Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why The US Can't Leave the Middle East

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:07:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What newspaper do you read?
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 5:31:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
50% nationalist rant (especially human rights)
5% Patently wrong sections (such as human rights section, oil)
5% contradictions (between human rights section and oil)
20% ignorance (practically all of unintended consequence section)
with rest being fill and fact.

Start by looking up de Waal, and his work, and books on politics of the Middle East and Northeast Africa, before claiming knowledge on things like the consequences, and ESPECIALLY on the human rights section. I can point you to a general article by de Waal if you want which'll help on the subject. But seriously, the consequences can be read by any good (university-reccomended) book or paper on the subject.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:10:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Right. US led humanitarian efforts such as the Iraq War were justified in killing 200k citizens because Hussein was a big meanie-bo-beanie and would have killed them anyways in three years.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:16:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oil? Is the answer oil? Its oil isn't it
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:23:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Human rights is no justification for Iraq. We sat by while he gassed the Kurds with our helicopters with gas made by duel use technologies given by us. Saddam was a CIA asset. We killed a half a million kids in Iraq before we even invaded. That's years before the thousands we've killed in the invasion. People who justify based on human rights have no leg to stand on.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:29:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So much of that article is incoherent, the human rights part you make no distinction between Iraq Iran and Afghanistan. We were big Taliban supporters back in the day, don't like the way they treat woman? Look at how the fundamentalist dictatorship in saudi Arabia treats women and dissenters, but we don't have a problem with that do we.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2012 11:33:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The great irony of it all is that Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably more unstable than they were a decade ago, so all we've done is kill a few thousand people and spend a few trillion dollars with nothing to show for but a bunch of new military bases.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:27:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
human rights isnt the only reason that should be considered when invading a country, but it is surely something to take into account when considering invading a country, especially when those human rights violations are extensive enough.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:29:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.

you might have wanted to bring up how that area of the world is the most armed area and the most unstable area in the world with countries warring against each other or from within almost non stop for decades, and how their instability is now having a larger impact on countries outside the Middle East both politically and economically.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:33:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:29:57 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.

you might have wanted to bring up how that area of the world is the most armed area and the most unstable area in the world with countries warring against each other or from within almost non stop for decades, and how their instability is now having a larger impact on countries outside the Middle East both politically and economically.

Also could have mentioned the alliances the US has with Saudi Arabia and Israel and how useful those alliances really are to the United States in terms of intelligence or economic prosperity.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 1:52:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:23:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Human rights is no justification for Iraq. We sat by while he gassed the Kurds with our helicopters with gas made by duel use technologies given by us. Saddam was a CIA asset. We killed a half a million kids in Iraq before we even invaded. That's years before the thousands we've killed in the invasion. People who justify based on human rights have no leg to stand on.

There's no "Too slow, now you're not allowed."

I guess the US govt shouldn't have opposed Stalin either, since it supported him first.

As for Saudi Arabia. Yes, an invasion of Saudi Arabia would be justified.

Justified=/= mandatory, or even wise. It just means "You've selected a legitimate target." Attacking every justified target is stupid unless you have a great deal more power than the US has ever had.

(The US would be a justified target for a hypothetical substantially freer country than the US btw).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 2:35:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even if most of our oil doesn't come from the middle east doesn't mean that instability in the middle east doesn't affect us. The price of oil is based on world supply, and it doesn't matter that much where it came from.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 9:03:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:52:47 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:23:49 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Human rights is no justification for Iraq. We sat by while he gassed the Kurds with our helicopters with gas made by duel use technologies given by us. Saddam was a CIA asset. We killed a half a million kids in Iraq before we even invaded. That's years before the thousands we've killed in the invasion. People who justify based on human rights have no leg to stand on.

There's no "Too slow, now you're not allowed."
I guess the US govt shouldn't have opposed Stalin either, since it supported him first.

We didn't invade Russia based on atrocities committed while we were in bed with them. No one said we shouldn't have 'opposed' Saddam.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 9:59:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/13/2012 11:33:05 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The great irony of it all is that Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably more unstable than they were a decade ago, so all we've done is kill a few thousand people and spend a few trillion dollars with nothing to show for but a bunch of new military bases.

Yep.

Now, you might be able to make an argument that it was stupid to invade in the first place but we can't just pack up and leave, but that's vulnerable to people pointing out that we could pack up and leave very slowly.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:41:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:29:57 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.

you might have wanted to bring up how that area of the world is the most armed area and the most unstable area in the world with countries warring against each other or from within almost non stop for decades, and how their instability is now having a larger impact on countries outside the Middle East both politically and economically.

I did mention that... a lot.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:42:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 1:29:57 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.

you might have wanted to bring up how that area of the world is the most armed area and the most unstable area in the world with countries warring against each other or from within almost non stop for decades, and how their instability is now having a larger impact on countries outside the Middle East both politically and economically.

"Imagine a Middle East without the United States. Say they withdraw all forces tomorrow. What does the Middle East look like now? A war zone. The region is not one known for peace. The Lebanese civil war propagated by Syria, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iraq-Iran War, threats against Israel, religious and ethnic tension are all present in the Middle East. The United States acts in order to keep regional conflict down in multiple ways. Without the US as an ally Israel would be under attack much more frequently than it is, Saddam Hussein's conquest plans in the 1990s would have succeeded, Iran would be more domineering than they currently are and ethnic tension in rural regions of country's like Afghanistan would spike. What this would lead to is a large destabilization of a region crucial to global energy. If the United States did not intervene so heavily the region would crumble under its own conflicts leaving Europe and countries like Japan out in the cold. Without the means to secure their own interests a regional destabilization would cripple the oil thirsty West and might even prompt peaceful nations like Japan to rearm in order to secure their own interests. "

You might have wanted to actually read the article...
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:55:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:42:59 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 10/14/2012 1:29:57 AM, imabench wrote:
At 10/13/2012 4:52:18 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I wrote an in depth piece on why we cannot leave the Middle East. Many Americans are clamoring for a draw down in involvement in the region but that simply isn't viable.

Check it out please:
http://www.conservativepolitico.org...

Feedback is welcome as always.

you might have wanted to bring up how that area of the world is the most armed area and the most unstable area in the world with countries warring against each other or from within almost non stop for decades, and how their instability is now having a larger impact on countries outside the Middle East both politically and economically.

"Imagine a Middle East without the United States. Say they withdraw all forces tomorrow. What does the Middle East look like now? A war zone. The region is not one known for peace. The Lebanese civil war propagated by Syria, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Iraq-Iran War, threats against Israel, religious and ethnic tension are all present in the Middle East. The United States acts in order to keep regional conflict down in multiple ways. Without the US as an ally Israel would be under attack much more frequently than it is, Saddam Hussein's conquest plans in the 1990s would have succeeded, Iran would be more domineering than they currently are and ethnic tension in rural regions of country's like Afghanistan would spike. What this would lead to is a large destabilization of a region crucial to global energy. If the United States did not intervene so heavily the region would crumble under its own conflicts leaving Europe and countries like Japan out in the cold. Without the means to secure their own interests a regional destabilization would cripple the oil thirsty West and might even prompt peaceful nations like Japan to rearm in order to secure their own interests. "

You might have wanted to actually read the article...

I skimmed through it. Why the hell would you put all of that under "Oil"? I would think that history of carnage in the region would be an argument itself rather then an interesting fact sheet buried in the middle of a completely different argument.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 10:55:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm really sorry to be so blunt and use such personal attacks but you are a foreign policy idiot. You are stupid.

Let me explain a few things to you, and you had better not hide from this post. I want to see how you respond to reality.

The United States caused a major increase in Islamic radicalism by overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953 and validating the outrage of Islamic fundamentalists. Before the Iranian Coup, radical Muslims were not nearly as active.

The United States caused the Lebanese civil war by rigging the Lebanese elections in 1957 so that a Christian would be elected instead of a Muslim.

The United States was an ally of Saddam Hussein right up until he decided to attack Kuwait, and we aided him with money, weapons, military technology, and we helped him develop his WMD programs. We did not try to help the Kurds at all, and our military aid contributed to the genocide. The fact that Saddam threatened our wealthy ally is the only reason that we turned against him.

The Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq, which was our ally in the Middle East.

Sorry about all the bolded words but its better than me screaming at my computer.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:15:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:55:31 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
I'm really sorry to be so blunt and use such personal attacks but you are a foreign policy idiot. You are stupid.

Oh boy...... Ill go ahead and try to translate the following into polite English.

Let me explain a few things to you, and you had better not hide from this post. I want to see how you respond to reality.

Translation: "You might have wanted to mention the following arguments in your article"

The United States caused a major increase in Islamic radicalism by overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953 and validating the outrage of Islamic fundamentalists. Before the Iranian Coup, radical Muslims were not nearly as active.

Translation: "Early involvement by the US in the Middle East was disastrous for foreign relations, and one of the most well known screw-ups was between the US and Iran when the US overthrew a popular Iranian leader and replaced him with another leader who was hated and lived in opulence while his people starved. This sparked a massive rise in hatred against the US from Middle Easterners and Radical Muslims alike, which would have been an interesting point to make in your article."

The United States caused the Lebanese civil war by rigging the Lebanese elections in 1957 so that a Christian would be elected instead of a Muslim.

Translation: "The US has also had a fair share of other screw ups in the Middle East that led to them being alienated in the region, another example is the US involvement in the rigging of Lebanese elections in the late 1950's. This also would have been an interesting argument to bring up in your article"

The United States was an ally of Saddam Hussein right up until he decided to attack Kuwait, and we aided him with money, weapons, military technology, and we helped him develop his WMD programs. We did not try to help the Kurds at all, and our military aid contributed to the genocide. The fact that Saddam threatened our wealthy ally is the only reason that we turned against him.

Translation: "The US was allies with Saddam a long time and your statement that "We did not stay away but instead chose to force Iraq out of Kuwait. Why? Because we believe in freedom and have always stood against needlessly belligerent nations" is completely false since the US has had a long history of cooperating with belligerent nations like Iraq for decades."

The Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq, which was our ally in the Middle East.

Translation: "Your statement that "Iran would be more domineering than they currently are (without US intervention) is also false since the Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq and Iran has never once declared war on a nation in its history. The fact that the US supported the invaders who were committing more human rights violations then Iran was also led to widespread hatred towards the US, which you left out of your article.

Sorry about all the bolded words but its better than me screaming at my computer.

Translation: "I apologize if I seem angry but I was simply frustrated with what information about the Middle East and the US's history there you left out, and some of the fibs you told in your article too"
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 11:48:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 9:59:36 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 10/13/2012 11:33:05 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The great irony of it all is that Iraq and Afghanistan are arguably more unstable than they were a decade ago, so all we've done is kill a few thousand people and spend a few trillion dollars with nothing to show for but a bunch of new military bases.

Yep.

Now, you might be able to make an argument that it was stupid to invade in the first place but we can't just pack up and leave, but that's vulnerable to people pointing out that we could pack up and leave very slowly.

You have to pack up and leave right away, nothing short of an act of god is bringing stability to the region. We've proven money and power can't do it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2012 12:34:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An excerpt from a paper I wrote on the subject:

The strategy behind permanent bases are for the purposes of refueling, re-supplying forward deployed units, and extending the military reach, power, and influence of the United States. Fiscal irresponsibility has allowed the United States to indebt itself past $12 trillion dollars [7]. Coupling these facts with the recent unpopularity of bank, auto makers, and corporate bail-outs, makes even less sense when it is done overseas. Despite our economic travails, we have an astonishing 144 bases abroad, manned by over 200,000 troops. Some military strategists view these bases abroad as being indispensably vital to international stability, but with the dissolution of the Cold War, virtually every nation, except the United States, is reducing their numbers. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that global military expenditures have dropped by one third: from $1.1 trillion in the late 1980s to $740 billion in 1997. [8] Some of the 200,000 military personnel in 144 nations do perform legitimate missions, such as protecting U.S. embassies and collecting intelligence, but the vast majority do not fall into this category as none of the 144 bases are embassies " they are military posts. Of these, some have an extraordinarily high number of bases and troops. There are already 27 bases in Iraq, 21 in Japan, 18 in Germany, and 32 in South Korea. What incentive does, say, the South Korean military have to fight its own wars when the United States has embedded its troops inside South Korean borders? What kind of message is this sending to the world, all the while the US is claiming this is not about occupying but liberating? Not only is it immoral to the people in their respective countries, but it is immoral and senseless to Americans. Each American citizen has to pay for the policies of its government"s choices, and each American citizen has to fund these bases set up to protect foreign land. Whatever policies enacted and enforced by Washington, it is the American citizen who pays for the decision, not only monetarily but also in terms of violence committed against them as retribution for it"s governments policies.

Having a powerful military is a good goal for the United States, vital to its national security, but what is the most effective way to provide that security, while keeping in step with the American philosophy of freedom and liberty? By reducing permanent land based military establishments overseas, and placing those resources within the United States, we will save vast amounts of money, and strengthen our large, virtually unprotected boarders. Some will argue that we need these bases spread globally to respond quickly to threats, but the answer to this is a larger, roaming Navy.

Currently there are 20,000 Marines and Sailors deployed afloat who are always on patrol. Would it not be more economically prudent, and more in-line with our ideals, if we had a very limited number of overseas bases, strictly for the purpose of refueling and re-supplying, but increasing our number of carrier groups? The revenue recouped from massive base closures could partially go to funding an even larger Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, which would still be able to respond quickly to threats globally.

Though it is often viewed, both domestically and internationally, as an endless pool of revenue and resources, the United States is not a pit of money. Its government cannot economically support the weight of the world without bankrupting itself. If the rescuer needs rescuing then everyone is lost. Consider this analogy: If the United States Coast Guard sent a rescue boat to help imperiled Haitians floundering off the Straits of Florida, but the rescuers ship was already filled to capacity, should they continue to pile survivors onto the deck, endangering the lives of everyone? If the vessel capsizes because the rescuers failed to recognize the current state of their ship, does it not nullify the rescue attempt? If the rescuers end up in need of help, then not only will those originally in need drown, but those in need have increased because the rescuer too need rescuing, thus invalidating the moral itself. In this way, the United States government cannot be burdened by a moral principle that will invariably violate other moral principles in the process. Pragmatic reasons aside, the moral of endangering oneself for the good of none is itself a moral tragedy of the highest order. Heart and mind cannot coincide alone, as they are useless apart from one another.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 2:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/14/2012 10:55:31 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
I'm really sorry to be so blunt and use such personal attacks but you are a foreign policy idiot. You are stupid.

Let me explain a few things to you, and you had better not hide from this post. I want to see how you respond to reality.

The United States caused a major increase in Islamic radicalism by overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953 and validating the outrage of Islamic fundamentalists. Before the Iranian Coup, radical Muslims were not nearly as active.

The United States caused the Lebanese civil war by rigging the Lebanese elections in 1957 so that a Christian would be elected instead of a Muslim.

The United States was an ally of Saddam Hussein right up until he decided to attack Kuwait, and we aided him with money, weapons, military technology, and we helped him develop his WMD programs. We did not try to help the Kurds at all, and our military aid contributed to the genocide. The fact that Saddam threatened our wealthy ally is the only reason that we turned against him.

The Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq, which was our ally in the Middle East.

Sorry about all the bolded words but its better than me screaming at my computer.

I told you not to hide from it!
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 3:10:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The thing I feel this article doesn't do a good job of is justifying why it's our responsibility OR our right to be involved in the Middle East to begin with.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:11:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 2:31:20 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 10/14/2012 10:55:31 AM, Frederick53 wrote:
I'm really sorry to be so blunt and use such personal attacks but you are a foreign policy idiot. You are stupid.

Let me explain a few things to you, and you had better not hide from this post. I want to see how you respond to reality.

The United States caused a major increase in Islamic radicalism by overthrowing Iran's democracy in 1953 and validating the outrage of Islamic fundamentalists. Before the Iranian Coup, radical Muslims were not nearly as active.

The United States caused the Lebanese civil war by rigging the Lebanese elections in 1957 so that a Christian would be elected instead of a Muslim.

The United States was an ally of Saddam Hussein right up until he decided to attack Kuwait, and we aided him with money, weapons, military technology, and we helped him develop his WMD programs. We did not try to help the Kurds at all, and our military aid contributed to the genocide. The fact that Saddam threatened our wealthy ally is the only reason that we turned against him.

The Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq, which was our ally in the Middle East.

Sorry about all the bolded words but its better than me screaming at my computer.

I told you not to hide from it!

I'll keep bumping this until CP responds.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:30:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
your piece fails to detail the origins of the conflicts in the Middle East which there is somewhat of a consensus that, like Africa, much of the instability stems from western intervention/colonization. All of our democracy promotion will come to naught, mark my words. Just as in Egypt the people will elect anti-US governments or "democratic" leaders (like our puppet karzai) will cling to power through force and fraud. You want our oil interests to be secured? Than for christ sakes stop giving oil producing countries reasons to hate us.

And as DN pointed out there's no explanation as to why the US has the responsibility. For example, one of your impacts was that Japan may re arm to secure its own interests....so what?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 8:06:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 5:30:42 PM, thett3 wrote:
your piece fails to detail the origins of the conflicts in the Middle East which there is somewhat of a consensus that, like Africa, much of the instability stems from western intervention/colonization. All of our democracy promotion will come to naught, mark my words. Just as in Egypt the people will elect anti-US governments or "democratic" leaders (like our puppet karzai) will cling to power through force and fraud. You want our oil interests to be secured? Than for christ sakes stop giving oil producing countries reasons to hate us.

And as DN pointed out there's no explanation as to why the US has the responsibility. For example, one of your impacts was that Japan may re arm to secure its own interests....so what?

How dare you question the benefits/sustainability of American hegemony! We are the policemen of the world and as the only superpower left on earth it is our responsibility to promote democracy abroad by bombing the sh!t out of places and liberating them (and maybe get some oil while we're at it)! The American empire is in our strategic interests in terms of financial sustainability, global perception, etc. We're making a ton of allies and winning a ton of support in the region by maintaining a military footprint. Not contributing to anti-American sentiment and terrorism at all. We should remain there indefinitely because we're in a never ending cycle of f*cking sh!t up and then using the awfulness and instability of the situation to justify remaining there indefinitely. (It worked out in Vietnam, anyway.)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 8:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 5:39:46 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
CP is right. The US can't leave until its killed all the brown people!

Stability is stability
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 8:48:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 8:18:07 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 10/15/2012 5:39:46 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
CP is right. The US can't leave until its killed all the brown people!

Stability is stability

As Henry Kissinger once said about Chile, speaking about the CIA's 1973 coup d'"tat in which the democratically elected was overthrown and a military dictator was installed, it was necessary to destabilize the country in order to find stability, lol. Classic American hegemony right here. This logic persists still today. For example, the Iranian military threat is destabilizing its neighbors, but when we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and fought wars there for a decade, that's providing stability. Man, I freaking hate post WW2 American foreign policy, it's insane.