegedly became an opponent of capital punishment. The reason for this seems to be a combination of the experiences of his father, his uncle, and himself, whereupon reprieves were granted in accordance with political expediency or public fancy, and had little to do with the merits of the case in question. He had also hanged a slight acquaintance, James Corbitt, on 28 November 1950; Corbitt was a regular in his pub, and had sung "Danny Boy" as a duet with Pierrepoint on the night he murdered his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy because she would not give up a second boyfriend. This incident, in particular, made Pierrepoint feel that hanging was no deterrent, particularly when most of the people he was executing had killed in the heat of the moment rather than with premeditation or in furtherance of a robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 The US armed forces is a 100% volunteer military already. I'd just rather see the other world powers take care of this one. Canada has the connections in Europe (especially in the UK) to try and make it happen. this can't be done without a new brand of multilaterialism, since the UN/Security Council is such an impotent joke (thanks to Chinese idiots, Russian idiots, etc.). a new "concert" needs to be formed with powerful groups, otherwise America should not act at all. to me, it's really that simple. America can lead the multilateral group, doesn't matter. But a group needs to be established by nations with similar motives, similar or compatible levels of "hard" or "soft" power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power), and it needs to act accordingly. Or... why waste everyone's time with this UN nonsense? IF the Western ideal is really the one that needs to be spread, then the Western ideal needs to be able to act. Going into the middle east and cleaning the slate every five years is a worthless effort. it's a waste of lives and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 It saddens me that the only lives you really care about share the same passport. I care about all life. I just care the most about the ones that live in my country. It's been that way since the dawn of man. You protect your "tribe" above all else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 this can't be done without a new brand of multilaterialism, since the UN/Security Council is such an impotent joke (thanks to Chinese idiots, Russian idiots, etc.). a new "concert" needs to be formed with powerful groups, otherwise America should not act at all. to me, it's really that simple. America can lead the multilateral group, doesn't matter. But a group needs to be established by nations with similar motives, similar or compatible levels of "hard" or "soft" power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power), and it needs to act accordingly. Or... why waste everyone's time with this UN nonsense? IF the Western ideal is really the one that needs to be spread, then the Western ideal needs to be able to act. Going into the middle east and cleaning the slate every five years is a worthless effort. it's a waste of lives and money. What you are describing is NATO. It was created in part because of the impotency of the UN. The UN is really just The League of Nations 2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I care about all life. I just care the most about the ones that live in my country. It's been that way since the dawn of man. You protect your "tribe" above all else. Ignoring the obvious fallacy in this argument... no wait... I can't ignore it... Doesn't make it right.... should women be subservient and considered lesser then men? Should people be enslaved because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs? The US is very different then an ancient "tribe" where everyone knew everyone else and protected each other due to common interests and mutual survival. All lives are equal but some are more equal then others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted February 4, 2015 Author Share Posted February 4, 2015 All lives are equal but some are more equal then others? No, silly. There's math involved in this. 1 American life = 1000 middle Eastern lives = 1 million black lives. Been the way since the dawn of man, why else would there be black slavery and stuff? Just nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 What you are describing is NATO. It was created in part because of the impotency of the UN. The UN is really just The League of Nations 2.0. yeah, sorta. a quote from a Washington Post article about multilateralism in the face of "pesky powers" such as Russia/China: Another approach is to supplement the United Nations with a more capable and cohesive international organization such as NATO. But while NATO has helped with logistics on peacekeeping operations in Darfur, it is unlikely to seek or accept greater global responsibilities. At the White House, I watched President Bush ask NATO leaders to come to Darfur's rescue only to see his request roundly ignored. NATO seems fully occupied and completely exhausted by its limited exertions in Afghanistan. European militaries are dramatically underfunded for far-flung missions. And many Europeans seem fully prepared to accept the free ride of American security protection while contributing little to the security of others. Another option is to bypass the United Nations. "We can have a league of democracies," argues McCain, "to impose sanctions and to cut off many of the things and benefits that the Iranians are now getting from other democracies. I think it's clear that the United Nations Security Council will not act effectively, with Russia and China behaving as they are." McCain is proposing, in essence, to create a new NATO that actually works. But a new global alliance of 100 democratic nations (McCain's goal) that excludes Russia and China would naturally be viewed with open hostility by both. And it is hard to imagine timid nations such as Germany, or many Pacific nations living in China's immense shadow, offending Russia and China by joining up. Besides, democracies can also be craven and irresponsible. Japan and India, while seeking Burmese natural gas, have done little about Burmese oppression. South Africa has hardly been heroic on Zimbabwe. So what realistic option will the next president have when the next genocide commences or the next proliferation threat arrives? Probably a coalition of the willing, led by America. It is the paradox of American influence: In a crisis, our power is irreplaceable -- and we want nothing more than to replace it. another paradox of American power: you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ignoring the obvious fallacy in this argument... no wait... I can't ignore it... Doesn't make it right.... should women be subservient and considered lesser then men? Should people be enslaved because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs? The US is very different then an ancient "tribe" where everyone knew everyone else and protected each other due to common interests and mutual survival. All lives are equal but some are more equal then others? You pretty much can ignore it if you choose to. I'm a semi-anonymous person on a hockey board. All lives are equal if you're God, but since I'm not God, I will side with my fellow citizens first and foremost, then our allies, and then finally everybody else. I mourn the loss of life but that doesn't mean that I think it's up to me or anybody else in this part of the world to go and exert our will upon a region unless it's in the best interests of my country to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASSJAW Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Ignoring the obvious fallacy in this argument... no wait... I can't ignore it... Doesn't make it right.... should women be subservient and considered lesser then men? Should people be enslaved because of the color of their skin or their religious beliefs? The US is very different then an ancient "tribe" where everyone knew everyone else and protected each other due to common interests and mutual survival. All lives are equal but some are more equal then others? lol, and the fallacy of your argument is that it's totally ideological. should should should should should doesn't matter. what makes your idea of should more valuable than the next person's idea of should? strip away all your liberalism and what's left? the truth of the world is that the value of a life is determined by the governing body whose jurisdiction an individual is born into. for those fortunate enough to be born into a place that has an enabling constitution or some decree ("all men are created equal"), then the value of a life is endorsed by that specific ideology. that is one thing. but it is another thing for someone born into that ideology to look into a family in Peru and tell them they SHOULD adjust their gender roles to fit YOUR ideology -- because that isn't how life works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 You pretty much can ignore it if you choose to. I'm a semi-anonymous person on a hockey board. All lives are equal if you're God, but since I'm not God, I will side with my fellow citizens first and foremost, then our allies, and then finally everybody else. I mourn the loss of life but that doesn't mean that I think it's up to me or anybody else in this part of the world to go and exert our will upon a region unless it's in the best interests of my country to do so. Well yeah, you can do whatever you want I suppose, I just find that sad... The people I choose to side with has nothing to do with the color of their skin, their sex, their religious beliefs and their passport. lol, and the fallacy of your argument is that it's totally ideological. should should should should should doesn't matter. what makes your idea of should more valuable than the next person's idea of should? strip away all your liberalism and what's left? the truth of the world is that the value of a life is determined by the governing body whose jurisdiction an individual is born into. for those fortunate enough to be born into a place that has an enabling constitution or some decree ("all men are created equal"), then the value of a life is endorsed by that specific ideology. that is one thing. but it is another thing for someone born into that ideology to look into a family in Peru and tell them they SHOULD adjust their gender roles to fit YOUR ideology -- because that isn't how life works. So.... you missed the point where I was pointing out the Appeal to Tradition fallacy and why it's not a good argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition and then you missed that I was also quoting Orwell's Animal farm.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SabreFan1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Well yeah, you can do whatever you want I suppose, I just find that sad... The people I choose to side with has nothing to do with the color of their skin, their sex, their religious beliefs and their passport. Your choices are your own. I agree with you about everything except for the passport/nationality point of view issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.