Rank #53100 on SubscribersLevel 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
OfflineSend mail to Lulzilla Block Lulzilla Invite Lulzilla to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||2/10/2010|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||201 total, 314 , 113|
|Comment Thumbs:||3623 total, 5624 , 2001|
|Content Level Progress:|| 20% (2/10) |
Level 14 Content: New Here → Level 15 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 35% (35/100) |
Level 235 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
|Times Content Favorited:||21 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1316|
Eh. Do it later.
- Views: 11411Andy was being a Space Ranger
157 26 Total: +131
- Views: 5781Stoner Problems
62 12 Total: +50
- Views: 2131Before work
35 5 Total: +30
- Views: 914Explosions in Boston
12 5 Total: +7
- Views: 2802Huston we have reached maximum...
9 5 Total: +4
- Views: 336How to cook the Stoner way
0 5 Total: -5
- Views: 1268Whenever I visit creepypasta at...
7 7 Total: 0
latest user's comments
|#35 - ...She's a metal bender though. Gold falls under that category. [+] (1 new reply)||03/26/2016 on bones||+1|
|#4 - As awesome as this is you gotta quit this ****. We already had…||02/09/2016 on TN52: Batwing [Week 2 (4/13)]||+1|
|#84 - Wow buddy, you are very stupid. You aren't chemically changing…||01/27/2016 on White People||0|
|#2 - ...I have no clue what the **** I just read.||12/05/2015 on When the cop asks if you've...||0|
|#80 - Picture||11/15/2015 on White People||0|
|#78 - This **** is ******* retarded. If your gonna roll a joint smok… [+] (2 new replies)||11/15/2015 on White People||0|
|#50 - I've been saying we should send troops in to fight ISIS for th… [+] (12 new replies)||11/15/2015 on United as one||+5|
#114 - anon (11/15/2015) [-]
ISIS knows what theyre doing trying to draw the US further in. Coalition airstrikes already have killed hundreds of civilians, and sending ground troups would just further reinforce their narrative. Not to mention that as we saw in Vietnam and Iraq, its not particuarly easy to fight a force like ISIS
#268 - billburr (11/15/2015) [-]
I think religion has something to do with it but I also think a US invasion would be the best thing for ISIS recruitment. As we saw with Iraq all we would do is destabilize the area further and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Not to mention the American troops who would die, and lots of us Canadians too depending on what Trudeau does.
I know it seems worse because ISIS films it, but being bombed isn't particularly better than being burned alive. And we kill a lot more innocent civilians with bombs than they ever could
#288 - billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
What I'm saying is that if we invade, the situation will likely get worse.
The last time we invaded, it caused the destabilization which in combination with a drought led to ISIS.
Why should we do something if its going to cost trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and make the situation worse?
I wish we had a bomb that could only hurt bad people, but we don't. I'm not saying we do nothing but it is pretty clear that the 'something' everyone is advocating right now is a stupid idea
#291 - gerfox (11/16/2015) [-]
Why? To protect our way of life, and our freedom to think, move and do what we want without any big limitations to our personal freedom and way of life.
Right now the Islamic State control an area the size of the UK and with 30 million people living in it. Do you think they will recruit fewer people if they force the people who live there to fight for them, and take in foreign fighters - than if you invade, take their land and resources - and make it much much harder to join the organization?
In short... Can it get any worse than it is now? There is stability in the region right now, and the stability is that the Islamic State is the biggest regional power. But is that a power that we can allow such a totalitarian theocracy to have? Especially when they are in open war with everyone in the west. Its just we that are not in war with them... Well, at least that much.
#294 - billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
It can certainly get worse than it is right now! And they're not infringing on your freedoms in america. They didn't bring in a surveillance state, the Bush administration did. And they were saying the exact same things you are while they did it.
The leaders in the US need to sit down and really think about how to go forward. We know that bombing hasn't worked in the past so we need some more ideas. I'm not saying it's an easy answer, I'm just saying that we shouldn't keep doing the same things that make the situation worse
#299 - gerfox (11/16/2015) [-]
I don't live in America. I live in Europe. And as your ally, it is our duty to defend you and help you, and visa versa.
"They didn't bring a surveillance state, the Bush administration did".
And why did he implement surveillance? To stop terrorism from happening. And who's fault is that? Al Qaeda. So who was really the reason for the increased surveillance? Al Qaeda. They are threatening our way of life, and the government wishes to prevent that from happening.
I just dont see how a ground invasion can be better for recruitment for the Islamic State than having citizens who they can just recruit with force.
Bombing has been half succesful. It has definitely hurt the Islamic state, and they are weakened. The problem is just that neiher of their opponents are strong enough to topple them alone. The Arab states are hesitant to intervene, and Iran isn't allowed to. New political will is required to do something.
#302 - billburr (11/16/2015) [-]
Creating a surveillance state was done under the guise of fighting Al Quaeda but it's pretty clear that it didn't work! And I think most people can see by now that Bush had ulterior motives for both that and the Iraq war, which was completely unrelated to 9/11 except that they both happened on Bush's watch
Why will it work now if it hasn't in the past? There would need to be a better argument than "We need to kill them because they killed 150 of us". Not to be callous but that's no excuse for starting a war that will kill hundreds of thousands on their side and thousands on ours
And the reason it works so well for recruiting is that there are hundreds of millions of people in the middle east and less than 100 000 people in ISIS. Every civilian we kill has a family and that family will start to hate us so much more than they already hate ISIS. They also have friends. The more we interfere, the more likely ISIS is to gain power.
What we need to do is get the local armies like Turkey and Iran to nut up and fight this themselves. The Middle East has been volatile for a long time and every time the US interferes it just gets worse. Since we CAN'T fix it, why don't we let somebody else try instead of murdering 150 000 people and getting another 10 000 NATO soldiers shot
#304 - gerfox (11/17/2015) [-]
It didn't? There has been a lot of muslim extremist terrorism in the US since 9/11 that I haven't heard about? Guess you learn something new every day.
It has worked. Well, not the way that was intended - but Al Qaeda was weakened and became a shadow of what it was before 2001 because of the US war against it. If you deny that you are delusional. The number of dead is totally irrelevant to the question. The fact of the matter is that they have attacked the civilian population of a sovereign country, and they are fully entitled to defend their sovereignty with any means necessary. Even more so, in the NATO treaty theres a clause that says that if a member states sovereignty is being defiled then they can call upon the other members to help defend it. Thats the reason why so many NATO members joined the war in Afghanistan, since the US invoked that clause for the first time in its history. If France decides to invoke that clause too, well, then the US and the other NATO members have to respond - or risk weakening the integrity of NATO.
There are 30 million people living in ISIS controlled territory. Not 100 000. They have a 100 000 man big army, but with 30 million people under their control they can increase conscription further than what they have already done and bolster their ranks greatly.
Turkey wants nothing to do with the conflict, and works against the coalition even with their targeted attacks on the Kurds fighting IS. Iran wants to fight, but are not allowed to since the coalition feels that a shia state fighting a sunni caliphate can lead to no good.
Not every time. The US has interfered twice with war. The first and the second gulf war, and the first one was a success - and did not destabilize the region.
Yes. Let's leave them alone, and let the Islamic State grow in peace. We'll see a continued influx of refugees to Europe, increased amounts of terrorism in Europe - and a growing religious and racial divide. But who cares? Its not like protecting our way of life matters anyway. In the end the Islamic state will have engulfed the Middle East, and we'll have a significantly harder war on our hands when they wish to capture Europe to kill the infidels and spread the word of Allah. The worst that can happen is a genocide, but hey, its not something we haven't tried before in Europe.
If the US won't interfere, well, then the European minor powers will be forced to do it by themselves - we can't endure this situation for an extended period of time. And they will call upon their ally, and if the US doesn't respond, then you will lose a lot of friends and prestige.
#315 - billburr (11/18/2015) [-]
I'm sure you can see why your first statement is wrong? The face that the US hasn't been attacked since doesn't show that an unrelated war has helped. Or that the war in Afghanistan has helped.
And as I said, it is undeniable that the Iraq war is directly connected to the creation of ISIS and their rise to power.
The number of people dead does matter. It is all that matters. People are all that matters. Killing 100 000 people is a big deal and you need a good reason to do it and some kind of reasonable assurance that it will work.
And the first gulf war was effective at helping Kuwait but it was very ineffective at hurting Saddam Hussein or helping the people of Iraq. A part of the reason why may be that the coalition forces deliberately bombed civilian infrastructure as a "deterrent"; obviously the people were not too happy with this. It also had a very de-stabilizing effect on the economies in the area. Not nearly as bad as the second invasion and certainly more warranted but it still had some negative effects.
And blindly following treaties is what caused WW1, we should put some thought into our actions.
And I'm not saying the US shouldn't play a role. I'm just saying that the role should be decided by the American people and unbiased defense strategists instead of defense contractors and oil companies.
|#48 - Doubt it. The major powers that pose a threat towards each oth… [+] (2 new replies)||11/15/2015 on United as one||+27|
#255 - dagold (11/15/2015) [-]
I'm not gonna state it as fact but I believe what allows them to grow is the fact most countries involved are held back from wiping them out by the geneva convention. We are fighting an idea, and ideas do not wear uniforms. It could be anyone in a crowd, and that one in the crowd can convince the five in the crowd around them that their idea is the right idea, and those five convince the five around them. We cannot stomp them out because that would require a wide boot that would smash more the undeserving along with them.
|#27 - Just saying the bombing of the Russian passenger plane had mor… [+] (6 new replies)||11/15/2015 on 2spoon?||+26|
#73 - minorian (11/15/2015) [-]
Well, the worst thing about terrorism isn't the death tolls directly related, but the fear-mongering, hate and terror that it brings. I would think having people running around your capital, executing people, feels a bit more uncomfortable than having a plane blown up.
Jesus Christ, I sound like a jack-ass. I am in no way trying to diminish either tragedy. I am just saying that the purpose of terror is not killing people, but to pull terror over the survivors, and I think the situation in Paris is MUCH, MUCH worse on that aspect.
#35 - spetsnaztm (11/15/2015) [-]
It hasn't been confirmed yet that it was a bomb though - some anonymous American sources claimed it to be so but so far Russian and Egyptian gov'ts have denied it.
But at the same time they both have reasons to hide it.
But I'll believe an official statement over an anonymous source.
#135 - anon (11/15/2015) [-]
ISIL have claimed responsibility though through several medias.
|#56 - Good sir, The question you should be asking is where do you bu… [+] (1 new reply)||09/15/2015 on average life of a funnyjunker||0|