Jordanian pilot burned alive

[CHenry]

As un-patriotic as it sounds, we created this.

yep...

 

[cjjtulsa]

I could be wrong but, the U.S. installed some leader in Iran back in the fifties. He was great to deal with, as far as the U.S. is concerned. His people, however, suffered greatly under his regime, and correctly blamed the U.S. for their plight. They overthrew the U.S.-backed gunmint, and installed the Ayatollah. Am I correct, or did I miss something here?

As un-patriotic as it sounds, we created this.

The frustrating part is that most don't know this, and some don't care. They think the whole thing started with the hostage crisis in 1979. That was just "blowback".

 

[SM Rider]

As un-patriotic as it sounds, we created this.

I had nothing to do with it. Likely you didn't either. Culprits would likely be the top 1% who use government and associated laws to gain favor for their pursuits.

 

[TedKennedy]

I had nothing to do with it. Likely you didn't either. Culprits would likely be the top 1% who use government and associated laws to gain favor for their pursuits.

Yep, when I said "we", I meant the United States. Perhaps those that directed those aims may not have been advocating for U.S. best interests. Just sayin'.

 

[SM Rider]

Yep, when I said "we", I meant the United States. Perhaps those that directed those aims may not have been advocating for U.S. best interests. Just sayin'.

Those 1% could care less about the people. And it is people that are the nation.

 

[RickN]

We did install a new leader in Iran, but does anyone remember the real reasons why? And no it had nothing to do with oil or Israel.

 

[SoonerP226]

As a matter of fact, we weren't at war when they shot at me in 1988 either.

To be fair, who hasn't taken a shot at you? I mean, you're such an inviting target and all.

 

[Glocktogo]

I could be wrong but, the U.S. installed some leader in Iran back in the fifties. He was great to deal with, as far as the U.S. is concerned. His people, however, suffered greatly under his regime, and correctly blamed the U.S. for their plight. They overthrew the U.S.-backed gunmint, and installed the Ayatollah. Am I correct, or did I miss something here?

As un-patriotic as it sounds, we created this.

I already answered your question. I'm VERY well versed in U.S./Persian history and it goes back well before the Shah.

We did install a new leader in Iran, but does anyone remember the real reasons why? And no it had nothing to do with oil or Israel.

I'll take the USSR for 600 Alex...

To be fair, the official party line was Mosaddegh's nationalization of Iranian oil production. However, it's importance as a conduit for war materials was more important than their oil reserves at the time.

To be fair, who hasn't taken a shot at you? I mean, you're such an inviting target and all.

Granted. I would point out that having people you've never done anything to shoot at you, tends to make you want to know why. There are still a lot of U.S. supporters in Iran. Personally, I'd like to see relations with Iran repaired, much like we've done with Vietnam. That's tough to do when rhetoric is the word of the day though.

 

[SMS]

I'm still waiting for a solution that doesn't turn us into the same kind of innocent killing monsters that they are. I'm all about gutting our enemies, cutting off their private parts and shoving them down the throats of their decapitated, spiked, heads. I'm not about killing a child because of who his father is.

A lot of what I hear goes something like this (I'm even guilty of echoing similar sentiment, but now I realize it won't get us anywhere):

The Muslim people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will or inaction; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies, or their willing ignorance of the same. Thus, Muslims have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for ISIL's oppression of the Kurds and others, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of Christians. Those of the Muslim faith have the ability, numbers, and choice to refuse the policies of those who claim to represent their religion and even to change it if they want.

Additionally, Muslim people all over the world, while not actively taking up arms, are the ones who fund the attacks against us. This is why Muslims cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by ISIS and Al Qaeda. Thus, if we are attacked, we have a right and a duty as Americans to attack back. Whoever has killed our civilians, we have a right to kill theirs.

 

[dennishoddy]

Sure! You just have to be willing to accept the occasional 9/11, Ft. Hood, Boston Marathon bombing, etc. But hey, you're good with that, right? After all, it's not YOUR grandkids!

Keep in mind, you also have to be good with $8 a gallon gas, oil embargoes, fuel shortages, etc. The reason Syria and Iraq are more important to them that Libya and Egypt is the amount of natural resources they can control. After all, they've got plenty of time to assimilate the rest of the region once they control the oil.



Lindsay Graham is a bloviating idiot. Putting 10K troops on the ground and toppling Assad is madness. These dumbasses like Graham and McCain want Assad gone not because he's a dictator, but because he's not OUR dictator. They want him gone so they can facilitate a pipeline across Syria to Europe, in order to cut Putin's throat.

In the meantime, they want to mire us in eternal "limited" conflict and prop up the military industrial complex. No. We need to annihilate IS to re-stabilize the region and reduce the future risk here at home. Sending in OUR troops isn't the way to do that.



I've been going around and around with a Muslim apologist on another forum about this. He's full of excuses for the Muslim community worldwide, but has zero answers. Simply put, it's time for them to fish or cut bait. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's say 90% of the world's 1.6 BILLION Muslims reject IS and their savagery. Let's say they truly believe that IS does not represent Islam in principle or practice. That what they're doing is "intolerable". To wit:



If so, what we have here is approximately 0.000040625 of the world’s Muslim population holding the rest hostage. That means the other 99.9959375 percent of Muslims are either so weak willed and pathetic, inept or just plain uncaring to stop them. So what do you think is the most likely explanation? That they can’t won’t or just don’t care? It’s not Christians they’re predominantly killing right now.

Sorry, but I’m not buying that. The most plausible explanation is that either through cultural or religious pretext, they accept sectarian violence and savage brutality more than they accept non-Muslim intervention. It’s more important to them that this be allowed to continue than to admit any problems within their religion and culture.

Simply put, when we rolled in to kill the bad guys, if that 90+ percent of the “peaceful Muslim population”, REALLY wanted these evil savages eliminated, it would happen very quickly and we’d be given hero’s parades throughout the lands. But that’s not what happens. They dig in, fight us tooth and nail and slaughter the relatively small percentage of cooperating indigenous residents the minute we turn our backs (and we ALWAYS turn our backs eventually).

This is their problem. Unfortunately it’s gotten completely out of hand and it threatens our allies and our citizens. Yet without their overwhelming acceptance and support of our efforts, we will continue to fail. It’s come down to a war of ideals, and quite frankly, our CiC is to weak and pathetic to adequately take control of the debate and frame the terms of the global conversation. As a result, we have almost no chance whatsoever to dictate the outcome of the battle.

So we should not place any more of our men in harm’s way than absolutely necessary. That doesn’t mean we should do absolutely nothing though. These are sub-human animals who very much need killing. Turning a blind eye when we have the power to respond is a cowardly act. That’s why I say we should give generously from the surplus of MOAB’s, FAE’s, cluster munitions and various other great implements of war at our disposal. Let’s load up those B-52’s and party like it’s 1972. If we give until it hurts, then give just a little bit more, we can send a VERY effective message. It’s the least we should do IMO.

How this post doesn't become US government policy, I don't know. Well, I do, but whatever.

Post of the year right here! This is the short term answer to get things under control and mete out a little justice. Start the raining on Iran.



For the long term we kill two birds with one stone. We drill, baby drill like a mofo. We build, baby build like a mofo some shipping terminals scattered across 3 coasts and pipelines. We assure the world that we can supply their energy for periods as they may need to kick out these batshit crazy zealots and develop or procure their own as they see fit. We get total energy independence as icing. Yes we do have it and no it need not take 50 years to develop, if we really wanted to do it, we could in probably about 10 years.

How is that? Ostupid said we couldn't do that.

Start the raining on Iran.


We weren't at war with Iran when they were supplying Iraqi insurgents with improved IED's and munitions either. As a matter of fact, we weren't at war when they shot at me in 1988 either.

That said, Iran wants IS eliminated too. We have to keep in mind that this is primarily savagery, masquerading as religious sectarian violence. IS is the wrong sect for Iran to back. This conflict would make strange bedfellows indeed.



If so, they just lost their last tiny bargaining chip. There's now zero excuse for Obama's weakness. Just yesterday he compared IS to the Crusades and slavery/Jim Crow. W. T. Actual F.?????

Funny thing about that, no one balks at calling the Crusades a Christian endeavor, so why balk at calling this one Islamic? Obama's foreign policy is one of the worst we've seen in the history of America, if not the actual worst.

The Crusades was a defensive maneuver to take back lands and holy areas from the muslims.

For the record, how many countries have we supplied with arms during periods of war or military action? Didn't we supply Iraq when they were fighting Iran? Maybe it's time we get "rained on"? If that's the criteria, we're way, way overdue.

I'm still waiting for a solution that doesn't turn us into the same kind of innocent killing monsters that they are. I'm all about gutting our enemies, cutting off their private parts and shoving them down the throats of their decapitated, spiked, heads. I'm not about killing a child because of who his father is.

A lot of what I hear goes something like this (I'm even guilty of echoing similar sentiment, but now I realize it won't get us anywhere):

How are we or anyone else going to wage war with out collateral damage?

We won WWII because of the collateral damage.

I'm not trying to justify a kid being killed, but war is what it is in the real sense. Its war. You take out everything until they submit. You take over their government and make it into a democratic or representative type of government.

The last time we did this was WWII.

The pacifist style of win the hearts and minds of the people in those countries that want to destroy our way of living so we can join their third world way of living won't work.

It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Stan, it didn't work in in Iraq.

Its the same scenario X10

During Vietnam, Hearts and minds was the key thing. It failed miserably.

Stan, and Iraq they tried the same thing. It all failed.