Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

ronpaulinstitute.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#21

Post by joesmo »

I think it's obvious that our strategies haven't been working. It's also obvious that no amount of pointing this out is going to change anything. Attacks will continue. Liberties will continue disappearing. And countries that aspire to imperialism like France and the UK will continue to follow the US into un-winnable war after un-winnable war destabilizing whatever country the "enemy" of the week lives in.

Of course France will not learn from history just as the US hasn't learned. It's pretty obvious what comes next. And all at our citizens' expense, not anyone else's. I'd say the terrorists have not only achieved their goals, they have surpassed even their wildest imaginations. And for that, they had to do absolutely nothing because the biggest terrorists are the ones passing things like the Patriot and Freedom acts, the ones who send others to die for their own cowardice. The biggest terrorists are indeed amongst us, but they're not Muslim, and you can watch them on CSPAN.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#22

Post by Retric »

seszett wrote: post #11
Someone1234 wrote: post #5

The author was right: I did not. I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics. > and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders. Yeah, no, that isn't at all wh…

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially…

The natural progression for 'lawless' areas is for stronger country's to attack and take land. They don't necessarily take over the whole country just the valuable pieces. Then repeat after that has been assimilated.

Western intervention has stalled this process by imposing arbitrary borders on huge landmasses. ISIS only works because larger state actors have been held in check. But, a true hands off policy would likely lead to some regional wars which would quickly crush ISIS or see it evolve into a more traditional nation state.

PS: Of course the other way this breaks down is when a large and mostly stable nation contains lawless regions. But, that does not really describe the region involved.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#23

Post by kmicklas »

pawelkomarnicki wrote: post #12

Yeah like it's a great idea to "leave alone" a culture that is so expansive, so evil at its root, calling each and every one of its member to go and kill for their god, prophet, twisted idea of a perfect world. Yeah, that's a terrific idea to leave them alone, yes.

I don't know if it's a good idea to leave the Middle East alone or not, but WUT. This sentiment is blatantly racist and should not be tolerated.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#24

Post by myztic »

Regarding Iraq (since it comes up in some other comments) one could (I am playing devil's advocate here) make the argument that the Iraq war was a just war on false assumptions. What reasons do you need to remove a dictator?

0) He does not respect territorial integrity of neighbour states

1) He houses international wanted terrorists, makes it possible for them to hide

2) He commits crimes against humanity (unjust prison and death sentences, violent crimes against political opponents)

3) He is ignoring UN Resolutions

Saddam Hussein was guilty of all of the above, that said:

0) There was no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11

1) There were no WMDs found

Three questions:

Should the United States (and the other opposing parties in the Gulf War) have left him in power or removed him then? Maybe they should have removed him then

Was the Iraq war based on false information, false reasoning and some deception? I would say yes it was

Was it still "just" to remove Hussein? That's the 1 million dollar question, and I am not 100% certain how I should answer...

[And to clarify: I am no fan of George W. Bush, indeed no fan of the Bush family, I do think the Iraq war was wrong, but I am always open to other arguments. Christopher Hitchens made an interesting pro-Iraq war case, you should look some of his articles from that time up]

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#25

Post by dmix »

seszett wrote: post #11
Someone1234 wrote: post #5

The author was right: I did not. I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics. > and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders. Yeah, no, that isn't at all wh…

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially…

> "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on

This is a strawman attack. The author never stated that ISIS or terrorists will disappear or that a non-interventionist position by the west is a solution to a century of middle eastern conflicts.

The article is about reevaluating failed strategies and exploring other strategies which might help minimize the negative externalities of the middle easts constant turmoil. Not fanning the flames is a very valid position to take in this context.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#27

Post by mpatobin »

Wonderdonkey wrote: post #19
danso wrote: post #9

A little coincidental but not completely off-topic...I just read this March 2015 piece from The Atlantic that's been passed around as the article about ISIS and its motives: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... It's a great, lengthy read...it's been posted a few times on HN but without much discussion. But relevant to the OP's opinion: the Atlantic writer asserts that the success of ISIS is…

Came here to recommend this article as well. It's by far the most informative piece I've ever read on ISIS. This should be required reading for every policymaker and military strategist.

This NPR podcast gives good insight to the rise of ISIS as well http://www.npr.org/2015/09/30/444721285/journalist-discusses...

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#28

Post by Mikeb85 »

Islamic 'terror' started long before colonialism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

People often forget this, but 1000 years ago Islamic armies were in Spain, Italy, and had conquered 'Roman' lands. 500 years ago they attacked Russia, the Balkans, and central Europe.

While the actions of the west may have inflamed things more recently, they were attacking us long before western 'colonialism'.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#29

Post by obrero »

Western involvement in the middle east is an imperialist, colonialist action, at the behest of oil companies, military contractors and Zionists. The French have been bombing the Syrians for over a month - where were the mawkish "We are all Syrians" corporate media campaigns at that time? The French bombed the Syrians, so now the Syrians have bombed the French, the French got what was coming to them.

When France was trying to reimpose colonialism on Syria in 1945, Syrians marched through the streets for independence. The French army shot the marchers down in the street. For the past month, French bombs have been attacking Syria and the French attitude toward the Syrians haven't changed a whit.

The corporate news was telling me the secular Assad was a monster who gassed his own people in the past years, and the US began arming opposition groups, including Islamic fundamentalists. Now I'm being told ISIS are monsters and such. And at the same time I'm being told that the Russians are bad because they are helping Assad fight ISIS. It's risible.

Fox News says the same thing about blacks in the US. Like Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown. That they're animals and savages that have to be put down by police. It looks like all the same thing to me.

Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

#30

Post by drawkbox »

The only solution to end this is economics.

Where people are not economically well off, these will happen, people are terrorists for a reason and it wasn't because their life was great.

We left Iraq susceptible without a Marshall Plan like economic effort after the military effort like we did in Japan and Europe after WWII. We downgraded the quality of life and that is not the direction things need to go for peace. The downgrade in quality of life fueled extremism even more.

A peaceful place is a comfortable place and usually the cornerstone of that is an economy where everyone can participate and succeed, the government is secular, and bombs aren't being dropped where you live.

There is nothing you can do to combat terrorism other than make a better life for the people susceptible to it and maybe they will decide it is not worth it. When people are comfortable they are calm. Bombs create more terrorism and gang like tribal attacks on both sides.

Our strategy in Iran (and Cuba) is actually the best one we have going. Allowing people to live and let live and prosper as long as there is a mutual agreement not to attack. This worked in Japan, Germany and other places that also had idealogical control that was overly strong.

We'll need a smarter economic plan for places we deal with. China is an emerging world power and their trade routes and economic benefits they bring will win out if we don't get back to building up after tearing down.

It looks like this idea is out there in some circles [1]

[1] http://www.ibtimes.com/mideast-marshall-plan-syrian-refugee-...

Post reply on HN