Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

West's intervention in the middle east - net positive or negative? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Very negative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)

    (ignore the title of the video, or at least ignore the word "finally" )
    That is your evidence? An extremely dodgy looking video (obviously not a real CNN video) in which he either appears to have misspoke or someone doctored what he said? :facepalm:

    How can you go from being so reasonable on some issues, to a downright lunatic/conspiracy theorist on others? :/

    ...do you want me to refer you to countries like chad, eritrea, turkmenistan, uzbekistan, syria, etc? there are similar non-nuclear dictatorships out there.
    do their leaders commit massacres against minority ethnic groups?

    a) why should we sacrifice our soldiers in return for non-citizens?
    Because where there are civilians at risk and we can help them, we should. We don't have to put 'our soldiers' at risk to do so.

    and b) why should we spend money fighting for another country's population?
    Well, if you don't think we should be doing our bit to prevent humanitarian disasters or save civilians from imminent massacres (where we can), then there's not much I can tell you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    That is your evidence? An extremely dodgy looking video (obviously not a real CNN video) in which he either appears to have misspoke or someone doctored what he said? :facepalm:

    How can you go from being so reasonable on some issues, to a downright lunatic/conspiracy theorist on others? :/
    you didn't even watch it, did you.
    how can you criticise my video without even ****ing seeing it?
    what a hilarious lack of judgement on your part; all that video is, is obama saying "we've sped up training of ISIL forces"

    do their leaders commit massacres against minority ethnic groups?
    why is "ethnic group" the sudden threshold of military interventionism? what about violation of the human rights of *everybody*? where are you pulling out this criterion from? :|

    Because where there are civilians at risk and we can help them, we should. We don't have to put 'our soldiers' at risk to do so.
    why should we? because emotions? I'm sorry but IR isn't structured via emotions. it's structured by realpolitik and realist considerations. the responsibilities of states are towards their own citizens and their protection in particular.

    Well, if you don't think we should be doing our bit to prevent humanitarian disasters or save civilians from imminent massacres (where we can), then there's not much I can tell you.
    well you've failed to incentivise a government to take action that conforms to rason d'etre
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    you didn't even watch it, did you.
    how can you criticise my video without even ****ing seeing it?
    what a hilarious lack of judgement on your part; all that video is, is obama saying "we've sped up training of ISIL forces"
    I did watch it. If you think that was a legit video then I worry about you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    I did watch it. If you think that was a legit video then I worry about you.
    it literally is though. I wouldn't send you a doctored video.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    it literally is though. I wouldn't send you a doctored video.
    That's not how this works.

    Is that all you have to support your claim that "the US armed ISIS", one video?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    That's not how this works.

    Is that all you have to support your claim that "the US armed ISIS", one video?
    that's all I need though :| it's obama saying "we've sped up training of ISIL forces". I could theoretically give you more but what's the point? that is video footage of the president of the USA claiming (before the ISIS mess happened) that he trained ISIS
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    I could theoretically give you more
    Please do.

    A video is not sufficient evidence for your assertion. If that's all you have then that's rather damning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    Please do.

    A video is not sufficient evidence for your assertion. If that's all you have then that's rather damning.
    evidence for which assertion? that obama trained ISIS? umm, are you imply that obama was lying in the video...? :|
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    evidence for which assertion? that obama trained ISIS?
    Yes. You said you had more evidence. I'd like to see it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    Yes. You said you had more evidence. I'd like to see it.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/america...-group/5402881

    there you go, princess.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Most of the middle east's problem come from it, its an undeniable negative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/america...-group/5402881

    there you go, princess.
    LOL nice source.

    PS. Even that source doesn't support your assertion that "Obama armed ISIS", what it actually says is that the US removing Saddam from power created a power vacuum that the IS filled. Obama was not in power when the US attacked Iraq, princess.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slipper flipper)
    LOL nice source.

    PS. Even that source doesn't support your assertion that "Obama armed ISIS", what it actually says is that the US removing Saddam from power created a power vacuum that the IS filled. Obama was not in power when the US attacked Iraq, princess.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/po...-weapons-u-s-/

    okay then, here's a more perfectly phrased article, sire.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/08/po...-weapons-u-s-/

    okay then, here's a more perfectly phrased article, sire.
    I'm rather confused how you've managed to say that the Yanks have directly given weapons to ISIS. That source seems to say that ISIS has captured US made weapons from other groups or been traded to them by other rebel groups. You can't really blame the Americans for that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'm rather confused how you've managed to say that the Yanks have directly given weapons to ISIS. That source seems to say that ISIS has captured US made weapons from other groups or been traded to them by other rebel groups. You can't really blame the Americans for that.
    are you accounting for the video I sent the other user of obama saying "we've sped up training of ISIL forces"? why would they be training them with no weapons?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    are you accounting for the video I sent the other user of obama saying "we've sped up training of ISIL forces"? why would they be training them with no weapons?
    I'd much prefer to see the whole speech by Obama to see what context it was said in. That seems like a slip of the tongue. George W Bush made plenty of them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'd much prefer to see the whole speech by Obama to see what context it was said in. That seems like a slip of the tongue. George W Bush made plenty of them.
    ...but what context would "we've sped up training of ISIL forces" be positive in? and if a politician's statement can be escaped via the explanation of a slip of the tongue, surely anything a politician says once can be negated by this kind of thinking? just saying
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    I'd much prefer to see the whole speech by Obama to see what context it was said in. That seems like a slip of the tongue. George W Bush made plenty of them.
    here's the whole speech by the way - and you can skip to 5:25 to get right to the relevant statement

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BubbleBoobies)
    here's the whole speech by the way - and you can skip to 5:25 to get right to the relevant statement

    Thanks. It most certainly seems it was a slip of the tongue
    Every other sentence Obama says is all about combating ISIS
    He probably meant that they've been supporting the FSA forces (although that hasn't gone particularly well TBH).

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34486572
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.