Ramsay Gimp

Members
  • Content count

    6,512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ramsay Gimp

  • Rank
    Fighter of the Nightman

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  1. I'm curious what you thought of my answer to this question. 
  2. The issue of Palestinians knifing people in Jerusalem is related to the issue of Israel's geostrategy, but they are still separate issues. Israel benefits from Sunni militants fighting Iran and its proxies (who Israel views as the true threat). The Syrian issue is grabbing more regional attention than the Palestinian issue, and Israel isn't necessarily the most hated regime any more. They prefer being out of the spotlight, a few lone wolf Palestinians notwithstanding
  3. Ok, gotcha. Obviously it's an extremely volatile and combustible situation in Syria, and every outside actor has made it worse. But is there any reason to single out the Russians as the biggest escalators and brush aside our own actions? It's easy to pin it all on the Bond villain, but America is just as likely to recklessly escalate this conflict by doing something retard. Enacting a No-Fly-Zone for example, or actively helping the rebels in their fight against Assad/Putin.Sadly people fall for the media's double standard where American meddling is the default/natural state of affairs, but meddling by a different country is reckless aggression. They decry Putin's escalation in Syria as a major threat to world peace, and then complain that we don't have a No-Fly-Zone yet.  WTF??? Major candidates for the white house think we should fight Assad, Russia, and ISIS at the same time and I'm supposed to worry about Putin? If I'm concerned about escalation in Syria, in other words, why shouldn't I focus on my own elected officials?
  4. It seems that you're not "very concerned" about this, but just wait and see. Russia bombing people in Syria ( whom we're also bombing) is actually a sign of the end times. Only Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton or JEB! can save us, by lecturing Putin about destabilizing interventions in the Middle East.  
  5. You seem to be describing the realist philosophy of FP pretty well. But our leaders are misapplying realism if they think it says to go pick a fight and brew needless conflict just because our rivals are doing something. America's competitors will grab as much power/influence/territory as they can, true, but if they stumble into a disaster we shouldn't jump in after them just to avoid looking weak. And if our adversary actually does something in our interest, we don't need to invent reasons to get upset and interfere with it. I think both of those scenarios apply to Syria
  6. Paris implications continued

    Daily reminder to immigration pushers that actions have consequences. They can't predict or control the outcome of immigration, any more than they could have predicted this election result. Just because people are afraid to voice their opinion in public doesn't mean they agree with you
  7. Right off the bat with the angry tone.    ....And? I'm aware of what they've said, yes, but I honestly can't tell what point you're trying to make. Is it that people in our government are concerned about "Russia exacerbating the situation"......by doing something the US is doing on a daily basis? Are American airstrikes in Syria not an "exacerbating effect" on the conflict in Syria? Is ISIS not a player in the civil war?  Why should I ignore all this and worry about Russia again? 
  8. It was a bad idea from Russia's POV.  But I don't see why Americans should be worried that Russia is stumbling into a clusterfuck. 
  9. He was accused i think but nothing came of it because the judge tossed it out. With good reason if I'm remembering law school correctly
  10. Yet somehow they have recruits traveling all the way from China and the U.S. to join their caliphate, even though we're not reenacting the "Rains of Castamere" on their people. Are we waiting for them to spontaneously realize that ISIS is bad and America is good, because we're only bombing them lightly? How delusional are we? We'd have to change our major policies in the region to see a real drop in Jihadist recruitment or attacks against us. Like stop supporting Israel, withdraw from all Muslim lands, stop supporting Arab dictatorships, etc. Our rules of engagement and ending waterboarding have failed to win us hearts and minds. Why should the locals give a shit when we still bomb them daily? You really think they're grateful for our restraint?  We tried winning local sympathy already in Iraq, and it only worked until we left and the old grudges resurfaced. So it never was for real, no real progress was made. As soon as the Sunnis got pissed off again, ISIS was back and running the show. Is that what we have to look forward to? A new jihadist threat, and a new bombing campaign, every time the Sunnis and Shias can't work out their shit? Are the choices between that and constant occupation? 
  11. Agreed that the anti-Russian bias of our establishment seems like a cold war grudge with no rational justification. Putin is just assumed to be bad, to the point where it's treated as a problem that he's bombing ISIS.  Like that's something we should be upset about.
  12.  LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL   This has to be a parody, right? If not I'm saving it for future generations. 
  13. I think these ideological and historical factors are valid explanations for why the public supports Israel. I include myself in that vague category But it seems like our elected official's political devotion to Israel really does stem from Israel's lobby corrupting our political process. These campaign donors don't try to hide their quasi-treasonous agenda; in an interview Sheldon Adelson openly said "When they ask for money, the first thing I ask is their position on Israel."  If you were running for President and desperately needed cash to stay afloat, what would you say? And what effect would that have going forward? And once they get enough politicians to say the words, not saying them becomes controversial and the Lobby has won.  This is also a big part of it. Once a meme gets going it takes a life of its own. I'm sure plenty of politicians talk about their deep love for Israel but have no clue why they have to talk about it to get elected. It's just part of the game now. 
  14. There's probably more criticism of Israeli policy in Israel than there is here.  The Republicans are more uniformly dedicated to Israel, but its not getting them many votes as you point out. So the reason has to be money, because there's no way our politicians really care that deeply about a country they have no connection to
  15. Right, that's what I was trying to say. Shia militant groups are a threat, but you can deal with them on a level that you just can't with ISIS. They're not irrational apocalyptic cults. I wonder if the Shia's willingness to play nice with other religions (compared to Sunnis) purely comes down to the fact that a small minority can't afford to provoke people. Does their doctrine differ very much from Sunni doctrine on things like submission, jizya, jihad, etc? Even if it did, it might just show how practical concerns can morph into dogma