Yup, just like we accidentally "trained" al-Qaeda to fight the Russians, and ended up with the people they told us were responsible for 9/11. Every enemy the US has had in the past 100 years was in some way funded or aided by the US. But the news won't talk about this, and Mrs. Schoolteacher doesn't teach about it. Therefore it didn't happen.
The smaller number of British troops reflects our much smaller population. Other big European countries like France and Germany should make a bigger contribution to any further military involvement. Dental care in the Army is actually the best, far better then most civilians can afford over here.
Deaths along the border of Mexico and the united states are far more gruesome than anything ISIS has put out.
what, on the news? i don't generally watch the news, or much of any tv really. and i don't read magazines. but i do read the newspaper pretty regularly, and just being on the internet you usually see a ton of various news headlines, and i've seen very little mention of them in either of those places.
Between CNN, FOX, MSNBC, and The Major Network News Stations you’d think ISIS was the boogie man Hotwater
and of course the running of automobiles is more important than human lives. mostly to americans and everyone america whants to have imitate americans. isis exists because iran's infrastructure was destroyed (by the u.s. in bush's name, though really it was rumsfield, rove and chaney who were pulling his puppet strings) to give saudi arabia a competative advantage in world oil markets. that's as close as i can come to making any real sense out of it. if america, and anyplace else that does, or supports america in doing so, would just stop trying to kill everyone who doen't want to make everything have to begin and end with money, none of this would have ever happened. now i will grant you, some people do take religion seriously, and these isis people seem to take it seriously enough to kill people over, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find nine times out of ten, what religion, like ideology, has do with anything, is to manufacture consent for attrocities. what is isis really all about? well i wouldn't swear to it, but you see, the bush wars and even before him, destroy the infrastructure that was in place, then double cross any pretense of rebuilding it, you have a destabelized region, that i don't see military force as alone likely to restabelize. one question is does anybody want the region to be stabilized? i mean other then the people who live there on the ground who would probably like to stop being killed. schools, railroads, hospitals, that's what we should be sending, protecting and rebuilding. its kind of late in a game we've had over a decade to do so, and of course before that, does anyone remember the world between say, from the election of clinton in 96, to the krystal nocht of the twin towers in 01? new years eve 2000, the world was on the brink of peace. seems to me there were too many selfish interests who just couldn't stand the thought of that. and somehow i don't think they were in the middle east either. there are people who want this isis situation to exist, and i don't mean the people IN isis. i mean they call themselves conservatives but its really obvious if you just listen to what they say, if you can even stand to, which most of the time i can't.
Does seem to me that all the rhetoric this time around is different. Foreign policy from not just the US but other first world nations is basically well who gives a fuck My country for one is now sending weapons to the Kurds, doubt anyone is going to let them take over southern Iraq where the oilfields are. As long as they are contained to Syria and the half of Iraq no one wants, they will probably just self implode anyway Seems to be the World view at the moment
Well, it would appear that they are an existential threat to the government of Iraq. If that isn't worth reporting on, then what is?
As far as infrastructure....I think that topic has a lot more to do with debt and the privatization of resources than stabilization. In the case of Iraq, we already have the resource situation set up the way we want it. It isn't in our interests to further stabilize the country. (You'd think we should but....) As long as ISIS doesn't threaten that, we can manipulate the situation in other ways to benefit us. If ISIS does threaten our interests, we will respond. Ex: look how fast we bombed their asses to keep them from controlling that dam.
And here is an interesting perspective on the jihadist mindset of some people. It has to do with westerners joining the jihadists. http://www.alternet.org/world/i-understand-why-westerners-are-joining-jihadi-movements-isis-i-was-almost-one-them?page=0%2C0
you know, every once in a while you say something i have to agree with whole heartedly. this is one of them.
Must just be the major news networks then and magazines like Time.... I don't really read any local papers or anything and I often put one of the major news networks on as background when I'm doing other stuff and almost half of the time what they are talking about is ISIS.
