"Never Again" is a slogan on a pamphlet handed out at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. It references the promise that the UN made in never letting something like the Holocaust and WWII happen again. I want to take this time to call the UN on their bullshit.

So, is there something the UN is doing about ISIS that I am unaware of? ISIS is wrecking Iraq and Syria, has sympathetics in the States causing havoc, and are bordering Turkey, that if broken through, leaves nothing between ISIS and Europe, and it is only growing in numbers. ISIS wants all to think and believe like them, and kill all that don't. Three Middle East countries are funding ISIS (Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and they are allies of the US, whose leader have effectively done nothing himself.

ISIS has forced thousands of people to escape into Europe, who doesn't even know what to do with these new arrivals. Hungary has already been filled up, and is no longer letting people in. These immigrants will needless to say be discriminated against, which will only cause greater conflict.

Do you guys recall a famous figure who was left alone and was given what he wanted? He kept taking and taking until he was strong enough to take all of Europe and even Russia (had he not been arrogant). If you guessed Adolf Hitler, you are correct. You know what happened because he was ignored like ISIS? Shit. Lots and lots of shit. Death, destruction, actions of evil, WWII, the very thing the UN promised to prevent. Where are they?

ISIS is nothing like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda. Their force is much more sophisticated. They are stronger, they have the funds, they have the members, they have their own currency. Yet on the news I hear ISIS is still executing Christians and burning soldiers. Oh, but it gets better. This time, they decided to roast them over a fire.



I never actually thought that the Middle East would spawn WWIII, but with ISIS being left to grow in power by the UN and the US, I now know we're living in some very delicate and very dangerous times.

Links *Graphic*:

http://pamelageller.com/2015/08/graphic-new-video-islamic-state-burns-4-captives-alive-isis.html/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips

F*ck the UN, F*ck the US President, F*ck those who refuse to F*ck ISIS. That terrorist organization WILL NOT stop with Iraq and Syria. Just like the Hungry Hungry Hitler they will take all they can get and only those they are fighting are trying to stop them, leaving us with a more unstable Middle East, a threat to the future, and a broken promise.

So, is there something the UN is doing about ISIS that I am unaware of?

The UN is not handling the situation well, just sanctions on the whole region.

ISIS is wrecking Iraq and Syria, has sympathetics in the States causing havoc, and are bordering Turkey, that if broken through, leaves nothing between ISIS and Europe

Er, no. Turkey's stronger, has better living standards and is very mountainous at the Syrian and Iraqi border. Not to mention Kurdistan is still holding the Levant off quite well.

Assuming the extremists do get over the Anatolian mountains, there's NATO. NATO might destroy you if you're not doing anything, NATO will destroy you if you invade them, unless you're in the top 10 most powerful (military) countries.

Three Middle East countries are funding ISIS (Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia) and they are allies of the US, whose leader have effectively done nothing himself.

Kuwait - no, provide a source. The Levant has bombed Kuwait a couple times. Qatar is just likely one of the ports where the oil goes, not government-supported. Arabia - sure, they are one of the most faith-hubbed countries in the world, but even Qaida doesn't support the Levant, and that's saying something. The most concrete evidence is that Turkey is actually helping the Levant; the NIO is a bit mysterious. Many folk want Erdoğan out because of this.

they are allies of the US, whose leader have effectively done nothing himself.

Why should you expect him? It's not his problem. In fact, he helped make this problem (not Obama, that is, but the American government).

ISIS has forced thousands of people to escape into Europe, who doesn't even know what to do with these new arrivals.

Oh, come on. First of all, most of them settled in the nearby area, Turkey, Iran or Arabia. Second of all, this is thousands. Don't exaggerate the problem, assuming you spend 30Є on say, 4000 of them, you get 120,000Є per day, or roughly 44 million per year. That may sound like loads, but the EU spends 330 million on translation per year. It's not big at all in the things' scheme.

These immigrants will needless to say be discriminated against, which will only cause greater conflict.

Ok, let's say 4000 immigrants come to Germany and 2000 homicides are done (a great overestimation, most likely), by or to the immigrants each year. It'd be a lower homicide rate than America, by 28%.

Do you guys recall a famous figure who was left alone and was given what he wanted?

He was not really given, nor left alone. Britain and France constantly bugged him.

Death, destruction, actions of evil, WWII, the very thing the UN promised to prevent. Where are they?

The UN has many of the downfalls that the Nationleague had.

I never actually thought that the Middle East would spawn WWIII, but with ISIS being left to grow in power by the UN and the US, I now know we're living in some very delicate and very dangerous times.

Don't worry, you won't be fending off Islamist extremist ships off the American coasts, nor European, nor even Persian or Red.

That terrorist organization WILL NOT stop with Iraq and Syria. Just like the Hungry Hungry Hitler they will take all they can get and only those they are fighting are trying to stop them, leaving us with a more unstable Middle East, a threat to the future, and a broken promise.

They certainly won't want to stop, but look at how they're doing in other countries in the immediate spillover - Israel, Lebanon. Immediately stopped and sent back. They will have to stop, as they will be defeated.

Your main problem is that you're trying to apply morality to countries, while that does work sometimes, don't depend on it to. America's weighed the situation, what I think they are doing is just firing a couple missiles for some morale, but they're not really going to attack the Levant in earnest - too poor of a cost-reward scenario.

Edited 9/4/2015 22:30:44

Oh, come on. First of all, most of them settled in the nearby area, Turkey, Iran or Arabia. Second of all, this is thousands. Don't exaggerate the problem, assuming you spend 30Є on say, 4000 of them, you get 120,000Є per day, or roughly 44 million per year. That may sound like loads, but the EU spends 330 million on translation per year. It's not big at all in the things' scheme.

BS.
No democratic beauracracy spends only about 33$ a day on people.

They certainly won't want to stop, but look at how they're doing in other countries in the immediate spillover - Israel, Lebanon. Immediately stopped and sent back. They will have to stop, as they will be defeated.

This. This is why ISIL will never be sh*t. Before they can hope to take Turkey, they need to take Israel. And Israel will launch nukes at ISIL before they get invaded.

Kuwait - no, provide a source.

My apologies. Like Qatar, there are smuggling routes where oil goes through, as well as Turkey.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

He was not really given, nor left alone. Britain and France constantly bugged him.

There is really little difference. It took invading Poland to have war declared, and by that time Hitler had nothing to worry about as long as he played his cards right. And he was practically given the Rhineland. France said that if that was all, they would not get involved. Plus, there was the Sudetenland.

Oh, come on. First of all, most of them settled in the nearby area, Turkey, Iran or Arabia. Second of all, this is thousands. Don't exaggerate the problem, assuming you spend 30Є on say, 4000 of them, you get 120,000Є per day, or roughly 44 million per year. That may sound like loads, but the EU spends 330 million on translation per year. It's not big at all in the things' scheme.

Money is not the only problem. Hungary- it doesn't know where to shelter them or how to teach the children, since many only know their native tongue.

Why should you expect him? It's not his problem. In fact, he helped make this problem (not Obama, that is, but the American government).

ISIS as we know it today was born out of US mistakes in Iraq. For one thing, the US never should have been there, but we left too early. Iraq wasn't ready. We destroyed the government, and left nothing there to hold the country together. Obama adopted the problems of Bush, but only further withdrew troops to leave our mess for somebody else to clean up.

Turkey's stronger

Never said it wasn't, just pondering the possibilities.

Your main problem is that you're trying to apply morality to countries, while that does work sometimes, don't depend on it to.

It's what the UN swore to, though.

And Israel will launch nukes at ISIL before they get invaded.

Israel is not that stupid. the US would warn them against it. Using a nuke on anyone in or near the Middle East will result in disaster for Israel.

US-Israeli relations are at an all time low.

If ISIL were to become a significant enough threat to Israel that they felt a nuke was there only chance, they would use it.

Personally, though, I think other nations would intervene first.

My apologies. Like Qatar, there are smuggling routes where oil goes through, as well as Turkey.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/14/how-does-isis-fund-its-reign-terror-282607.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/14/america-s-allies-are-funding-isis.html
[unRVqvg6DBrzQyfTf=http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006

]http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/whos-funding-isis-wealthy-gulf-angel-investors-officials-say-n208006[/quote][/unRVqvg6DBrzQyfTf]

Can't read the first link. Second link:

But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

In the years that they were getting started, America also supported them. Also, it's just saying that these three governments are not doing enough to stop private donors; the article is misleading, these donors aren't America's allies, really. They didn't know they that the Levant was so unethic, just another terrorist group to topple the Syrian Arab Republic.

Ditto third link.

ISIS as we know it today was born out of US mistakes in Iraq. For one thing, the US never should have been there, but we left too early. Iraq wasn't ready. We destroyed the government, and left nothing there to hold the country together. Obama adopted the problems of Bush, but only further withdrew troops to leave our mess for somebody else to clean up.

This was no mistake. They knew what it was for: a longlasting destabilisation of unallied Middle-Eastern countries.

Never said it wasn't, just pondering the possibilities.

What possibilities is there to ponder? Assuming that the Levant does get past Kurdistan, they won't get much farther.

It's what the UN swore to, though.

The UN is a failure. Let's look at the UN Charter Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles.

1. To maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

Obviously not.

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

Ditto.

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

What's a problem to one is a benefit to another, often. Also, Arabia, the most misoginistic stable country, has been part of the UN since the inception.

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Occasionally, they do manage to solve problems, if the big 5 agree.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

Big 5.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

Every time the UN says to go to war, only the folk who it could benefit/have nothing to lose show up.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Broken one year after inception, in the 1946 Iran Crisis.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Not, obviously.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Broken first in the Korean War.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

What you're mentioning right in this rant.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

I think this one has been kept.

TLDR: It's ridiculous, but most of these points were commonly broken in the 50s, now you're expecting the UN to be useful? All the Big 5 secretly like the Levant for taking away their potential suicide bombers to go kill themselves in war in a faroff country.

If ISIL were to become a significant enough threat to Israel that they felt a nuke was there only chance, they would use it.

This is true.