Soviet Union, communist countries, Islamic countries don't care or recognize any form of international regulations they'll tale what ever they want. and the West will always react with regulations the Kuwaitis, the Kurds are very happy and thankful that the USA acted and invaded Iraq.
Don't think I said that. The Middle East has been in flux for centuries. The end of the Ottoman Empire was at the turn of the 20th century when it was divided up by the League of Nations.
Then if it is not blaming the West then what? Fault, short comings, lack of political will, intervention? The thing is one has to know when and how to take a stand or else we'll get run over and this is what happened in Christian Middle East and it is still happening today leaders kept going around in circles planning and no answer to Islamist threat while the Islamist have very simple plan and that is just do it! ISIS is no different from Saddam's or Gaddafis regimes it morphed into ISIS after the lost of Saddam and Gaddafi. The USA, Russia and allies are actually fighting the same elements of Saddam and Gaddafi's extremist forces. The only way to totally win is to destroy them just like how Nazi Germany was defeated. The stradegy against ISIS i snot good enough the USA should just let the Russian deal with ISIS the Russians have the will to defeat ISIS not the USA or the West. It will never be a step in the right direction as long as the strategy is containment, compromise and deals.
Islamic nation have only the Sharia Law or Sharia constitution that allows them to wage wars to any nation that refused to submit to their will.
So? Who doesn't have faults and shortcomings? It's not like ISIS doesn't have shortcomings, I just don't care about whose fault it is as much as I care about fixing it. Ooh, there's an interesting statement, you think ISIS is no different to Saddam? Is this view supported by, let's say, related terror incidents, popular opinion (either there or in the west), civilian deaths or anything like that? Well, even if that were the case, that would mean the western involvement has made no difference (which I suppose is better than making a negative impact, but hardly impressive). The main difference between the ends of WWI and WWII were that the Allies were very harsh after the first, which meant they started making war again as soon as they were able. After WWII, there was a lot of effort spent helping the war-torn nations, Marshall plan, Coal and Steel community and so on, which meant they didn't even consider more war. People are often directed by religious beliefs, but they also often chose the religious belief that takes their problems into account. The rest of the world has done fine with compromises and deals.
You continue to shame yourself with your lack of world history, politics and current events that is why we are here to share with you the facts and the fact is Islamic countries problems have been ongoing since 670 AD and it got worse with the death of Mohammed when his followers started to fight over his inheritance not about God but about Mohammed but most of all the failure of Muslim leaders to correct the wrong interpretation of Mohammed's preaching instead they use it to expand it for political and material gains.
If you don't care then why complain? Yes, ISIS is no different from Saddam, Bin Ladin, Gaddafi etc. Yes, ISIS in Iraq are mainly Sunni forces, former Republican Guards, former Saddam's loyalist that have been displaced by the now ruling Shiite leaning Iran. Western involvement failed because the West just like you would want us to do is not to get involved and we did pull out of the involvement and this is what happened. Now that the West has started to get involve again ISIS and their likes are starting to loose grounds again. and tthat is what the West need to do in order to defeat Islamist 100% do what they did after WWII not just leave things to the locals. We did partially open our borders to the thousands of Muslim and none Muslims, we open our schools, we invested and donated billions of dollars sadly many of the money went to the terror groups because we did not get involved in direct stewardship. The rest of the world are doing fine.....you mean like China is doing fine with their aggression against the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam in seizing Islands in the Pacific, their threat of war against Taiwan. How about in Africa they doing fine too? Compromise and deals have to be two way streak not just one way for it to work.
In the USA, Islam is not the same as Middle East Islam no loyalty to Saudi Arabia or Iran but to the USA. sadly, Middle Eastern Islam has started to penetrate into the USA and this is were we see all the home ground terrorist are associated with because Middle Eastern Islam teaches the Quran base on Mohammed's call for jihad against all none believers and that it is okay to deceived us, it is okay to pretend to be one of us to gain our trust until Muslims get stronger to take over. One of the most outspoken anti Islamist American is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuhdi_Jasser Jasser began criticizing American Muslim organizations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America, the North American Imams Federation, the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America, Muslim Students’ Association, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic Circle of North America, and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, because he sees them as Islamist, meaning they support a mixing of Islam and politics.[4] He has been especially critical of CAIR, a Muslim American civil rights group that, according to Jasser, is focused on “victimology” and does not adequately condemn the goals of the terrorist groups.[4][17] A CAIR official has responded, “[W]ith these people, nothing we would do would satisfy them”[17] and going so far as to claim that Zuhdi is “a mere sock puppet for Islam haters.
Post one of those "Sharia Constitutions" that allows Muslims to wage war on any nation that refuses to submit to their will.... I'll wait.. This ought to be good.
You mean Sharia Law does not allow Muslims to wage wars against anyone who refused to submit? Are you saying that all these ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc. are all fake? It is not good that you are not aware.
Because I want to fix it. I would gladly personally take on 100% of the blame if it would fix the situation. I presented a number of metrics by which one might measure how different the situations are. I am the first to admit that none of them truly incapsulate the differences, but they do a much better job than comparing who are fighting. There is a difference between getting cake from Mike Tyson and getting punched by Mike Tyson, even if they're carried out by the same person. Who's doing it seems to me to be beside the point when it comes to comparing which situation is worse. Sure, by the time we were already there, most of the damage was already done, there are circumstances under which I could support staying there for some time. However, all of that is up to the whims of politicians, so we shouldn't have tried to rely on that. Sure, not all the world is relying on diplomacy. The examples you give seem like examples of aggression to me, and thus not really example of what I was referring to. For instance, Sweden and UK have not bombed one another, and there is no resentment between them. None of them have given away the others' land to anyone else, and while they have interests that conflict in cases, no action like war has been initiated. This is kind of a weak point since every country's diplomacy with every other country is unique (Sweden and the UK isn't really a comparable situation to US and ISIS). My point is that diplomacy and trade can work fine, although that point seems to have strayed a bit from the topic of the thread.
How can you fix it if you keep seating in the middle road? By sitting in the middle hoping that it will fix it itself or the other side will stop at the middle too will not work because the other side will just run over you and they'll get what they wanted while you end up dead. I don't see your way is a solution to the problem especially if the other side wants more from us. This goes back to political will, the West have this wrong impression that Muslim countries are politically and socially mature enough to handle the situation because those Muslims who have perform well in Western universities could not apply their education against those radicals. Just like in WWII it took a while for the Allies to understand that Hitler, Mussolini and Imperial Japan can not be handle through diplomacy or with fair treaty because those dictators want unfair treaties. Today, Europe be it Sweden and UK they all live in stable security each countries respecting each others sovereignty. It took many decades many wars for Europe to be what it is now and for the Middle East to be what is Europe a total war against radicalism is required. Wanting unfair treaty is aggression. Sweden and UK have matured their maturity did not started as none combatants their history is wreck with havoc, wars and destruction it took many centuries for both Sweden and UK to mature enough to respect each other and accept fair treaty. As long as Muslims kept using the Quran as their basis of diplomacy their will never be peace or equal treaty.
From the middle of the road, we can work on it. From the seat of a tank, no one will ever get the idea of doing what you say from anything but direct policing, which is unfeasible in the long run (and, in social issues, in the short run too). When was the last time you were strong-armed into something and then thought it was a good idea when they had left? This has nothing to do with the paragraph you quoted. I asked you to compare ISIS and Saddam, and in order to do so, we need a metric. I provided a few, you provided one (which I think we both agree was pretty useless), and now you avoid the matter. The answer to the question I quote here can be extracted from the rest of this post. That seems like a misunderstanding of the position of "the West". It's not that they are politically mature (come on, just look at ISIS). It's that they'll never become politically mature if we give them war and opposition to the west as only political training ground. It seems dismissive to the arts of persuasion and negotiation to assume that nothing can be gained if we don't immediately accept their terms. It wasn't rocket science to figure out that the west would want to pull out before everything was stable. If we couldn't guarantee that (and especially if we had reason to believe the opposite), we shouldn't put forward plans that relied on it. Well, that depends on what you mean by "war". Radicals recruit by pointing to others wanting to fight them. To truly make a lasting dent in that sort of radicalism, we need to give people better alternatives, which means predictable futures, hope and meaning in a peaceful time (and economic stability, education and so on, but I think we already agree on that). So far, we've messed with all of that and not really improved anything. Yep, but they couldn't start maturing while they were still fighting. I won't pretend that the change will be quick, but if we keep fighting them, it won't come at all. And as long as we act the way we do (in terms of invasions, possibly oil-based decisions, Israel, talking about Crusades and to wipe out Islam by force), they will keep doing that. Secularism in the west hasn't sprouted up because seculars made violent war on Christianity, in fact, to this day, the violent seculars are one of the driving forces *against* secularism. True changes of heart of the people come in times of peace.
Both sides has to meet at the middle road if one wants more than the middle then a decision has to be made do you give in or do you stand and fight? South Korea is one good example the North wants all of Korea under their term to rule over all of Korea under an oppressive regime. South Korea with firm support from the USA have prevented the North from succeeding. In Muslim countries it has been a failure because Muslims are not mature enough to embrace democracy, Muslims need to separate Mosque from State and to restructure the Quran preach to all Muslims that all the violent verses of Mohammed are meant for Mohammed's time only not applicable to today. As Long as Muslim continue to misread the Quran the problem with radical Islam will not go away. Comparing ISIS with Saddam is useless, Saddam was the past problem ISIS is the present this is the reason why the West can not move forward too much planning very little execution. There you go again pinning the blame on the West, Islam's goal since 670 AD is to oppose Christianity and eventually the West we are mostly reacting to them not steering them up. Islams terms for the West is for us to open up to them is for us to submit to them is for us to be like them they don't want equivalent or equal reciprocation. Was it wrong for us to trust the Muslims can handle their affairs after we help them then? Yes, it was a mistake for us to think that Muslims can handle their affairs by themselves. Only Egypt was able to handle itself it prevented Islamist from taking over their country. That is what the west is and has been offering to Muslim countries it is called MODERNIZATION. We failed not because of us but because of Muslims inability to change their reading and understanding of the Quran as I said do not blame the West we did all we can to help and we have not given up on them yet. Again, it is not us fighting them it is them fighting us. If we stop fighting they'll over run the last places on earth of democracy, freedom and hope to humankind just like they almost over run Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan we can not and must not stop fighting them. There is nothing wrong with our actions and policies in fact if we really want to leave them alone then we should closed all our borders, send all radical Muslims residing in our country back to Muslim countries, stop buying oil from them and start concentrating on renewable energy, build a wall a Trump's Wall 100 feet high across the Mediterranean, place sea mines to stop and iron nets to stop Muslim boats from crossing over to our side and let the radicals alone in their ethnic cleansing and massacre of minorities and other Muslims. Is this what you mean stop act as we do? Crusade is the only thing that can match head to head against Jihad and Jihadist knows that. There will never be peace or for secularism to prosper in Muslim countries as long as they continue to use the Quran as their main source of constitution.
Oh, it is not my responsibility as a areligious heathen to go into your holy book and find dirt. The dirt is there.... Entire cities were decimated because people like you wanted, prayed, and wanted it to happen, so go on and continue to put this on me as someone has to provide you something because you have nothing.
