Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
^^Thanks for the reply. My goal was to spark some debate regarding the eternally murky world of international relations.
I agree with some of your ideas though I tend to think we have no business in the affairs of other countries....or most individuals for that matter.
Russia was highly effective in dealing with ISIS. They clobbered ISIS for a couple months then went home. We have been pumping trillions into the Middle Eastern nightmare for 13 years with no sign of any exit plan at all. In fact....the situation is growing more precarious with each passing year.
Syria, Iraq, ISIS, and Libya are such a mess that I don't believe that anybody knows exactly what is going on. I do believe that the migrant crisis is probably going to be an eternal nightmare.
I may expect some sort of revenge to be exacted in a meaningful way at some point in the future. Could be hacking, EMP, nuke, or biological. Nobody knows. At that time, we may stand a good chance of effectively taking out the world. Noisy 70 pound chimps can get your attention. It is the 8,000 pound gorilla that may kill you....and a few others.
You are welcome , I was not trying to offend anyone but the white people in the west are too caught up with political correctness and they need to realize that other people from asia, middle east , Africa ( not just muslims but all religions there) pose an existential threat to them and they need to approach this problem in a Machiavellian way
reminds of a saying I heard which may have been said by a Russian general, "the only warcrime is losing the war"
Odd then that nearly half the nuclear weapons in the world belonged to "Western" countries, isn't it. That's threat to the whole planet, not just the demographic you're prejudiced against.
Odd then that nearly half the nuclear weapons in the world belonged to "Western" countries, isn't it. That's threat to the whole planet, not just the demographic you're prejudiced against.
It is definitely a threat and we should move towards a nuclear free world but since 1945 how many people have been killed by nukes? while the good ole AK-47, FN FAL and clubs / sticks have killed millions.
The fire bombing of Germany killed more people than both the nukes, those "conventional bombs" are still in widespread use.
The threat I'm talking about is through illegal immigration and refugees who will swamp the west while they are too afraid to stop them out of political correctness. Once these people are well settled in the west a few of them will assimilate well in the society ( they pose no threat infact will contribute to the growth and pay taxes as the vast majority of American muslims do) but if they are not properly screened and selected on merit and not simply because they are charity cases then they have the potential to be alienated and disillusioned from mainstream society and this will lead to the same kind of social unrest as we see in Europe today and on a much bigger scale.
Let me ask you this if the roles are reversed and Europeans start migrating to middle east lets says in droves as refugees how do you think they will be treated ? see how the Saudis treat the pakistani, indian, sri Lankan and African migrant workers and you will get your answer
I feel bad for the afghans and the suffering they had to go through to maintain their "freedom" but would it not be better if Afghanistan became another SSR ? I mean look at the other stans in central asia despite all their problems they are a lot better than A-stan
In Afghanistan the feudal warlords exploited the religious sentiments of the people and this combined by the myopic policy of Pakistan and US led to explosive insurgency and this led to far more suffering of the people than any socialist land reforms would have caused.
It is definitely a threat and we should move towards a nuclear free world but since 1945 how many people have been killed by nukes? while the good ole AK-47, FN FAL and clubs / sticks have killed millions.
The fire bombing of Germany killed more people than both the nukes, those "conventional bombs" are still in widespread use.
The threat I'm talking about is through illegal immigration and refugees who will swamp the west while they are too afraid to stop them out of political correctness. Once these people are well settled in the west a few of them will assimilate well in the society ( they pose no threat infact will contribute to the growth and pay taxes as the vast majority of American muslims do) but if they are not properly screened and selected on merit and not simply because they are charity cases then they have the potential to be alienated and disillusioned from mainstream society and this will lead to the same kind of social unrest as we see in Europe today and on a much bigger scale.
Let me ask you this if the roles are reversed and Europeans start migrating to middle east lets says in droves as refugees how do you think they will be treated ? see how the Saudis treat the pakistani, indian, sri Lankan and African migrant workers and you will get your answer
^ Not entirely
I don't identify with either parties and I don't think either one is 100% right or wrong
I strongly believe in gay rights , gun rights, womens rights, no foreign interventions, free trade
so I'm kind of more of a Ron Paul supporter who is not like your average republican
Bit of a strawman you threw out here. He is coming across as a federally employed neocon-intelligence industry. Throwing out the Ron Paul card was a real piece of work.
The neocons have given a giant black eye to the GOP. Yet the neolibs are just as hungry to drop some bombs on a new target.
Hillary's emails said that we need to help take out Syria to help out Israel. Our mainstream media remains silent as the corporate lapdogs they have become. Snowden/Assange/Wikileaks and RT have become some of the new guardians of public interest in our brave new world. Remember now:
Bit of a strawman you threw out here. He is coming across as a federally employed neocon-intelligence industry. Throwing out the Ron Paul card was a real piece of work.
The neocons have given a giant black eye to the GOP. Yet the neolibs are just as hungry to drop some bombs on a new target.
Hillary's emails said that we need to help take out Syria to help out Israel. Our mainstream media remains silent as the corporate lapdogs they have become. Snowden/Assange/Wikileaks and RT have become some of the new guardians of public interest in our brave new world. Remember now: .
Okay, this is officially the dumbest assertion I've read today.
Let me guess. Attack the sources. Attack the poster. Cash check. Skeptinazi paradigm from early 1940s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Okay, this is officially the dumbest assertion I've read today.
Why color is the sky in your world?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
