FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Ultimate Paragon on September 13, 2014, 11:20:11 am
-
http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html (http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-makes-official-us-war-220808683.html)
Washington (AFP) - The White House declared Friday the United States was at war with Islamic State radicals, seeking to rub out another semantic flap over its Syria policy.
In a series of television interviews Secretary of State John Kerry had appeared to be reluctant to term the expansion of US operations against IS in Iraq and Syria as "war."
But pressed to clear up doubts about how President Barack Obama sees the conflict, the White House and Pentagon left little doubt.
"The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with Al-Qaeda and its Al-Qaeda affiliates all around the globe," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said that the US was not fighting the last Iraq war and used similar language to Earnest.
"But make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we're at war and continue to be at war with Al-Qaida and its affiliates," he said.
Obama is scheduled to be in Tampa, Florida Wednesday to receive a briefing from top commanders at US Central Command, which oversees American forces in the Middle East.
I look forward to the "Caliph" getting a visit from SEAL Team 6.
-
Because the solution to all our problems is always more war.
It would be interesting to see which multinational corporations are profiting massively from this endeavor.
-
Because the solution to all our problems is always more war.
It would be interesting to see which multinational corporations are profiting massively from this endeavor.
Look at where national pension plans are investing. They're typically charged with getting the best rate of return possible, and when there's a war going on that means that they invest in whoever's selling weapons.
-
This should be interesting. Thirteen years and al Queda, while it's central groups have been weakened, has only splintered into smaller cells. Guerilla groups in the past haven't gone down easy, and unless ISIL is really, really crazy and thinks their members can punch bullets, this won't be any exception. But hey, if you have stock invested in the right defense contractor, laissez les bon temps rouler.
-
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.
Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.
- Major General Smedley Butler, in War Is A Racket (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4377.htm)
The trick, of course, is to figure out how to indefinitely prolong that state of warfare, and the War on Terror is doing an admirable job of that.
-
So what allies do you think we'll be fighting in about 10 years?
-
So what allies do you think we'll be fighting in about 10 years?
Bahrain has the good dictator, Saudi Arabia has the benevolent absolute monarchs, Israel is doing extermination in self-defense...
Hard to say what we'll think of them in ten years.
-
So what allies do you think we'll be fighting in about 10 years?
Bahrain has the good dictator, Saudi Arabia has the benevolent absolute monarchs, Israel is doing extermination in self-defense...
Hard to say what we'll think of them in ten years.
Our alliance with Saudi Arabia is to profitable and our alliance with Bahrain to strategic to endanger because of some "humanitarian abuses".
As for are war on Isis: I'm guessing this will end with us giving a bunch of weapons to random militia with questionable backgrounds.
-
Yeah, and no Christian majority nation is going to try and attack Israel. Actually, nobody is going to attack Israel, so long as big brother America is there coddling the poor widdle nation.
-
Because the solution to all our problems is always more war.
When dealing with a group like ISIS, yes it is. These aren't the kind of people who listen to reason, are interested in negotiating anything with anyone or for whom economic sanctions will have any effect. Their goal is, basically, to turn as much of the world as they can into an Islamic theocracy with a level of brutality that would make the Taliban blush and they see everyone who isn't them as an enemy who must be destroyed. People like this do not stop or give up easily. What do you propose we do with them exactly?
-
The only sane response to ISIS is to use the airforce to bomb them back into the stone age.
These people behead journalists and others basically by the day.
We cannot negotiate with them, not after all they have done. We had an inkling of how nasty they were when we heard that not even Al-Qaeda wanted to tangle with them, and our former archenemy is now in the process of "getting the hell outta dodge".
-
The only sane response to ISIS is to use the airforce to bomb them back into the stone age.
These people behead journalists and others basically by the day.
We cannot negotiate with them, not after all they have done. We had an inkling of how nasty they were when we heard that not even Al-Qaeda wanted to tangle with them, and our former archenemy is now in the process of "getting the hell outta dodge".
Yes, and fuck all that colleteral damage, huh?
Seriously. look what the hell happened the last two times bombing someone back into the stone age resulted in? No peace in Iraq and no peace in Afganistan.
and how praytell do you intend to blow Iraq back into the stone age when it has already happened? Do you suggest we just completely level the place?
-
The only sane response to ISIS is to use the airforce to bomb them back into the stone age.
These people behead journalists and others basically by the day.
We cannot negotiate with them, not after all they have done. We had an inkling of how nasty they were when we heard that not even Al-Qaeda wanted to tangle with them, and our former archenemy is now in the process of "getting the hell outta dodge".
You know who else beheads people, arguably more often than ISIS and certainly has been doing so for far longer?
Saudi Arabia.
Why not go invade them too while you're at it?
-
The only sane response to ISIS is to use the airforce to bomb them back into the stone age.
These people behead journalists and others basically by the day.
We cannot negotiate with them, not after all they have done. We had an inkling of how nasty they were when we heard that not even Al-Qaeda wanted to tangle with them, and our former archenemy is now in the process of "getting the hell outta dodge".
You know who else beheads people, arguably more often than ISIS and certainly has been doing so for far longer?
Saudi Arabia.
Why not go invade them too while you're at it?
Because that's where the oil comes from!
-
And they behead their own people, not journalists from another country.
Ironbite-as Eddie Izzard said, as long as you're killing your own people, you're fine.
-
Also, Saudi Arabia hasn't for all intense and purposes declared war against most of the planet. That is quite an important difference.
-
Our war status is based on our previous successes in the Middle East.
-
Well, I just found this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html)
The short version is that the US attacking ISIS in Syria would be a violation of international law, and the US is trying to find a way to justify doing it anyway. Of course, Russia is giving the US shit for thinking about violating the sovereignty of another country.
And on top of that, US intelligence apparently knows about jack shit about ISIS. Lovely use of all that funding. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html)
-
Funny how it's oh so imperative that ISIS be stopped, yet we're more than happy to leave the likes of, say, Boko Haram alone. Gee, it can't possibly be because ISIS is a threat to American oil imports while Boko Haram is not, right? Oh no, obviously it's because ISIS are such big meanies that it's simply out duty to continue white knighting our way through the Middle East. Yes, that's totally a believable story.
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
-
Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.
Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?
-
Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.
Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?
We're already involved in Somalia, we're giving support to Boko Haram's opponents, and Zimbabwe is showing signs of improvement.
-
Basically yes. These wars are colossally expensive, are a waste of soldier's lives and actually make life demonstrably worse for the people living there.
Also, I'll say it again. If it's really our duty to go and save these people, why are you not calling for an invasion of, say, Nigeria or Somalia or Zimbabwe?
We're already involved in Somalia, we're giving support to Boko Haram's opponents, and Zimbabwe is showing signs of improvement.
Let's see. Somalian involvement is the odd naval patrol to protect shipping and the occasional surgical strike to rescue western hostages (note that all this is to protect western interests, not help the Somalian people). There were some special forces sent to try and free those school kids Boko Haram kidnapped a while back, it was big old a failure (surprise fucking surprise) and there's been no military intervention of any kind since then. As for Zimbabwe, it's improving entirely on its own, only after Mugabe ran the whole country into the ground without any outsiders lifting a finger. So no, none of those compare in any way to a full on military occupation.
-
America, FUCK YEAH! Comin' again to save the motherfuckin' day, yeah!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2xPctfuhMA
-
Well, I just found this article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/15/white-house-has-no-international-legal-justification-for-hitting-isis-in-syria.html)
The short version is that the US attacking ISIS in Syria would be a violation of international law, and the US is trying to find a way to justify doing it anyway. Of course, Russia is giving the US shit for thinking about violating the sovereignty of another country.
And on top of that, US intelligence apparently knows about jack shit about ISIS. Lovely use of all that funding. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/14/isis-still-baffles-us-intelligence-agencies.html)
So, it's 2003 all over again?
-
Because the solution to all our problems is always more war.
When dealing with a group like ISIS, yes it is. These aren't the kind of people who listen to reason, are interested in negotiating anything with anyone or for whom economic sanctions will have any effect. Their goal is, basically, to turn as much of the world as they can into an Islamic theocracy with a level of brutality that would make the Taliban blush and they see everyone who isn't them as an enemy who must be destroyed. People like this do not stop or give up easily. What do you propose we do with them exactly?
That's all very well, but how do we know that bombing will have a positive effect on the situation?
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
The peacetime after a war where everyone is recuperating is good for business, I guess.
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
Seems like they could've just saved themselves a rule and said "Any time is good for business". Or, since "good" is a relative measure, just skipped both rules altogether.
Clearly whoever wrote the rules just needed some padding.
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
Seems like they could've just saved themselves a rule and said "Any time is good for business". Or, since "good" is a relative measure, just skipped both rules altogether.
Clearly whoever wrote the rules just needed some padding.
It's a reminder to those who have specialized in one sort of business (arms dealing, say) that there are opportunities during peacetime as well. Maybe that ship-destroying rocket could be sold to a government looking to clear away obstacles to building roads.
-
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
Seems like they could've just saved themselves a rule and said "Any time is good for business". Or, since "good" is a relative measure, just skipped both rules altogether.
Clearly whoever wrote the rules just needed some padding.
It's a reminder to those who have specialized in one sort of business (arms dealing, say) that there are opportunities during peacetime as well. Maybe that ship-destroying rocket could be sold to a government looking to clear away obstacles to building roads.
I was just trying to make a point how much of the powerful in the American economy rely heavily on war to make enormous profits. The rules of acquisition were made as a parody of the doublethink and cut throat opportunism in modern capitalism. In America's case though, the War is good for profit is always relevant. The arms contractors know that during wartime they are pretty much given free reign on the countries treasury.
ISIL isn't a threat, they are an excuse.
(Peace is good for profit because you can sell reconstruction materials to the people you just bombed.)
-
Would you rather we abandon them?
As nasty as ISIL is, this war is obviously just an excuse to increase defense contractors income. ISIL poses no threat to America, and will probably never hold more land than the chunk they have carved out for themselves. There are, as has been noted already, far worse groups and countries to attack, but ISIL is a handy expendable group of brown people so they become the target of the month.
34: War is good for business.
Ferengi rules of acquisition.
Although the 35th rule is "Peace is good for business." How is that supposed to work?
Seems like they could've just saved themselves a rule and said "Any time is good for business". Or, since "good" is a relative measure, just skipped both rules altogether.
Clearly whoever wrote the rules just needed some padding.
Well, of course! A long, impressive rulebook is good for business!
Edit - I may have missed this somewhere, but I have to ask.. what does the L stand for? First it was "ISIS" and then it was "IS" and now it's "ISIL" and I can't for the life of me figure out where the L comes from. It's kinda bugging me.
Edit 2: The Editing - Nevermind, I just found it about five seconds after asking.