- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Nice article.
But the people that should have been helped in Syria were mostly not the present terrorists. They started dribbling in somewhat later. Had the Europeans faced the responsibility they always demand of the US, they would have not only helped the opposition before the terrorists could establish themselves. They would have removed the Assad family immediately after the dictator had begun crushing the demonstrators.
Trying to control a situation that would eventually overflow with terrorism, regardless of what you do or who you arm, is a difficult needle to thread.
And just because something is difficult you don't try?
That is a cool excuse. Are you German?
How do you try? Sometimes pouring arms into a ......]
I don't think I said pouring weapons in would have been enough. Actually, that is what happened. The Saudis fed the opposition somewhat indiscriminately, while Russia and Europe had already done so for the dictator.
The mindset that eradicating one group of terrorists will end terrorism is a logical, rational perspective. Really? Is it possible that the death of one fundamentalist/terrorists group might be the motivation to give birth to another.
bin Laden was indeed a evil dude. But his death didn't end Al Qaeda.
Reminds me of another mindset years ago.
Take down a little communist nation is southern Asia...then all of the rest will get the message and turn into a democracy. Uh huh, yeah..... right.
So what's your solution?
Democracy, human rights and justice can virtually end terrorism.
Okay....if you say so. We'll see said the blind man to his deaf brother.
Democracies (including human rights and justice) rarely, if ever, go to war against each other. Terrorism lives not in the heart of human rights but tyranny.
It is certainly more difficult and much more expensive to prevent what is now happening than it would have been, had the neighborhood taken their responsibility to be protect seriously.
So what pre-emptive measures are you advocating? I really don't understand your point, if you have one. Maybe I'm too German to 'get it'.
When Assad started killing demonstrators Europe with the other neighbors and UN or without them should have stopped it.
If the US can't get UN or Europe support, what should it do? The will to get involved in foreign conflicts has been squandered. Aside from sanctions, the US doesn't have many tools.
Democracies (including human rights and justice) rarely, if ever, go to war against each other. Terrorism lives not in the heart of human rights but tyranny.
Democracy, human rights and justice can virtually end terrorism.
Then Democracies have incidents like Waco
I don't agree. Some terrorist organizations have goals that have little to do with democracy, seek to deprive people of basic liberties, and strive to impose harsh forms of judgment.
I do believe democracy, human rights, and justice would reduce terrorism, but would be largely irrelevant to the ideology/identity-driven groups.
It is not for the US to solve everyone's problems. That should be done by the neighbors under the auspices of the UN. The US should help but not shoulder it like it has for so long. You're trying to fob off responsibility on the US is typical of European behavior excepting France and UK, who have taken responsibility a number of times.
What? Are you accusing me of something? I'm not trying to 'fob off' responsibility on anyone. I'm not from Europe.
False equivalence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?