CDZ Lies lies lies

[Mineva]

This is a simple question. If Europe and USA is such disturbed by and afraid of ISIS, why NATO countries do not create a joint army against them ?

5000 Soldiers x 28 NATO countries = 140.000 soldiers of ground troops

15 Tanks x 28 NATO countries = 420 Tanks

5 F.Jets x 28 NATO countries = 140 Fighter jets


.... means the end of the ISIS in 1 day.



No need to discuss. Its quite simple to see the evil game for the reasonable people.

 

[Roadrunner]

This is a simple question. If Europe and USA is such disturbed by and afraid of ISIS, why NATO countries do not create a joint army against them ?

5000 Soldiers x 28 NATO countries = 140.000 soldiers of ground troops

15 Tanks x 28 NATO countries = 420 Tanks

5 F.Jets x 28 NATO countries = 140 Fighter jets


.... means the end of the ISIS in 1 day.



No need to discuss. Its quite simple to see the evil game for the reasonable people.

With ISIS on its borders, why doesn't Turkey do something?

Besides wait like vultures to pick over the bones, I mean.

 

[Mineva]

With ISIS on its borders, why doesn't Turkey do something?

Besides wait like vultures to pick over the bones, I mean.

With ISIS on its borders, why does not Israel do something ?

 

[Roadrunner]

With ISIS on its borders, why doesn't Turkey do something?

Besides wait like vultures to pick over the bones, I mean.

With ISIS on its borders, why does not Israel do something ?

You are not that unaware are you?

 

[tipofthespear]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

 

[irosie91]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

I am glad you asked------I am sure that Mineva will be happy to explain

 

[Roadrunner]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

I am glad you asked------I am sure that Mineva will be happy to explain

The game is chess, the Persians and Turks playing for who will rule the Arabs.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"This is a simple question. If Europe and USA is such disturbed by and afraid of ISIS, why NATO countries do not create a joint army against them ?"

They're not that disturbed by ISIS.

 

[irosie91]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

I am glad you asked------I am sure that Mineva will be happy to explain

The game is chess, the Persians and Turks playing for who will rule the Arabs.

sshhssssshhhh don't tell them -----they haven't figured it out yet. kinda funny----poor arabs--------both turks and Iranians regard arabs as if they are trash. -----
in fact----the only Iranians I ever met who were willing to tolerate arabs----have
been jews. Iranian muslims look at them with DAGGERS flying out of their eyes.
I actually believe that Hezbollah would have no trouble slaughtering
Saudi sunnis to get their hands on Mecca-----

 

[georgephillip]

War is the process of using political tool to advance the economic interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99%
"The Political school of thought, of which Clausewitz was a proponent, sees war as a tool of the state. On page 13 Rapoport says,
Clausewitz views war as a rational instrument of national policy. The three words "rational", "instrument" and "national" are the key concepts of his paradigm. In this view, the decision to wage war "ought" to be rational, in the sense that it ought to be based on estimated costs and gains of war. Next, war "ought" to be instrumental, in the sense that it ought to be waged in order to achieve some goal, never for its own sake; and also in the sense that strategy and tactics ought to be directed towards just one end, namely towards victory. Finally, war "ought" to be national, in the sense that its objective should be to advance the interests of a national state and that the entire effort of the nation ought to be mobilized in the service of the military objective.

"He later characterizes the philosophy behind the Vietnam War and other Cold Warconflicts as "Neo-Clausewitzian". Rapoport also includes Machiavelli as an early example of the political philosophy of war (On War, Rapoport's introduction, 13). Decades after his essay, the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks."

Philosophy of war - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[irosie91]

so???

 

[tipofthespear]

the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks."

The idea being: fight them there now, or fight them here later......but, I don't think this is a new concept.......would have to dig out my History books, but preemptive actions to ward off presumed threats isn't a new concept. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying......

 

[irosie91]

the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War begun by the United States under President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2003 have often been justified under the doctrine of preemption, a political motivation stating that the United States must use war to prevent further attacks such as the September 11, 2001 attacks."

The idea being: fight them there now, or fight them here later......but, I don't think this is a new concept.......would have to dig out my History books, but preemptive actions to ward off presumed threats isn't a new concept. Not saying it is right or wrong, just saying......

9-11-01 was far from the only act of aggression committed by Jihadists
against the USA. One of the oft repeated claims is "the USA blamed Iraq
for 9-11 despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with it..." ------nope----
The US faced the real fact of jihad aggression on US soil and against US
citizens abroad. Iraq was a world wide supporter of jihad terrorism for many
decades. -----generally since Saddam grabbed power. ----today Iran has
superceded that Iraqi agenda

 

[Mineva]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

So you are so respectful for the sovereignty of other nations, Okay thanks.

 

[Mineva]

"This is a simple question. If Europe and USA is such disturbed by and afraid of ISIS, why NATO countries do not create a joint army against them ?"

They're not that disturbed by ISIS.

Really, mmmm so they dont care about ISIS so much ? Okay.

 

[irosie91]

"This is a simple question. If Europe and USA is such disturbed by and afraid of ISIS, why NATO countries do not create a joint army against them ?"

They're not that disturbed by ISIS.

Really, mmmm so they dont care about ISIS so much ? Okay.

It seems reasonable to me to conclude that Germany and Roumania
and Great Britain and various other EU countries are not losing
sleep over the killing going on by ISIS in Iraq. The civilized world
has ignored lots of civil wars that involve massive murder. The civilized
world did not interfere in the killing fields of Cambodia-----or in the
Pakistani civil war 1971, or the mass murders carried out by the
Islamic hero IDI AMIN, etc etc. I believe that for most of the civilized
world the issue is a matter of "wait and see". When and if the IRAN caliphate---
or the ISIS caliphate or the ERDOGAN caliphate become a threat to
those countries------they will respond.

 

[tipofthespear]

Some of it has to do with respecting the Sovereignty of other Nations. Some of it has to do with the "will" for the NATO Nations to commit to such an offensive. ISIS is not yet an established Nation with borders that can be defined and drawn on a world map. I'm not sure what is meant by "the evil game."

So you are so respectful for the sovereignty of other nations, Okay thanks.

If you read my comment you would see that I was referring to the question you posed in the OP. I did not state my personal belief.