Quantcast
Solution to islamic extremism

Forums - Politics Discussion - Solution to islamic extremism

Aura7541 said:
hershel_layton said:

In all seriousness, invading a country and overtaking its ruler(Iraq) gives a CLEAR oppurtunity for extremists to rise and take power.

That is true, though I felt that Iraq was a very complicated situation. Saddam Hussein didn't have a clean record. He tried to annex Kuwait and committed genocide against the Kurds. There wasn't a 'good' solution to how to deal with Saddam. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was what the US did after the invasion. They threw him out of power and then went, "Okay, now what...?" There wasn't a clear plan and Bush's "Plant the seeds of democracy and it will spread throughout the Middle East" statement was extremely misguided. The invasion might be well-intentioned, but that is not enough to justify it.

Yet this democracy is what we continue to attempt to give...though, look at the outcomes. Remember the vietnam war and our attempt to give democracy? Didn't end so well, did it?

Also, doing less would mean that we could potentially be in a better situation. Islamic groups may have not had the chance to rise and take any sort of power. Sure, Sadam Hussein isn't exactly a saint, but at least Iraq would have been kept in control.3



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
hershel_layton said:
Aura7541 said:

That is true, though I felt that Iraq was a very complicated situation. Saddam Hussein didn't have a clean record. He tried to annex Kuwait and committed genocide against the Kurds. There wasn't a 'good' solution to how to deal with Saddam. The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was what the US did after the invasion. They threw him out of power and then went, "Okay, now what...?" There wasn't a clear plan and Bush's "Plant the seeds of democracy and it will spread throughout the Middle East" statement was extremely misguided. The invasion might be well-intentioned, but that is not enough to justify it.

Yet this democracy is what we continue to attempt to give...though, look at the outcomes. Remember the vietnam war and our attempt to give democracy? Didn't end so well, did it?

Also, doing less would mean that we could potentially be in a better situation. Islamic groups may have not had the chance to rise and take any sort of power. Sure, Sadam Hussein isn't exactly a saint, but at least Iraq would have been kept in control.3

Don't get me wrong, I hold the position that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, though it wouldn't been an easy decision knowing Sadam's track record. In regards to the Vietnam War, I hold similar views as those on the Iraq War. The intentions were well-meaning, but how the US went about it was a total other story and that was its ultimate downfall, in my opinion.



Aura7541 said:
hershel_layton said:

Yet this democracy is what we continue to attempt to give...though, look at the outcomes. Remember the vietnam war and our attempt to give democracy? Didn't end so well, did it?

Also, doing less would mean that we could potentially be in a better situation. Islamic groups may have not had the chance to rise and take any sort of power. Sure, Sadam Hussein isn't exactly a saint, but at least Iraq would have been kept in control.3

Don't get me wrong, I hold the position that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, though it wouldn't been an easy decision knowing Sadam's track record. In regards to the Vietnam War, I hold similar views as those on the Iraq War. The intentions were well-meaning, but how the US went about it was a total other story and that was its ultimate downfall, in my opinion.

What were their intentions? Prevent a country from getting communism?

It'd be good if they were being attacked by the Soviet Union/China, but when they want communism(instead of a horrible dictator who only supports the top %1), then it's not considered good to interfere and stir chaos.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

WolfpackN64 said:
barneystinson69 said:

Well if it hadn't been the US who intervened in Afganistan, would it be better off today? I mean the soviet's invaded the country and planned to do god know what (it was before I was even born, so I don't know much about details). And since they collapsed just a few years later, do we really want to know what could've happened there? And what exactly do you mean by self-serving interventions by NATO? Look, it was their people that decided to start these civil wars and overthrow their leaders, not ours. Yes, the US supported it because these regimes weren't democracy's. It doesn't mean they started the crisis.

The communist government in Afghanistan was the legitimate government then. The USSR did NOT invade. The USSR intervened because the Afghan government asked. The US just wanted to disrupt a potential expansion of Communism.

They'd been in power for about a year, since a KGB-backed coup d'etat.  So sure, they were invited in, by the guy who had just stolen the house at their behest. 

No, wait:  it's even worse than that. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
"In response to Afghan government requests, the Soviet government under leader Leonid Brezhnev first sent covert troops to advise and support the Afghan government, but on December 24, 1979, began the first deployment of the 40th Army.[31] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,[32] killing the Afghan President, and installing a rival Afghan socialist (Babrak Karmal).[30]

Of course, the previous government had also come to power by coup d'etat only a few years earlier, and five minutes of Google didn't show that that one was particularly due to outside meddling.  However, he certainly became chummy with the USSR pretty quickly, and they egged him on to fight with Pakistan, with generally bad results.  The US didn't intervene from what I spotted on Wikipedia until the USSR overthrew that government for not being friendly enough (the first time, not the second time) and radical communist rebels apparently killed the US ambassador.  (Some allege that instead elements of the USSR-backed government were involved, though even if this is true it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole government was involved or that the USSR knew or approved.  One senior US official called it "a tragic event which involved either Soviet ineptitude or collusion.") 

Really, the whole country got gradually destroyed by the Cold War, from both sides, but I think it's fair to say that the USSR "started it". 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:

They'd been in power for about a year, since a KGB-backed coup d'etat.  So sure, they were invited in, by the guy who had just stolen the house at their behest. 

No, wait:  it's even worse than that. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
"In response to Afghan government requests, the Soviet government under leader Leonid Brezhnev first sent covert troops to advise and support the Afghan government, but on December 24, 1979, began the first deployment of the 40th Army.[31] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,[32] killing the Afghan President, and installing a rival Afghan socialist (Babrak Karmal).[30]

Of course, the previous government had also come to power by coup d'etat only a few years earlier, and five minutes of Google didn't show that that one was particularly due to outside meddling.  However, he certainly became chummy with the USSR pretty quickly, and they egged him on to fight with Pakistan, with generally bad results.  The US didn't intervene from what I spotted on Wikipedia until the USSR overthrew that government for not being friendly enough (the first time, not the second time) and radical communist rebels apparently killed the US ambassador.  (Some allege that instead elements of the USSR-backed government were involved, though even if this is true it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole government was involved or that the USSR knew or approved.  One senior US official called it "a tragic event which involved either Soviet ineptitude or collusion.") 

Really, the whole country got gradually destroyed by the Cold War, from both sides, but I think it's fair to say that the USSR "started it". 

Afghanistan wasn't a stable country. Tha fact that the USA only intervened when the USSR got its foot in is quite telling. Brezhnev's military was overstretched and he made a mistake pouring so many resources into the country. But that doesn't make the Socialist takeover of the country any less legitimate.



Around the Network

Reformation eh? Google conflict after the Reformation and take a good look at what the reformation did for tolerance and peace in Christianity! I'd pass, thanks all the same.



WolfpackN64 said:
Final-Fan said:

They'd been in power for about a year, since a KGB-backed coup d'etat.  So sure, they were invited in, by the guy who had just stolen the house at their behest. 

No, wait:  it's even worse than that. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
"In response to Afghan government requests, the Soviet government under leader Leonid Brezhnev first sent covert troops to advise and support the Afghan government, but on December 24, 1979, began the first deployment of the 40th Army.[31] Arriving in the capital Kabul, they staged a coup,[32] killing the Afghan President, and installing a rival Afghan socialist (Babrak Karmal).[30]

Of course, the previous government had also come to power by coup d'etat only a few years earlier, and five minutes of Google didn't show that that one was particularly due to outside meddling.  However, he certainly became chummy with the USSR pretty quickly, and they egged him on to fight with Pakistan, with generally bad results.  The US didn't intervene from what I spotted on Wikipedia until the USSR overthrew that government for not being friendly enough (the first time, not the second time) and radical communist rebels apparently killed the US ambassador.  (Some allege that instead elements of the USSR-backed government were involved, though even if this is true it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole government was involved or that the USSR knew or approved.  One senior US official called it "a tragic event which involved either Soviet ineptitude or collusion.") 

Really, the whole country got gradually destroyed by the Cold War, from both sides, but I think it's fair to say that the USSR "started it". 

Afghanistan wasn't a stable country. Tha fact that the USA only intervened when the USSR got its foot in is quite telling. Brezhnev's military was overstretched and he made a mistake pouring so many resources into the country. But that doesn't make the Socialist takeover of the country any less legitimate.

Soviet special forces stormed the residence of the President of Afghanistan, killed him, and declared someone else the new leader.  How is that legitimate? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
WolfpackN64 said:

Afghanistan wasn't a stable country. Tha fact that the USA only intervened when the USSR got its foot in is quite telling. Brezhnev's military was overstretched and he made a mistake pouring so many resources into the country. But that doesn't make the Socialist takeover of the country any less legitimate.

Soviet special forces stormed the residence of the President of Afghanistan, killed him, and declared someone else the new leader.  How is that legitimate? 

That whole ordeal began with inter-party strife, which saw the first president (who was friendly to the USSR) assassinated. The rest you can probably guess.



WolfpackN64 said:
Final-Fan said:

Soviet special forces stormed the residence of the President of Afghanistan, killed him, and declared someone else the new leader.  How is that legitimate? 

That whole ordeal began with inter-party strife, which saw the first president (who was friendly to the USSR) assassinated. The rest you can probably guess.

You mean intra-party strife; that's an important distinction.  Also, you are ignoring the fact that that government was less than [edit: two] year[s] old, when there was a pro-communist coup sponsored by the KGB. 

1973 - the king's brother Daoud leads a coup d'etat while the king is having surgery in Italy; almost no one is killed.  He abolishes the monarchy and becomes Presdent.  I did not see any obvious meddling from USA or USSR in the Wikipedia article. 
1978 - USSR-sponsored coup d'etat.  Anti-communist rebels fight back.  US ambassador is kidnapped and Afghans and Soviets bungle the situation leading to his death at the hands of the kidnappers.  US President is pretty pissed and relations never recover; US starts backing anti-communist rebels. 
1979 - Despite this government being willing to invite Soviet armed forces in to help against rebels, Soviet special forces kill the President, USSR installs new one.  War against rebels goes on.  The USSR withdraws in 1989, but the war goes on...



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Its very simple, stop interfering in Muslims lives and they will be just fine. All the extremists existence is just a reaction to what the west is doing. Wasnt Al Qadea created by USA to fight against Russia?

Wasnt ISIS created by USA through Destroying IRAQ for false claims of WMD? Didnt they promise democracy post Saddam and then left the country to sink in the a kinda of civil war and opened the door for Iran to take control in the country and for ISIS to exist?

Lets talk about the other part, did any one hear or know about belfour Promise? A declaration by Britain in 1917 to give a Jewish state to Israel in a land which they dont own (Palestine).

You all need to read history and see why those extremist existed first before you try to figure away to stop them!!!