It's again that time of the year ... or Muslim bashing!

Thing is, why do we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and Quatar who actually SUPPORT groups like ISIS. Or at least some that are equally as bad. And on top of it, no one really mentions why they havn't taken ZERO refugees. While nations that we see as bad, like Lybia, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran have taken millions. A lot more than most European nations, with the exception of Sweden and Norway, if you go with 1 refugee per 1000 inhabitants. How many years have they talked about Iran beeing this empire of evil or what ever. And yet. They do more than we did. While causing much less damage then we did ... I find that embarassing ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
Thing is, why do we sell weapons to Saudi Arabia and Quatar who actually SUPPORT groups like ISIS. Or at least some that are equally as bad. And on top of it, no one really mentions why they havn't taken ZERO refugees. While nations that we see as bad, like Lybia, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran have taken millions. A lot more than most European nations, with the exception of Sweden and Norway, if you go with 1 refugee per 1000 inhabitants. How many years have they talked about Iran beeing this empire of evil or what ever. And yet. They do more than we did. While causing much less damage then we did ... I find that embarassing ...
Click to expand...
That, I don't know, and it's as confusing as scary. As said, Saudi Arabia may be a military opponent to Iran (which isn't even sure, in fact. We also thought that Saddam had the most powerful army, and well. Turned out, it wasn't. We thought that Kadhafi didn't have an army, and turns out, he had...), but its rulers are batshit crazy and they support very, very scary entities. I don't know who said that, but I remember someone basically saying that if we want to wage war to Isis, the main target for the bombers is Riyad, Saudi Arabia's capital. It's scary.
We definitely play a dangerous game with them, one that costs lives.

I don't know much about the other countries, to be honest. I know that Jordan tries hard to get into a liberal, western economy, which sounds good. They made peace with their neighboors and their king personally dropped a bomb on Isis like a badass, if I remember well. I don't know much about them, but from that, it seems like they want to play a good part in the area, and show an example. Glad to know they also accepted refugees, I didn't know that.
Lybia was an economic paradise until the war. Kadhafi was probably the most idiotic, megalomaniac, batshit crazy of all the dictators around, that is true, and he indeed threatened to turn the rivers red, so... I don't know, really. Maybe we prevented a genocide by throwing him out. Maybe we made things worse. Time will tell.
From what I know, Lebanon is still mainly under Hezbollah's control, which sucks. I'm afraid if the refugees seek shelter there, really. Hezbollah is not good with its citizen.
Iran... Sigh. Complicated. Yet probably the country with the most optimistic future around. They are on the verge of becoming an advanced, rich country, with western level of infrastructures and technologies. Which would be amazing. But they still have their independent army which is batshit crazy, hated by the people and not backed by the government. They need to find a way to disarm them smoothly, which will be very hard. But they need to find a way, because these guys can potentially ruin their own country's future. And boy, Iran without its crazy generals ? Could be the key to the peace in the middle east. Could sign a peace treaty with Israel, which would mean that the middle east would be safe and protected from the east and the west.
I really, really hope there are competent diplomats, knowing way more than us, trying to go in that direction. For the sake of everyone, I really hope that it's the case.
 
mikek17 said:
Yup. Tired of US government giving GUNS to rebel groups who join terrorists, it happened with the Mujahideen in Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, Al Quaeda, and now ISIS. Thankfully Donald J Trump said he would put a stop to it if he were president.
Click to expand...

The system has trained itself to only think of things within the context of a four-year election cycle. It means the voting public and policy makers alike end up being both really short-sighted and decidedly lacking in long-term memory. A real shame.
 
I dunno, I would agree with you that many politicans think just about the next ellection. But when you look at it, Bush had 2 terms. What has he effectively achieved? The political effects of his policy and wars can be felt even to this day. Obama is close to ending his second term. WHat has he achieved so far? I would say he also left the politics and the US in a dire situation. Both of them had aprox 8 years to do something here. I think that was plenty of time to get something true. But infact, they made it worse, Bush trough his wars, Obama trough his inactivity in domestic policy and drone strikes as some kind of foreign policy. You can say about Europe what ever you want, think that is shit etc. But when it comes to that, at least we havn't ruined the middle east for the last 30 years.
 
Yeah, but not even nearly on the scope as the US. Britain has arguably neither the military, economy nor the resources to lunch operations at the same size as the US. I have a lot of respect for their military and what they can do. But one has to be realistic I think. The Brits mostly fuck up things with selling weapons to the Saudis and bombing occasional villages. But when it comes to the real wars that we saw? It was mostly the US military. They have then numbers and equipment.
 
He is probably referring to how the UK can be pretty much blamed, fairly so for damn near every problem in the Middle-East since the end of World War 1.
 
Last edited:
I think we can give at least half of the blame to French as well, if we talk about anything that happend before WW2.
 
Speaking of muslim bashing, there's currently a shooting going on in a Munich shopping mall (Crni, I guess you were not anywhere near that), and Twitter is already certain that it's a muslim terrorist.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yeah, but not even nearly on the scope as the US. Britain has arguably neither the military, economy nor the resources to lunch operations at the same size as the US.
Click to expand...
This is true. The UK usually joins international coalitions now.
Even though, we are having a pretty decent military expansion so we can launch some relatively large operations.
TheGM said:
He is probably refereeing to how the UK can be pretty much blamed, fairly so for damn near every problem in the Middle-East since the end of World War 1.
Click to expand...
We did do a pretty good job in Afghanistan though.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uks-work-in-afghanistan/the-uks-work-in-afghanistan
 
It's to early yet to say if we did a good job in Afghanistan, because we are not finished yet. As long as there is still a western presence there, I consider it as pending. If we remove any western presence in Afghanistan, and they remain a stabile and peacefull society for decades, then I will call it a success. I am pretty sure the Soviet leadership and population saw their presence as a success as well. As long they have been there. History today tells a different story though. What matters is the end result.

So as said, only the future can tell if we did a pretty good job. Because we are still baking the cake, not eating it yet.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
It's to early yet to say if we did a good job in Afghanistan, because we are not finished yet. As long as there is still a western presence there, I consider it as pending.
Click to expand...
I class it as a success for these reasons:
  • nearly 6 million children now attend school (source: US Report to Congress of Afghan Progress and Stability, November 2013), up from 1 million in 2001, nearly 40% of them are girls, which would have been unthinkable under the Taliban control
  • access to primary health care has increased from 9% in 2003 to over half of the population now
  • maternal mortality has halved since 2001 and life expectancy for Afghans is at its highest ever level
  • Afghanistan’s $18 billion GDP is seven times higher than 10 years ago and Afghan Government revenue has grown eight fold since 2004 to $2 billion in 2012
  • a written constitution, a democratically elected government and a system of local democracy now exist - Afghans now have an unprecedented voice in how their country is run, nationally and locally
 
Yes, that tells me that the ingredients and the baking process are going well so far. But we still havn't eaten the cake yet.

Like I said, let us see how Afghanistan will be in 5, 10 and 20 years from now. Particularly once we removed ANY western presence, can we truly see how deep this success goes or if it is just on the surface. Afghanistan saw some changes and prosperity under the Soviets as well, like females attending schools. But it was all reverted once they left the nation. It's not exactly the same situation, but Afghanistan had 100 000 of fighters, mercenaries, decades of poverity, islamic fundamentalist teachings, corruption and economical issues behind it. Whole generationso that know nothing else but war and extremism. It is a nation so torn by wars, conflicts and other issues, that we as westerners can't even comprehend it. Our grandfathers, who experienced WW2, maybe can releate to them. But that's about it.

I am not attacking you or your opinion! I Hope that you're right. All I am saying is, wait till the experiment is over and till we have the actuall data to know if it was a success or not.
 
Can we make a thread "Just some run of the mill, average mass- and other shootings in USA" and then post these shootings that are covered in global media pretty much daily/weekly? It's a subject I have an interest in.
 
MutantScalper said:
Can we make a thread "Just some run of the mill, average mass- and other shootings in USA" and then post these shootings that are covered in global media pretty much daily/weekly? It's a subject I have an interest in.
Click to expand...
Sure, as long as we can also make a thread "Just some run of the mill, average mass- and other Islamic terrorist attacks in EU" and then post these terror attacks that are covered in global media pretty much daily/weekly? It's a subject I have an interest in.
 
Vergil said:
Sure, as long as we can also make a thread "Just some run of the mill, average mass- and other Islamic terrorist attacks in EU" and then post these terror attacks that are covered in global media pretty much daily/weekly? It's a subject I have an interest in.
Click to expand...

I thought you already had several of those threads going already. Including this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top