Well, no. I don’t think it would be easy. You remember that al-quaida’s former leader and founder was a member of one of the richest Saudi families, right? The Saudi regime does not like al-quaida. Maybe massive banking reforms could give them the tools to stop it, but that’s not easy either and definitely not the situation they got now.
If they were sincere in their efforts they’d reform the banking system to ensure that a potential existential threat wouldn’t be funded by themselves.
But seriously, how easy do you think banking reform is? How easy is it even in democratic nations, let alone regimes where royals are still in charge?
Regardless, I trust that you get that no “tacit nod” was needed for money to flow out of Saudi Arabia though.
The terrorists have handed the civilized nations of the world a perfect opportunity to declare war on the Islamic State or IS. They want to be recognized as a nation state, so lets recognize it and then declare war on it for its crimes against humanity.
We should start by raining cruise missiles on their parade.
http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28110368
Do you think IS terrorists could hold this parade in Iraq when the Russsian attack aircraft are in the sky and armed?
What the hell does any of that have to do with my post you quoted?
Do you think the people who will be killed by those cruise missiles chose to have those terrorists take charge of the area you wish to be targeted?
Not to mention that is clearly the most facile argument anyone has promoted on this MB regarding this issue. No regard for collateral damage. No understanding of the implication of recognizing a new nation. No regard for what to do in the aftermath. It feels like Jan - Mar of 2003 all over again. Good thing few others are thinking that way!!
You dont have to answer if you don’t want to. I’d like to know what you think. Thats all.
Do you think IS terrorists could hold this parade in Iraq when the Russian attack aircraft are in the sky and armed?
I don’t think most Sunnis welcomed the terrorist invaders in, but some may have made that despicable choice. That’s why over a million have fled the terrorist siezure of their towns and homes. They are in safer areas.
Very easy in an absolute monarchy like SA, if you can get the king to sign off on it.
Well, it depends on what IS is. [rimshot]
I have not seen one bit of regard for collateral damages by the ‘invading’ terrorists. Let me remind you that it is the terrorists direct objective to kill Shiites whether they be civilians or military. They crucify literally people on their side for not being crazy enough.
Why would it feel like 2003 again to one who holds a view that Bush was justified to take Saddam Hussein out? That is bizarre? Iraq was not being invaded by terrorists in 2003. What on earth are you thinking.
No one is bombing Iraq to end peaceful UN inspections and to depose its leader. My god don’t you know the difference between what happened then and what is happening now. We would be defending the government and helping it defend itself.
Of course not. What’s the point of that idiotic question? Though a few second hand Russian jets aren’t exactly the most fearsome of threats. But they will obviously change their demeanor with an air force on their case.
Civilians have fled. You know perfectly well that local militias have cooperated with them. So when you say you doubt it, you are quite obviously being dishonest.
First I’ve heard of any crucifixions. Cite?
That’s a rather un-nuanced view of how it works. It’s an “absolute” monarchy that has to deal with a tonne of tribal, family and financial alliances. And the royal family itself probably has more than a few members who like loose banking rules.
John Mace had no concerns about collateral damages in 2003 when he said we were justified to go to war with Iraq based upon a decade of Saddam Hussein bad behavior while Mace admits he knew Saddam was not a threat.
I absolutely positively am very certain that Saddam Hussein was not a threat in 2003 because he was in fact cooperating with inspectors before Bush and apparently Mace felt it was justified to bomb a nation being peacefully inspected by the UN and at a time when nobody in Iraq was killing each other, no al Qaeda in Iraq, sectarian wars or bombings etc.
So now Mace attacks my argument based upon collateral damage concerns following the biggest massive military style invasion of terrorists the modern world has ever seen.
There was no ‘justification’ for applying the collateral damage that the US and UK applied to Iraq in 2003. None.
In defending themselves now the government of Iraq will cause collateral damage as well, but I see it as justified in facing the threat being thrown at them at this moment in history.
Collateral damage is a tragic part of war but it will happen. That is why no one should start a war when there is no threat and no one should say it is justified when there is no chance in hell that it ever was.
Just do a search. It’s all over the news. But I think they kill first, and then crucify. I don’t think they are using crucifixion as a form of execution. More desecration of the body.
ISIL crucifies eight rival fighters, says monitoring group
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0F40HX20140629?irpc=932
You are suggesting the insane idea that we recognize ISIL as a sovereign state and then we start carpet bombing them. Shoot first and ask questions later-- “Light them up” if we see a US vehicle. You keep using the word “we”. I say let Iraq have their civil war and “we” stay out of it.
If you want to lay out the case for the US to get involved in Iraq Civil War II, knock yourself out. Convince us why we should take sides, what it’s going to mean to “win”, how we keep this confined to Iraq (and not include Syria), and how we go about attacking a nation that we just recognized as sovereign. Lay out the case for all of us to see.
I’m tossing you a warning for this one, NFbW. Your continual use of another poster’s name smacks of showmanship instead of honest debate. It’s attacking the poster instead of the post. Such things are forbidden in Great Debates.