2016 US Presidential Election Pt. II - Page 35 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-10-2015, 10:49 PM   #511
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 10:12 PM
ISIS is the blowback from the effective dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqi state in 2003-2006. This is what happens. Iraq is history. Past tense. There is now a proxy war in the region between shiite Iran and wahabbist Saudi Arabia for influence (although ISIS are definitely the enemy of Arabia in this instance, as they are, to borrow an old expression from the days of the Raj, 'more British than the British').

The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion of 2003 will surely go down as the crime of the century. It's our Sarajevo moment. That Bush or Cheney can appear in public without being pelted with rocks and rotten vegetables is astounding to me.
__________________

__________________
Kieran McConville is online now  
Old 08-10-2015, 11:13 PM   #512
Blue Crack Addict
 
Vlad n U 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28,011
Local Time: 10:42 PM
For what it's worth, there have been protests against the Iraqi government in recent days/weeks. There's an awful lot to happen yet.
__________________

__________________
Vlad n U 2 is offline  
Old 08-10-2015, 11:45 PM   #513
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2 View Post
He's hardly alone in that regard.

I know, that's my point. Oregorpa is saying he wants a change from crony capitalism so he's supporting Trump. That is an insane line of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-10-2015, 11:52 PM   #514
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I know, that's my point. Oregorpa is saying he wants a change from crony capitalism so he's supporting Trump. That is an insane line of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
He's funding his own campaign. Everybody is beholden to some donor except Trump. He's honest about the way the game is played.
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 08-10-2015, 11:55 PM   #515
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 07:12 AM
But that doesn't mean his economic policies are going to be anything different. He doesn't seem interested in economic inequality, which is the number one issue in the United States. You know why? Because it doesn't impact rich people.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 12:36 AM   #516
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,435
Local Time: 06:12 AM
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 01:22 AM   #517
Refugee
 
nbelcik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,453
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."

Uhh, pretty sure taxing the wealthy (not just income, but capital gains as well), raising the minimum wage, promoting union membership, early childhood education, free community college is gonna help, considering there's tons of research that says that they do help alleviate inequality.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
nbelcik is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 07:11 AM   #518
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
He's funding his own campaign. Everybody is beholden to some donor except Trump. He's honest about the way the game is played.

He's beholden to his own corporations and all those that got him where he is; he's beholden to the top 3%, not you.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-11-2015, 08:18 AM   #519
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,858
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iron yuppie View Post
In all fairness, what Democrat has any workable policy to reduce the wealth and income gap? No politician is significantly concerned with that at the moment aside from photo-ops with whatever people they have branded "middle class."
I wasn't talking Democrat vs. Republican, I was talking about crony-capitalism vs. "outsiders."
__________________
PhilsFan is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 09:26 AM   #520
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,327
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post

Many of the forum users think he jumped the shark on his Mexican comments. If that disqualifies him in your eyes so be it. But right now he has fed the red meat to the GOP voters who view this primary as a referendum on 'immigration'
His racist, offensive, idiotic comment about Mexicans doesn't disqualify him in my eyes.

That he's Donald Trump is what disqualifies him in my eyes.

The only good thing that's coming out of this is that he may just cause the Republican party to implode; and that would be a truly great thing for America; as a true moderate third party could emerge from the ashes of what has become a party controlled buy a backwards, zealous and frankly reprehensible few that seem stuck in the fucking stone age on most of the important social policies of the day.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 08-11-2015, 12:21 PM   #521
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,388
Local Time: 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oregoropa View Post
You're cool with just letting ISIS fester like a cancer ?
Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 12:36 PM   #522
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.

Yeah, understanding the real facts behind these groups could save us so much in the long run, but this whole idea that we must wage war on anything we label "terrorists" will just give us a repeat of Iraq. If Bush had taken the time to investigate the true facts about Iraq, understood the makeup of the different groups we wouldn't have made the worst and most costly mistake of this country's recent history.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-11-2015, 12:44 PM   #523
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
iron yuppie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,435
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nbelcik View Post
Uhh, pretty sure taxing the wealthy (not just income, but capital gains as well), raising the minimum wage, promoting union membership, early childhood education, free community college is gonna help, considering there's tons of research that says that they do help alleviate inequality.
Well yes, these are all good ideas, but the workable part is important in terms of pushing such items through Congress and finding the money for things like community college vouchers or whatever. We've had 6.5 years of a Democratic administration and rising inequality during that stretch; I don't question Obama's desire to reduce the wealth gap, but rather the viability of getting meaningful action on a wide scale.
__________________
iron yuppie is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 04:46 PM   #524
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 310
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieran McConville View Post
ISIS is the blowback from the effective dismantling and privatisation of the Iraqi state in 2003-2006. This is what happens. Iraq is history. Past tense. There is now a proxy war in the region between shiite Iran and wahabbist Saudi Arabia for influence (although ISIS are definitely the enemy of Arabia in this instance, as they are, to borrow an old expression from the days of the Raj, 'more British than the British').

The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld invasion of 2003 will surely go down as the crime of the century. It's our Sarajevo moment. That Bush or Cheney can appear in public without being pelted with rocks and rotten vegetables is astounding to me.
"Crime Of the Century"? lol. Bush-cheney were re-elected 20 months after the invasion of Iraq. It was already U.S. policy started under Bill Clinton to find a way to remove Saddam and set up a new Iraqi government and that is what Bush/Cheney did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveC View Post
Actually, that's probably the best way to deal with ISIS, IMO.

They need Western intervention in order to keep their numbers up. They as an organization have no genuine interest or capability to attack the US or other Western nations (our attacks here in Canada were committed by a couple of mentally ill "converts" who claimed to be acting on their behalf but had no ties at all to the organization - it's an issue for sure but no different than someone claiming that they did it in the name of Jesus Christ, the Devil or Beyonce, it's just a justification to latch onto) but the provocations, videos, atrocities, etc scare us into thinking that the barbarians are at the gates (or in Juarez, apparently) and demanding intervention from our leaders, who of course wouldn't dream of appearing "soft on terrorism". Them being constantly attacked by the West allows them to say "look Muslims, the West wants to destroy the Caliphate", which is an excellent recruiting pitch and ensures a steady supply of fresh troops. I'm sure most of us are aware that the vast majority of recruits are foreigners who travel there for jihad. Most ISIS fighters stay for a brief period of a few months before returning home. If we stop bombing them, they lose the vast majority of their leverage to recruit fighters to replace the returnees and eventually through attrition their military strength will dissolve to the point where they won't have any capability to defend their territory. ISIS's primary reason for existing is to occupy and hold territory (you can't have a legitimate Caliph or Caliphate without a certain amount of land, according to the Quran). They start losing territory and they become completely illegitimate, and bye bye to their support among Muslims. When that happens, it's game over.

Yes its going to suck to say the least for the people who live there for quite a while, but civilian danger and quality of life certainly doesn't seem to matter much in places like the east Congo, Myanmar, or Somalia. A precedent exists that it's not in and of itself a casus belli for intervention.

ISIS is not a cancer that will spread and consume the organism. It's more like a parasite - when the host is no longer available, it will wither and die.
Western intervention is not what keeps ISIS numbers up. Its LACK of western intervention which boosted ISIS from a backyard sandlot to a caliphate. In 2011, with U.S. troops still in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria in its infancy, the acronym ISIS did not exist. U.S. troops withdrew from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the Syrian civil war escalated after 2011. During 2012 and 2013, lack of U.S. involvement in both Syria and Iraq saw the situation in both countries worsen. ISIS grew in Syria during that time. Then in early 2014 they took Falluja and half of Ramadi. Then during the week of June 9 to June 13, large numbers of ISIS forces moved in from Eastern Syria into North West Iraq and defeated Iraqi forces in Mosul and Tikrit that had been weakened partly because of U.S. neglect caused by the U.S. withdrawal in 2011.

Unlike Al Quada, ISIS has successfully taken provincial capitals in both Syria and Iraq and held them. These unparalleled success's and the use of social media on the internet to spread word of these success's is what is driving recruitment. The Western Air campaign against ISIS has been relatively weak although ISIS's largest advances seem to have been stopped. The group continues though to control a vast amount of territory, and has access to black market oil sales which continues to feed their machine.
Until a responsible political/military policy is put in place, ISIS will remain a threat in the region as well as a worldwide threat. ISIS has numbers and money that dwarf the capabilities of prior terrorist groups. Keep in mind of course, that it does not take vast numbers of people and money to do severe damage on the other side of the world. Just look at what 19 men armed with box cutters were able to do on 9/11.

Obama's response to ISIS has been weak and ineffective. Hopefully that will change before he leaves office, but I doubt it. There will be a much stronger response to ISIS once Hillary or one of the Republicans comes into office in January 2017.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Yeah, understanding the real facts behind these groups could save us so much in the long run, but this whole idea that we must wage war on anything we label "terrorists" will just give us a repeat of Iraq. If Bush had taken the time to investigate the true facts about Iraq, understood the makeup of the different groups we wouldn't have made the worst and most costly mistake of this country's recent history.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.
__________________
wolf is offline  
Old 08-11-2015, 05:05 PM   #525
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 06:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolf View Post
Bush did a far better job with Iraq than Obama has done. Had Obama not abandoned Iraq at the end of 2011, ISIS would still be a largely unknown rebel group primarily based in Syria.

Had Bush not gone in in the first place imagine where we'd be.

When you have Fox News and the radio talking heads now saying "who would of thought we'd be longing for the days of Saddam?" you know you fucked up royally.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com