Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So, my OP was trying to ask where we go from here....non-intervention towards worthy causes asking for assistance?...stand by and watch torture and slaughter? Some of our decisions are arguably good and bad (especially with the aid of hindsight) but even doing nothing now is a decision.
And watch further slaughter and torture continue??
internationally? How about internally!
That's the point, George. Yes, we can simply draw a line around the Muslim world and let them settle their own affairs. Part of me thinks the "Non-Interference" doctrine from Star Trek might not be a bad idea, but that would apply to ALL contact and the distribution of goods. Internet access would have to be cut, all high technology would have to be cut off... etc.. but that is simply unworkable because the genie is already out of the bottle.
Exactly! We support whatever group supports our immediate goals, and ten years later it comes back to bite us in the arse. This has happened over and over again.
But they are: military bases, embassies, "advisors" and "trainers;" still nation-building; still arming Arabia and Israel; still promoting an American agenda. And don't underestimate the hugely expanded drone campaigns as a generator of hatred and terrorism.
Good point. They seem to be the one insurgency with an agenda of its own. But they want us to attack them. Our attacks legitimize their claims of a war against Islam and are a major recruiting tool. They make no secret of this -- it's all in their magazine (Google Dabiq).
No I believe it's was evil doing and result.
Stop handing out weapon supplies to crazies who hate us. Coordinate with the legal governments of Syria and Iraq. Russia knows how.
As I see it, Godobeyer, the dimwitted nature of our leaders is a very large part of the problem. There was no good reason to take out Gaddafi. Compared to past years, he had actually been "behaving" himself in the years before his death. Likewise, Obama demanding that Assad step down and then mindlessly arming some of the people who opposed him was a mind-numbingly stupid act. (It would have been better to support Assad, put down the rebellion, then coax him to retire through various incentives.) Then you have the delirious deal with Iran. Is it any wonder these attacks are on the rise?
I'm not so sure. Unless our governments can clearly lay the blame at the feet of one or more countries, a large scale war will not happen. This is made even more difficult due to the botched handling of the invasion of Iraq to flush out Saddam Hussein. We can see this in Obama's reluctance to craft any viable strategy to remove Asad and the unanticipated rise of the Islamic State as a result of his (and Hillary Clinton's) amateurish interference in the region. He is obviously quite reluctant to follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush but for some inexplicable reason could not help himself in stroking the flames of discontent in Syria. Basic Amateur hour stuff.
Iraq was an exemple of voilence , after failed intervention of West.
At this point I see no good approach. No matter what we do there will be serious negative consequences.
And I absolutely agree. I remember being puzzled when the American forces stopped at the end of Desert Storm. They could have easily gone in and taken Saddam then and there. They stopped though. That made the renewed call to remove Saddam years later all the more puzzling. It just didn't make sense. The only reasonable option would have been a very small Seal Team which would have been an assassination squad. Go in, do the job and exist as soon as possible with the least casualties. The command decision blunders were especially terrible, like disbanding the Iraqi military, police forces and barring all Ba'athist members from working in the new Iraq security forces. (The point is anyone who knew anything was likely a member of the Ba'athist party. It would be like barring any Communist for holding any government office in China.) Yeah, that will work. What could possibly go wrong with a bunch of inexperienced people running things?
Political arrogance, the blame for which can be put directly at the feet of President Obama and his "brilliant" Secretary of State, Hillary R. Clinton. (And they want to give her the keys to the car after that disaster.)
I was meaning the attacks by Islamic militants that seem to be getting more frequent.
The multiple attacks in France, 50 dead in Orlando, I do not see these as an occasional mosquito.
It is more sending a message to keep their violence and sectarian wars out of our lands. Of course we cannot be bringing wars to their lands as we have been, but nor should we tolerate them attacking us. I am very aware radicals Muslims are a minority, but when someone brings violence to your lands, you must make it clear such things will not be tolerated. Yes, I would prefer peace and that such lengths not be gone to, but when a group promotes attacking innocents and civilians, literally dropping them off them off back home (perhaps from a Halo jump height) will give them some time to think about why they weren't welcome. I'm not saying we have to nail the turbans to the head of every Muslim as a message to keep their customs in their home lands, but it wouldn't to create an atmosphere in which peaceful Muslims help us by smoking out the bad ones (side with them a die, or help us to help them by getting rid of the problem).
Agreed.
). This task will likewise not be easy. A major portion of this current generation has been brainwashed and deliberately indoctrinated with entitlement issues and the "I, me, mine, whatever makes you feel good, do it" claptrap. Totally self-absorbed means you can't pull your head out of yer own a** long enough to take a look around and see the dangers of having yer head up yer a** in the first place.
Both, although the roles are different. The Islamic world and the west are now too intertwined.
I think the ostrich approach is not quite right either. Can we (Americans) allow some of the atrocities of groups in that part of the world to continue and close our ears to the pleadings of innocent villages getting destroyed and the people killed and raped? There were many in 1941 who thought America should not once again get involved in the seemingly perpetual European wars.That's probably ostrich behavior, wanting to bury my head in the sand and have somebody else do the dirty work. But I'm looking around at my own country (USA) and thinking, shoot! What the heck are we doing abroad, "out there?" We have a boatload of work to do right here to get our own country back on track. (I had another word but was pretty sure it would look like ****load of work after I posted
