Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ISIS does it again

18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 9:39:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Typical conservative. I remember the 9/11 coverage by Howard Stern being filled with accounts like "let's go nuke these idiots" The American Military is already intervening in areas it could, destroying and neutralizing Islamic State fighters via air. The Islamic State has had a bad week, as SAA is now advancing in Saker Island. The SyAF has destroyed huge amounts of captured Iraqi equipment. Sha'er Gas Fields was taken for the regime once again. American intervention will incite Russia and Iran, two nuclear powers. IS is being destroyed from the ground by SAA soldiers and Iraqi Army units. They are overextended for a force of 100,000 soldiers, and they are to ill-trained to resist such a huge attack. Intervention will only cause harm in the international stage.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
birdlandmemories
Posts: 4,140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 6:48:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

They've killed more than a few, This is not just an America issue, they've killed 75 Kurdish soldiers, 2 British, and 3 Americans, they attempted a failed Australian beheading plot, killed 18 Syrian soldiers, a IS ally killed a french mountaineering guide. And they also plan to kill US military members next. So to you it's justifiable for them to kill and for us to sit still and allow it? With that strategy, not only are more people likely to be killed but this hurts our relations globally.

Also, these people are ruthless, if you kill them, they kill you, if you don't kill them, they kill you. Even if we don't launch airstrikes, they will still kill.

Typical Subutai, you fail to know anything about IS.
Ashton
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:08:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 6:48:10 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

They've killed more than a few, This is not just an America issue, they've killed 75 Kurdish soldiers, 2 British, and 3 Americans, they attempted a failed Australian beheading plot, killed 18 Syrian soldiers, a IS ally killed a french mountaineering guide. And they also plan to kill US military members next. So to you it's justifiable for them to kill and for us to sit still and allow it? With that strategy, not only are more people likely to be killed but this hurts our relations globally.

Also, these people are ruthless, if you kill them, they kill you, if you don't kill them, they kill you. Even if we don't launch airstrikes, they will still kill.

Typical Subutai, you fail to know anything about IS.

Do you have any disagreement with 18karl, who pointed out that ISIS is already being beaten back and that our direct intervention may not be required? And that such an intervention may ultimately lead to more harm (to us) than good?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 6:48:10 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

They've killed more than a few, This is not just an America issue, they've killed 75 Kurdish soldiers, 2 British, and 3 Americans, they attempted a failed Australian beheading plot, killed 18 Syrian soldiers, a IS ally killed a french mountaineering guide. And they also plan to kill US military members next. So to you it's justifiable for them to kill and for us to sit still and allow it? With that strategy, not only are more people likely to be killed but this hurts our relations globally.

Also, these people are ruthless, if you kill them, they kill you, if you don't kill them, they kill you. Even if we don't launch airstrikes, they will still kill.

Typical Subutai, you fail to know anything about IS.

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence. Why do you think the Middle East has been such a problem for 50 years? Radical reactionist movements (like ISIS) tend to happen when a foreign government takes over a weak nation's government and installs a puppet democracy.

We've set back and watched much greater atrocities happen, so why do we care so much about ISIS? Sure, they've killed a few foreigners, but I hardly think this justifies yet another war in the Middle East that will take years and costs tens of thousands of lives just to end up right back where we were when ISIS 2.0 rolls around.

Also, how is this typical me? When have I ever had a long conservation with you?
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2014 7:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 9:11:15 AM, birdlandmemories wrote:
Another dead american. It's about time we go there and wipe these fools off the map. What they are doing is disgusting.

People in the Middle East angry at the West? I guess we better blow some more Arabs up.
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 2:06:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 6:48:10 PM, birdlandmemories wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

They've killed more than a few, This is not just an America issue, they've killed 75 Kurdish soldiers, 2 British, and 3 Americans, they attempted a failed Australian beheading plot, killed 18 Syrian soldiers, a IS ally killed a french mountaineering guide. And they also plan to kill US military members next. So to you it's justifiable for them to kill and for us to sit still and allow it? With that strategy, not only are more people likely to be killed but this hurts our relations globally.

What do you mean they've killed 75 Kurdish soldiers? You are aware of Ayn Al-Arab right? Kurdish casualties there exceed 75. I think it was around 300 dead Kurdish soldiers. They have also killed much more than 18 Syrian soldiers; after the fall of the 17th Division's base in Taqba, they literally stripped and beheaded 193 Syrian Regime Soldiers. So to say, your statistics are flawed to an extent where what you are saying does not make sense anymore. Apart from that, the fact of it not being a significant American issue makes it much more logical to say "we will launch airstrikes against these Salafis, but we will not M1 Abrams there arses. The SAA and the Iraqi Armed Forces will do that"


Also, these people are ruthless, if you kill them, they kill you, if you don't kill them, they kill you. Even if we don't launch airstrikes, they will still kill.

You know who else is ruthless? DPRK. Why not kaboom DPRK? DPRK has for long been threatening America, and has imprisoned many Americans. Why not kaboom DPRK? Because it is a "recognized" state? Why not invade DPRK? Because it has nuclear weapons? Well, Russia has nuclear weapons too, and you know what, by launching ground troops in Syria, you will be pissing of both Iran, Russia, and Syria, which still retains a small portion of it's WMDs.


Typical Subutai, you fail to know anything about IS.

Your arguments are (1) based on false statistics, (2) a fallacy of presumption, and (3) ad hominem attacks + unsound.
praise the lord Chin Chin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:10:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

24,000 as of October.

http://m.christianpost.com...
praise the lord Chin Chin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:13:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:10:53 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

24,000 as of October.

http://m.christianpost.com...

*Injured*.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:16:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:13:59 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:10:53 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

24,000 as of October.

http://m.christianpost.com...

*Injured*.

*and killed*
*in Iraq*
praise the lord Chin Chin
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:13:59 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:10:53 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

24,000 as of October.

http://m.christianpost.com...

*Injured*.

btw I tracked down your source, and the article was posted during Sept 24. '14

http://en.shiapost.com...
praise the lord Chin Chin
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 8:28:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:16:23 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:13:59 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:10:53 PM, 18Karl wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

24,000 as of October.

http://m.christianpost.com...

*Injured*.

*and killed*
*in Iraq*

The article further states: an estimated 8,493 civilians killed (similar to my own statistic) and that 15,782 is the amount injured.

This source is from October--and it's invariably the same as the additional one you've cited in a response.

Naturally with it being a month-old the statistics would've increased.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:05:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

That still doesn't justify starting a war against them, which would lead to even more deaths.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.
In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.

Only overwhelming total war Nukes vs. Wood houses.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 9:46:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:44:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.

Only overwhelming total war Nukes vs. Wood houses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:00:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:44:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.

Only overwhelming total war Nukes vs. Wood houses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

We didn't total war in 92. What makes you think USA ever will in the Middle East?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:02:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:00:12 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:46:43 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:44:54 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.

Only overwhelming total war Nukes vs. Wood houses.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

We didn't total war in 92. What makes you think USA ever will in the Middle East?

I don't think they will, but that doesn't mean I think such an invasion would be unsuccessful.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:11:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.


Well it depends on the type of culture being taken over and the way in which they were taken over. Due to the US dropping nukes on Japan (a really big deal), the emperor submitted, and ergo the people (in Japanese culture, the emperor's word is taken very seriously, even when he admits defeat). The same culture does not exist in the Middle East, and the same situation does not exist in the Middle East. Nuking them won't incite the same fear as it id in Japan 70 years ago.
In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:28:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:11:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.


Well it depends on the type of culture being taken over and the way in which they were taken over. Due to the US dropping nukes on Japan (a really big deal), the emperor submitted, and ergo the people (in Japanese culture, the emperor's word is taken very seriously, even when he admits defeat).

In all likelihood, they would have inevitably surrendered regardless of whether the US used nukes (just like Germany did). The nuke just saved a lot of lives in both sides, since it made clear that Japan had no chance.

The same culture does not exist in the Middle East, and the same situation does not exist in the Middle East. Nuking them won't incite the same fear as it id in Japan 70 years ago.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm only concerned with your assertion that "Violence is never a permanent solution to violence."

In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
Subutai
Posts: 3,223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:42:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:28:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:11:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.


Well it depends on the type of culture being taken over and the way in which they were taken over. Due to the US dropping nukes on Japan (a really big deal), the emperor submitted, and ergo the people (in Japanese culture, the emperor's word is taken very seriously, even when he admits defeat).


In all likelihood, they would have inevitably surrendered regardless of whether the US used nukes (just like Germany did). The nuke just saved a lot of lives in both sides, since it made clear that Japan had no chance.


But the nukes caused the emperor to submit, which caused the people to submit. I think that if Japan had been invaded and occupied, the Japanese would have been more more openly resentful.
The same culture does not exist in the Middle East, and the same situation does not exist in the Middle East. Nuking them won't incite the same fear as it id in Japan 70 years ago.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm only concerned with your assertion that "Violence is never a permanent solution to violence."



It can be a temporary solution, but it's only when we get rid of the overall mindset of violence that violence will end.
In any case, this is irrelevant to your statement, which is far more general than that.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 11:07:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:42:50 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:28:27 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:11:09 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:40:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:34:31 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:32:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:25:21 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:18:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/16/2014 7:14:44 PM, Subutai wrote:

Violence is never a permanent solution to violence.

Then how do you explain the permanent (and forceful) defeat of the Nazis?

Well considering WWII was a direct consequence of WWI, which was a direct consequence of late 19th/early 20th century imperialism, a system based off of, you guessed it, violent takeover. It hardly seems appropriate to fault non-interventionism for failing to be able to deal with the effects of interventionism.

Does the same not apply here? Is ISIS not also the product of interventionism?


Yes it is, and I made that point in one of my posts in this thread. Reactionary groups tend to arise after a hostile takeover.

After Japan was defeated in WW2, the US occupied Japan and installed a new government, and everything worked out fine. So clearly violence/force can be a permanent solution to violence.


Well it depends on the type of culture being taken over and the way in which they were taken over. Due to the US dropping nukes on Japan (a really big deal), the emperor submitted, and ergo the people (in Japanese culture, the emperor's word is taken very seriously, even when he admits defeat).


In all likelihood, they would have inevitably surrendered regardless of whether the US used nukes (just like Germany did). The nuke just saved a lot of lives in both sides, since it made clear that Japan had no chance.


But the nukes caused the emperor to submit, which caused the people to submit. I think that if Japan had been invaded and occupied, the Japanese would have been more more openly resentful.
The same culture does not exist in the Middle East, and the same situation does not exist in the Middle East. Nuking them won't incite the same fear as it id in Japan 70 years ago.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm only concerned with your assertion that "Violence is never a permanent solution to violence."



It can be a temporary solution, but it's only when we get rid of the overall mindset of violence that violence will end.

I thought by "violence is never a permanent solution to violence" you were claiming specific instances of violence cannot be eradicated using force, since you said "never" which implies more than one instance rather than "violence in general".
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 3:14:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 9:05:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

That still doesn't justify starting a war against them, which would lead to even more deaths.

Mostly I was just implying that it's more than a "few". I personally think the main key is in re-arming Kurdish forces. However, because of ISIS' oil network and expansion into Iraq/Syria--at least some outside assistance is needed.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2014 3:46:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/18/2014 3:14:56 AM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/17/2014 9:05:19 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/17/2014 8:01:49 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 11/16/2014 5:46:16 PM, Subutai wrote:
Ok, so they killed a few people. Let's go retaliate by killing some more people. Your argument makes no logical sense.

Over 8,500 actually. That figure was taken from Iraq alone (discounting Syria).

That still doesn't justify starting a war against them, which would lead to even more deaths.

Mostly I was just implying that it's more than a "few". I personally think the main key is in re-arming Kurdish forces. However, because of ISIS' oil network and expansion into Iraq/Syria--at least some outside assistance is needed.

Rearming Kurdish fighters? Such solutions would enrage Turkey, and would ultimately cause a Turkish invasion of Syria "in the interests of killing the Kurds", which would then piss Russia off big-time. Rearming Kurdish fighters would only create more tensions in areas, and would pit the Kurds into a war with the countries they are trying to secede from (ex. Syria, Iraq, possibly Iran). Ultimately, if the main goal is to destroy IS, I think the best thing to do would be to convince FSA and other moderates to join the Regime and form some type of alliance against the Islamic fighters, and after that, create a secular democracy. Assad has to accept this; he is living on extra-time.
praise the lord Chin Chin