Originally posted by psmith81992Because us doing it breeds anti-western sentiments, them doing it does not.
Why? It would be faster and more efficient if we do it. I would agree with you if everything was a slow and steady process but based on the ruthlessness of ISIS, time is of the essence.
No indigenous population has ever said "man, I'm sure glad America is here blowing up our shit and saving us from our aggressive kin" in the last 60 years.
Even with the pretenses of good intentions (like, say, killing oppressive ******* extremists), every bomb we drop that blows up a Dad or a brother or a cousin or a son makes the region hate us just a little bit more, which is what feeds the cycle. The friends and family of the terrorists we kill today are the terrorists of tomorrow.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
Because us doing it breeds anti-western sentiments, them doing it does not.No indigenous population has ever said "man, I'm sure glad America is here blowing up our shit and saving us from our aggressive kin" in the last 60 years.
Even with the pretenses of good intentions (like, say, killing oppressive ******* extremists), every bomb we drop that blows up a Dad or a brother or a cousin or a son makes the region hate us just a little bit more, which is what feeds the cycle. The friends and family of the terrorists we kill today are the terrorists of tomorrow.
While I agree with most of your points, I would rather deal with the terrorists of today, today, and the potential terrorists of tomorrow, tomorrow, all the while reducing the # of mass genocides committed by said terrorists.
Originally posted by psmith81992
While I agree with most of your points, I would rather deal with the terrorists of today, today, and the potential terrorists of tomorrow, tomorrow, all the while reducing the # of mass genocides committed by said terrorists.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Yep, instead of stopping the problem in the long term, let's just go shot some people. That seems to be working. Oh, and Joe, you're returning to duty because someone's killing Christians and it's or job to fight injustice where it maybe(except in our on country and when you die or are potentially wounded over this, know that it was in the name of justice)
So not only did you completely misread the past and the future of Middle Eastern happenings, but you decided to do the same thing with my posts as well. I just love it when someone takes what I say to the opposite extreme, and makes zero sense doing it. Do us all a favor and let the adults discuss this.
Originally posted by psmith81992
So not only did you completely misread the past and the future of Middle Eastern happenings, but you decided to do the same thing with my posts as well. I just love it when someone takes what I say to the opposite extreme, and makes zero sense doing it. Do us all a favor and let the adults discuss this.
Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Yeah, don't make assumptions about me while trying to preach about your hypocritical crusade against the Middle East. Do you know who caused these problems in the Middle East? People like you, who assumed that starting a war would somehow benefit things. We've been doing it, as a species, for literally thousands of years, but somehow it made sense to you now, at this very moment, that somehow it would be different this time? I mean why not sell them more weapons this time? It didn't work out last time, but this time will be different. Let's launch all out war. Let's send in thousands of more of our troops to fight a battle no one wants us to. Why? Because it's our responsibility of course. There's a difference between "helping a nation," and sending in an army. Of course any rational adult would know this, plenty of the rational people in this thread know this, children know this, but I guess we can't all be rational. Of course, I must have misread you when you said start a war to end genocide, because that makes sense, and then make decisions for other people because we should. That's not what you said at all.
Originally posted by psmith81992
We're the only ones who are equipped to do these things.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Yes, Africa comes next. But I'd rather invade the country that's systematically wiping out the Christians in that area before I go elsewhere.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Sorry but beheading American citizens is unforgivable. There already is a war in case you didn't notice. ISIS started it and it's our job to finish it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
While I agree with most of your points, I would rather deal with the terrorists of today, today, and the potential terrorists of tomorrow, tomorrow, all the while reducing the # of mass genocides committed by said terrorists.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Let's see..1. Sending in troops=/=launching all out war.
2. Sending in troos=/=Crusade
3. Your pointless and incoherent babble=/=logical.
I could go on but you intentionally misrepresenting my position and not staying consistent with what you type from post to post is quite apparent.
You specifically called it a war ISIS started that we needed to finish. Sure, you said you didn't want to topple governments, but you want to send in troops to fight large militaristic organizations.
Again, you pointed out multiple times about genocide against Christians and how America needed to stop them and all terrorist because we are the only ones that could.
By the way, go look up the definition of crusade when you have time. It basically matches what you want to a t.
I like to use hyperbolic language when mocking someone on the internet for nonsensical action. Shoot me. If you worry about my sarcasm today, the future sarcastic people of tomorrow will be forewarned.
r you could admit that you want to send in American troops to stop ISIS from killing innocent people in the Middle East, which you already have.
Originally posted by psmith81992
1. The war in question is in the Middle East between radical Islam groups and everybody else. This has been going on for over a decade.
2. ISIS is not a large militaristic organization and therefore, nobody advocated sending what equates to an "army" over there. Nice reaching though.
I love your loose definitions. I guess there's a "Crusade" going on in this country against Obama, Ferguson, MO, etc? But I love how you took it to the next step. Touching.
You weren't mocking me, you were babbling incoherently because you were getting quite heated. Your transparency is noted.
Which I did and which you intentionally called me out on by misrepresenting my argument. Glad we're on the same page here, concession accepted.
I'm not going to debate with your definition of militaristic but it certainly fits the bill of most people's, including many of the higher ups of the government. It doesn't have to be attached to any one country, though they certainly consider themselves to be one, to be militaristic. By the way, you said "ISIS started it," but good job ignoring what you said when it's brought up against you.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
I mistakenly called it a war because it doesn't fit the definition of one, it's mass genocide.. Other than that, everything else is consistent.
I'm talking about you wanting to send in soldiers to kill extremists. That's a crusade. The fact that you are doing it in the name of a certain people and for their "protection" doesn't really help your case.
Whatever makes you happy. I also care about the opinions of people I don't know on the internet. Don't think any less of me than you already do, because I know how much everyone respects your opinion.
Hahaha, you're admitting to wanting to send in troops to kill people, saying that a 108 wasn't enough and that we need to fight extremist today regardless of their family or beliefs, but not when the label of war or crusade is put on it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I mistakenly called it a war because it doesn't fit the definition of one, it's mass genocide.. Other than that, everything else is consistent.
Defending people in the midst of a mass genocide isn't a crusade. Sorry to break that to you. Or we can use your loose definition and virtually label anything a crusade.
Ditto on your opinion. Think we've all had a laugh at your recent star wars debates but I digress.
Haha you're considering the defense of those in the midst of mass genocide a crusade and at the same time, expect someone to care about the family or beliefs of "extremists" committing said genocide? That's a good one, thanks for the laugh.
Genocide is wrong, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. But forcing a situation onto another country and causing more ill will for America is also wrong. We don't need to fight them. Their own countries need to fight them. I agree with the point of helping the Middle East learn to defend itself, but the idea that we and only we can solve this problem is stupid. Especially when our help, as in direct military action, is not wanted or needed.