News1 min ago
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by keithbobo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
While not condoning anything IS does, how about considering the US involvement in all the worlds problems.
7 of the top 10 arms manufacturers are American, see here:
http://
The US has been involved in almost all the military conflicts all over the world since the second world war, including fighting in Korea and Vietnam and other countries, but also funding many military groups (including terrorist groups) and dictators.
It has removed leaders from some countries (sometimes by killing them), particularly those in South America. Here is one example:
http://
It used AWFUL things in Vietnam including Agent Orange and Napalm. It is estimated Agent Orange alone has resulted in about 3 million people in Vietnam being affected by Agent Orange, and many children being born with defects.
http://
http://
You have to remember that the USA got very rich during WW2, by making and selling military equipment to the UK and other countries. After the war many business people in the USA decided that this was a good way to make money and stay rich.
Eisenhower, who led the D Day landings in WW2, became president after the war, and in his Presidential resignation speech he made reference to the Military Industrial Complex and how concerned he was about it (and this was from a military man).
http://
While we should not condone what IS are doing and who funds them, we have to see this as a world wide problem of some countries (US and Russia for example and even the UK) supplying military equipment to both sides in small local conflicts.
If you look at most of the "small conflicts" since WW2 it has mainly been where the USA are supplying arms to one side, and Russia supplying arms to the other.
Sometimes I do feel that e USA pokes its nose into conflicts where really it has no right to do so.
So while IS is a problem, the military might of the USA and Russia is probably a larger problem.
7 of the top 10 arms manufacturers are American, see here:
http://
The US has been involved in almost all the military conflicts all over the world since the second world war, including fighting in Korea and Vietnam and other countries, but also funding many military groups (including terrorist groups) and dictators.
It has removed leaders from some countries (sometimes by killing them), particularly those in South America. Here is one example:
http://
It used AWFUL things in Vietnam including Agent Orange and Napalm. It is estimated Agent Orange alone has resulted in about 3 million people in Vietnam being affected by Agent Orange, and many children being born with defects.
http://
http://
You have to remember that the USA got very rich during WW2, by making and selling military equipment to the UK and other countries. After the war many business people in the USA decided that this was a good way to make money and stay rich.
Eisenhower, who led the D Day landings in WW2, became president after the war, and in his Presidential resignation speech he made reference to the Military Industrial Complex and how concerned he was about it (and this was from a military man).
http://
While we should not condone what IS are doing and who funds them, we have to see this as a world wide problem of some countries (US and Russia for example and even the UK) supplying military equipment to both sides in small local conflicts.
If you look at most of the "small conflicts" since WW2 it has mainly been where the USA are supplying arms to one side, and Russia supplying arms to the other.
Sometimes I do feel that e USA pokes its nose into conflicts where really it has no right to do so.
So while IS is a problem, the military might of the USA and Russia is probably a larger problem.
My first link does not work for some reason.
Try this one for a list of largest arms manufacturers.
http://
Try this one for a list of largest arms manufacturers.
http://
Qatar and Saudi Arabia are sworn enemies of IS, so I doubt it.
Why on earth would they fund potentially their own enemies??
They have had a lot of assistance, believe it or not, from Assad, who saw them and people like them as a useful tool in discrediting the oppoisition to his genocidal regime, tho I think he has changed his tune now he has seen what they have become.
Why on earth would they fund potentially their own enemies??
They have had a lot of assistance, believe it or not, from Assad, who saw them and people like them as a useful tool in discrediting the oppoisition to his genocidal regime, tho I think he has changed his tune now he has seen what they have become.
"So while IS is a problem, the military might of the USA and Russia is probably a larger problem. "
It isn't the military might that is the issue but what you do with it. ISIS or whatever they call them now number only a few thousand, and their military power is negligible by comparison. Just think where we'd be if that were not the case. Try telling the Yazidis of N Iraq that US military might is a "problem"
It isn't the military might that is the issue but what you do with it. ISIS or whatever they call them now number only a few thousand, and their military power is negligible by comparison. Just think where we'd be if that were not the case. Try telling the Yazidis of N Iraq that US military might is a "problem"
Jury still out on whether the Saudis support/supported ISIS
http://
http://
They are the foot soldiers of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis purchased an arsenal of Croation weapons for them as well as training. The money is raised from private donations rather like the NORAID in the US were funding the IRA. Kuwait and Qatar are other donors, probably the rest of the Arab states
The Saudis are Sunnis and the big picture is a war against the Shias. The real enemy is Iran who they want to see dragged into the war, and kill as many Iranians as possible.
IS are also getting covert help from Isreal, who would also like to see Iran attacked.
Last year Cameron and Obama wanted to support the "Syrian Rebels". When Parliament and Congress rejected such a foolish policy, the US (and possibly the UK) began secretly helping the rebels, again through the proxy Arab states and Israel, to hide the tracks. The US bung Israel $3billion annually, so putting in some extra $millions to divert to the Syrian rebels would be easy. The objective of course is to see off the Russian leaning Assad.
The Arab spring was supposed to see off the dictators, and the countries would become democratic, west leaning allies in the Turkey mould. Unfortunately the policy is failing in country after country. Instead, Islamic Fundamentalism is replacing the dictators.
The Saudis are Sunnis and the big picture is a war against the Shias. The real enemy is Iran who they want to see dragged into the war, and kill as many Iranians as possible.
IS are also getting covert help from Isreal, who would also like to see Iran attacked.
Last year Cameron and Obama wanted to support the "Syrian Rebels". When Parliament and Congress rejected such a foolish policy, the US (and possibly the UK) began secretly helping the rebels, again through the proxy Arab states and Israel, to hide the tracks. The US bung Israel $3billion annually, so putting in some extra $millions to divert to the Syrian rebels would be easy. The objective of course is to see off the Russian leaning Assad.
The Arab spring was supposed to see off the dictators, and the countries would become democratic, west leaning allies in the Turkey mould. Unfortunately the policy is failing in country after country. Instead, Islamic Fundamentalism is replacing the dictators.
Just after Cameron lost the vote for supporting the rebels last year...
// But asked whether Mr Cameron might support President Obama’s announcement today that his administration had “a broader strategy” to “upgrade the capabilities of the opposition” his spokesman repeated failed to rule out the possibility. //
The 'broader strategy' was to ignore parliament and make sure the rebels were supported.
// But asked whether Mr Cameron might support President Obama’s announcement today that his administration had “a broader strategy” to “upgrade the capabilities of the opposition” his spokesman repeated failed to rule out the possibility. //
The 'broader strategy' was to ignore parliament and make sure the rebels were supported.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.