Amnesty International Report: Gruesome Eyewitness Accounts of 'Ethnic Cleansing on a Historic Scale,' Massacres in Iraq | CNS News
Be sure to enlarge the little girls picture. All this atrocity and our Nevil Chamberlain refuses to stand. Shameful, disgraceful...and O is entirely complicit in its manufacture.
We should take note of that, and leave the people there to "fix" themselves. Perhaps if we did not pay them so much to finance the systems currently in place, they would learn.
Isolationism is a thing of the past. To be a secure country WE have to stand to put down budding hitler's around the globe lest we be complicit in their genocide and docile waiting for our turn under the head choppers knife.
I had and do have the sack to stand. I'd personally prefer to STAND in their countries, destroying their cities and infrastructure, and having their men,women and children suffer the collateral damage of war.
Please do not forget the enormous lesson learned from stance of Nevil Chamberlain.
This has to change from within - and in a number of ways. Probably starting with the borders imposed throughout the Middle East in the 1900's by that empire where the sun never set (UK).
and the border problems are huge throughout the area, so this will take a long, long time -
The US can do very little to "fix" this - but a lot to irritate the situation.
How dare we abandon them.
Although it continues to be horribly tragic, outside involvement shows no real improvement - almost always the opposite.
Best I think we could hope for is providing a way to escape/migrate for those who want to leave the Middle East.
Dropping indiscriminate bombs, and keeping all the borders closed, making it a real insane fire pit, may be the route the US foreign policy chooses however.
Christianity grew from 100AD to become somewhat dominant around 500AD, then Muslims took over in the 700's.
There may have been some peace in 500-700AD but I would doubt it - other religions were actively suppressed during the spread of Christianity throughout the Roman / Byzantine Empire during, and well beyond, this period.
How to accomplish it, though? Would it be possible to provide a "refuge" for those being murdered and protect it with American forces? Or is there some way to support and protect "friendlies" within the hazardous area?
We turned our backs on the Kurds during both Gulf Wars after promising them a homeland in exchange for their assistance. To my mind, that was a terrible mistake. The Kurds have a long history of finishing what anyone else might attempt to start.
I don't disagree with your sentiment, but I would remind you that, while we WERE there, the Iraqis called us "invaders" and fought just as bitterly against US.
In the same way, a FEW people there called us "invaders", not everyone.
Jan
It's the place of the military to develop strategies and tactics but it's the place of the civilians to determine when it's time for military action. Unfortunately for us the intended relationship between the Executive and Legislative branches has completely broken and the military often controls them both abetted and/or enforced by a schizophrenic dynamic between them and the defense contractors.
Is anything in Iraq (or middle east) better before we invaded Iraq?
His foremost motive? His reelection. He was being advised that ISIS was building up to become a major terror threat but he was telling voters that "Al-Qaeda is on the run."
Then Benghazi happened. Oh, no! That's not a terrorist attack! That's a protest all because of a Youtube video! Obama's Benghazi smoke and mirrors (rescue who for what?) gambled with America lives. And four American lives paid for that gamble.
So Obama now lists Benghazi as one of those "phoney scandals" that Eric Holder says those racist Republicans cooked up.
I consider the build-up and the present devastation wrecked by ISIS to be yet another of those so-called "-phoney scandals." Heaven forbid I be called a racist!
http://www.newsmax.com/Fred-Fleitz/Iraq-...
I welcome correction if my account is based on incorrect or hopelessly outdated information. If my account is correct then Obama is directly responsible, having taken bad advice from his military and CIA advisers.
One would have hoped that our beloved leaders would have recalled that we directly created and even named Al Qaeda back when they were "freedom fighters" against the Russians. Funny how freedom fighters turn so quickly to terrorists when it's us instead of the Russians on the receiving end.
Back after the Sept 11 attack when the bad guys were definitively identified (unless and until history gets corrected) as mostly Saudis who were sheltered by and based out of Afghanistan by the defacto government, the Taliban, I was unenthusiastically in favor of war against "somebody over there." The big question was always, "Who?" Wars are fought against governments, not disembodied concepts like "terrorism." You cannot drop a bomb on terrorism any more than you can drop a bomb on "enlightenment."
I'm honestly not sure what the best response would have been to the Sept 11 attack but I think the response we chose has proven to be a bad one in that it's had no effect, at least not in the grand scheme. Well, actually it probably made things worse.
But I think almost every libertarian and objectivist would agree that our further actions against Iraq, Lebanon and Syria were drastic mistakes - and the libertarians made loud noises that we had no business over there (and correctly said that there were never any WMD in Iraq).
Were I the King of America, heaven forfend, I would pack up all of our stuff and our soldiers and our "advisers" and sail for home. I would put a padlock on the checkbook, cutting off every single payment to every foreign government. The very first attack on us during our exit would be met with a response that would surely discourage a second. Then I'd give a public speech to Israel that we formally support whatever measures they deem appropriate to ensure their security. Any and all measures, with no exclusions. But that's all they'd get, best wishes.
The middle east would quickly devolve back into the tribal hodgepodge from whence it came. Lots of bad guys would be in charge. We probably wouldn't get much oil from them for a while but you'd find that we quickly adjusted. Then those little tribes would realize that they didn't have any money left and that they were out of food. (The map makers could just draw a big, thick line around the entire area and call it "New Somalia.") I'd take up a collection, from voluntary donors, to airdrop 100 tons of Grade A pork products - drop it some place convenient like the middle of those Afghani mountain ranges they seem so fond of.
At some point they would decide that it's a lot cheaper and better for everyone involved if they sell oil and use the revenue to buy food and cheap Chinese home electronics. I'll even coin a new phrase: "You make more friends with a PS3 than you do a public beheading."
I'm probably naive to the point of idiocy. If you think that's the case don't spend too much time saying so. But if someone has a plan of action that's moral to an objectivist then I want to read about it. I believe that Objectivism only approves of military action for defense - but my understanding on that might be imperfect.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Benghaz...
going on for thousands of years now.
Unfortunately, that will tend to leave behind the ones that value life the least, and are the slowest to be educated - the typical Middle East SNAFU
for many millenia.
I just spoke with a friend who just returned from Romania working with their military. I pointedly asked what they think of the situation and the answer was to wipe out isis. they have zero respect for 0. that is generally how those in Europe overall think. so what else is new about 0.
I'd copy it and post it here but I find it distasteful to have something that egregious on my computer or in anyway associated with my name.