Originally Posted by protonitron
But I doubt America is soley to blame for ISIS and similar extremist terror groups.
Obviously. I never said they were. They've got a huge chuck of the blame though. So too do the Saudis.
Originally Posted by protonitron
I also doubt that oil is the only reason America has ever intervened in the Middle East, politicians will not only benefit from the resources gained from winning wars, but also from the popularity it would grant. The oil is a powerful incentive but not the only incentive.
The good thing about history is that it teaches us how things work. It's able to do this because there's two things that stay constant throughout, more or less - human nature and the nature of states. On the nature of states for example, take a Rome, take a Prussia, take a US - the way they approach politics and diplomacy is all the same. You can call it power politics, realpolitik or 'national security', the concept it the same. To ensure the state's security and survival, the state will do anything to protect its vital interests, because, without protecting its vital interests, its existence is threatened (explains why they're called 'vital'). The reason the US is involved in the Middle East is because it's protecting two of its vital interests, economic security and the security of energy resources. Disruptions in the area cause regional instability, which messes with the oil trade. A messed up oil trade is both a threat to economic and energy security.
War does give incumbent politicians a popularity boost. It's not the main issue and it's not the reason why these things keep happening, though. The reason why the foreign policy never changes, whether you elect a republican or democrat, is because idealogical considerations get thrown right out the window when you're talking about the state's vital interests. When you're talking about vital interests, only physical and practical considerations matter.
Originally Posted by protonitron
I could condone large amounts of spending on efficient renewable power, but not when it replaces funding which could be put towards education and other government services (such as cheaper healthcare).
It doesn't replace funding in education. It replaces some military funding. That money was never going towards education, so its not replacing funding in education.
I could go on a long tangent here about how excessive education spending doesn't even result in better education, but I won't.
Originally Posted by protonitron
We shouldn't kid ourselves that renewable energy will not create world peace, and I am sure you know this. However it will still help.
It would help a lot. It would eliminate the reason why we get involved over there in the first place. Rather than dealing with the symptoms of war, like military spending does, it tackles the root cause.
Originally Posted by xbcz
having multiple wives and marriage on little girls its not lusts
its just amaze me how the world really stand for things they even know,in Judaism a girl cant marry until she get checked by doctor, in Islam a girl can marry at any age but cant have sex until she had her first period exactly like how nature works.
(Lotus)|Rogue|zeneto|Nightfur
Originally Posted by dodix45
and from the beginning of that war/extermination a hatred started growing in each Muslim chest against the Americans.
Please stop generalizing a small portion of some small countries as being every Muslim. The entire Middle East makes up less than 20% of the Muslims in the world.
It's not an Islamic issue, it's a problem with those specific countries, and even then only a small portion of the population.
Saying that ISIS is a response to the US's actions in Israel is misleading. Sure you can say it's a part of the overall climate that brought Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas and other groups to action, but it definitely wasn't as a direct response.
It is more correct to say ISIS was originally formed to take Jordan though their attention soon focused on Iraq after the invasion, and on establishing sunni control of Iraq.
I don't think anything they have done is in response to Israel or the US's actions in Israel...
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
that's because al cuds/Jerusalem is and always been the center of a religioness wars (crusades for example) all i can say since jerusalem has been controled by the muslims for over a thousand year now we are living the crusades but now with different subjects.
anyway the isis/qaeda/hamas come from this point :"the Islamic is surely living in a time of shame because of all those Americans and lust worshipers" and if you go to my previous post you'll find why this hatred started
and i bet you cant call the crusades a political issue and the same goes for many wars in this time and age i already mentioned enough i think
and i mean not to offend Americans nor Israelis but only the prove my point
and also we can discus the palestinien/israelien problem in another thread if you want
anyway the isis/qaeda/hamas come from this point :"the Islamic is surely living in a time of shame because of all those Americans and lust worshipers" and if you go to my previous post you'll find why this hatred started
and i bet you cant call the crusades a political issue and the same goes for many wars in this time and age i already mentioned enough i think
and i mean not to offend Americans nor Israelis but only the prove my point
and also we can discus the palestinien/israelien problem in another thread if you want
(Lotus)|Rogue|zeneto|Nightfur
I google searched "political causes of the first Crusade"
First article said this in its second paragraph.
When it says "Urban transformed their request for military aid into a campaign of religious revivalism" it means that the first crusade was originally for land but was disguised as a religious act in order to increase support and power for Christianity. If the Pope could make it look like the invasion of Jerusalem was an act of God rather than a simple territorial war then the Church would appear more powerful than ever. This would make the Pope himself more powerful in Europe as well as giving him some land.
I have never studied the Crusades properly so I am really uncertain about this, but I am pretty sure the aforementioned Byzantine Empire, though very weak militarily, also had a lot of wealth adding more incentive for the Christian world to help.
What we basically saw, as far as I can tell, is some 12th century Christian countries using their religion as an excuse to invade some valuable land (trading routes maybe?) so that they didn't have to start invading each other.
Although most of the fighters joined the crusade for religious reasons, the coordination and organisation was just as political as it was religious.
First article said this in its second paragraph.
Entire quoted paragraph.
When it says "Urban transformed their request for military aid into a campaign of religious revivalism" it means that the first crusade was originally for land but was disguised as a religious act in order to increase support and power for Christianity. If the Pope could make it look like the invasion of Jerusalem was an act of God rather than a simple territorial war then the Church would appear more powerful than ever. This would make the Pope himself more powerful in Europe as well as giving him some land.
I have never studied the Crusades properly so I am really uncertain about this, but I am pretty sure the aforementioned Byzantine Empire, though very weak militarily, also had a lot of wealth adding more incentive for the Christian world to help.
What we basically saw, as far as I can tell, is some 12th century Christian countries using their religion as an excuse to invade some valuable land (trading routes maybe?) so that they didn't have to start invading each other.
Although most of the fighters joined the crusade for religious reasons, the coordination and organisation was just as political as it was religious.
Good morning sweet princess
