Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

USA and the Middle East

Tineric
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 6:12:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Today a major strategic goal of Washington in the Middle East is a maintaining the constantly conflict. US doesn"t need the EU will build oil and gas infrastructure to Iran and the Gulf countries. Now the supply of hydrocarbons is carried out in Europe by tanker and the supply lines completely controlled by the United States. Thus, the economic factor is one of the key factors of the war in Syria and Iraq. The conflict takes place in the region has a rich natural resources and a complex energy infrastructure. It follows that the United States has their own economic interests.
Now the USA"s task is not to let Russia become a dominant force in Syria. If Syrian troops will reach the Iraqi border, Baghdad will probably proceed with caution on Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. As a result, the entire region will be under the control of Russia and Iran and America does not suit this situation.
One should not pay attention to Washington's words that he "respects the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria". US Vice President Joe Biden in 2006 pointed out the need for Iraq's partition between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis despite statements of US officials that "Washington maintains the integrity of Iraq". However, the actual section of Iraq did not fully meet the needs of the United States. Therefore, Syria was involved in a similar process. At the same time in January 2014 at a closed session of the US Congress it has been developed the so-called Pentagon's "Robin Wright plan", providing the establishment an independent US-led Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq. The US Democratic President Barack Obama in Syria showed that in this matter he follows all the principles of the foreign policy of aggressive American leaders. Now the whole Middle East region is into a blazing fire, killing hundreds of thousands of people, nearly a million refugees pouring into Europe, putting it in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. And most importantly it was appeared a monster like "Islamic state". It generated US aggression in the region; it has been strengthened and now is a threat to the entire world. These are the consequences of a criminal US policy in the Middle East.
RookieApologist
Posts: 469
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 1:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 6:12:31 AM, Tineric wrote:
Today a major strategic goal of Washington in the Middle East is a maintaining the constantly conflict. US doesn"t need the EU will build oil and gas infrastructure to Iran and the Gulf countries. Now the supply of hydrocarbons is carried out in Europe by tanker and the supply lines completely controlled by the United States. Thus, the economic factor is one of the key factors of the war in Syria and Iraq. The conflict takes place in the region has a rich natural resources and a complex energy infrastructure. It follows that the United States has their own economic interests.
Now the USA"s task is not to let Russia become a dominant force in Syria. If Syrian troops will reach the Iraqi border, Baghdad will probably proceed with caution on Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. As a result, the entire region will be under the control of Russia and Iran and America does not suit this situation.
One should not pay attention to Washington's words that he "respects the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria". US Vice President Joe Biden in 2006 pointed out the need for Iraq's partition between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis despite statements of US officials that "Washington maintains the integrity of Iraq". However, the actual section of Iraq did not fully meet the needs of the United States. Therefore, Syria was involved in a similar process. At the same time in January 2014 at a closed session of the US Congress it has been developed the so-called Pentagon's "Robin Wright plan", providing the establishment an independent US-led Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq. The US Democratic President Barack Obama in Syria showed that in this matter he follows all the principles of the foreign policy of aggressive American leaders. Now the whole Middle East region is into a blazing fire, killing hundreds of thousands of people, nearly a million refugees pouring into Europe, putting it in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. And most importantly it was appeared a monster like "Islamic state". It generated US aggression in the region; it has been strengthened and now is a threat to the entire world. These are the consequences of a criminal US policy in the Middle East.

It's difficult to tell what your main point is here. If it is that President Obama's foreign policy is a disaster, then yeah it's hard to argue with that. If it is that the US should leave the cesspool Middle East and become energy-independent, then I would agree with that as well.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,104
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:08:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 1:05:52 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/22/2016 6:12:31 AM, Tineric wrote:
Today a major strategic goal of Washington in the Middle East is a maintaining the constantly conflict. US doesn"t need the EU will build oil and gas infrastructure to Iran and the Gulf countries. Now the supply of hydrocarbons is carried out in Europe by tanker and the supply lines completely controlled by the United States. Thus, the economic factor is one of the key factors of the war in Syria and Iraq. The conflict takes place in the region has a rich natural resources and a complex energy infrastructure. It follows that the United States has their own economic interests.
Now the USA"s task is not to let Russia become a dominant force in Syria. If Syrian troops will reach the Iraqi border, Baghdad will probably proceed with caution on Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. As a result, the entire region will be under the control of Russia and Iran and America does not suit this situation.
One should not pay attention to Washington's words that he "respects the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria". US Vice President Joe Biden in 2006 pointed out the need for Iraq's partition between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis despite statements of US officials that "Washington maintains the integrity of Iraq". However, the actual section of Iraq did not fully meet the needs of the United States. Therefore, Syria was involved in a similar process. At the same time in January 2014 at a closed session of the US Congress it has been developed the so-called Pentagon's "Robin Wright plan", providing the establishment an independent US-led Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq. The US Democratic President Barack Obama in Syria showed that in this matter he follows all the principles of the foreign policy of aggressive American leaders. Now the whole Middle East region is into a blazing fire, killing hundreds of thousands of people, nearly a million refugees pouring into Europe, putting it in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. And most importantly it was appeared a monster like "Islamic state". It generated US aggression in the region; it has been strengthened and now is a threat to the entire world. These are the consequences of a criminal US policy in the Middle East.

It's difficult to tell what your main point is here. If it is that President Obama's foreign policy is a disaster, then yeah it's hard to argue with that. If it is that the US should leave the cesspool Middle East and become energy-independent, then I would agree with that as well.

Here's my view on the middle east at this point: Send out clear warning to get their sh!t under control or at minimum start a massive public campaign to come out against this stone age terrorism nonsense. Keep it away from the U.S. and its allies; if you wanna play the Genocide Olympics, do it in your own home, the a$$hole of the world, to your own neighbors. If no significant progress is made on any front within say 3-5 years, or if serious death and/or injury is done in the western world still; carpet bomb that entire region to the center of the planet, leave a gaping hole in side of the planet. Then go lay blacktop over the entire place and construct the world's largest Wal-Mart and Costco right dead center of that bee-otch.

Get rid of the military problem AND the weekend senior citizen parking lot bumper car problem in one swoop.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 8:33:04 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 1:05:52 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
It's difficult to tell what your main point is here.
He's a Russian state-sponsored sockpupppet (https://en.wikipedia.org...).
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 2:13:50 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 1:05:52 PM, RookieApologist wrote:
At 8/22/2016 6:12:31 AM, Tineric wrote:
Today a major strategic goal of Washington in the Middle East is a maintaining the constantly conflict. US doesn"t need the EU will build oil and gas infrastructure to Iran and the Gulf countries. Now the supply of hydrocarbons is carried out in Europe by tanker and the supply lines completely controlled by the United States. Thus, the economic factor is one of the key factors of the war in Syria and Iraq. The conflict takes place in the region has a rich natural resources and a complex energy infrastructure. It follows that the United States has their own economic interests.
Now the USA"s task is not to let Russia become a dominant force in Syria. If Syrian troops will reach the Iraqi border, Baghdad will probably proceed with caution on Moscow, Damascus and Tehran. As a result, the entire region will be under the control of Russia and Iran and America does not suit this situation.
One should not pay attention to Washington's words that he "respects the territorial integrity of Iraq and Syria". US Vice President Joe Biden in 2006 pointed out the need for Iraq's partition between Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis despite statements of US officials that "Washington maintains the integrity of Iraq". However, the actual section of Iraq did not fully meet the needs of the United States. Therefore, Syria was involved in a similar process. At the same time in January 2014 at a closed session of the US Congress it has been developed the so-called Pentagon's "Robin Wright plan", providing the establishment an independent US-led Kurdish state in Syria and Iraq. The US Democratic President Barack Obama in Syria showed that in this matter he follows all the principles of the foreign policy of aggressive American leaders. Now the whole Middle East region is into a blazing fire, killing hundreds of thousands of people, nearly a million refugees pouring into Europe, putting it in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. And most importantly it was appeared a monster like "Islamic state". It generated US aggression in the region; it has been strengthened and now is a threat to the entire world. These are the consequences of a criminal US policy in the Middle East.

It's difficult to tell what your main point is here. If it is that President Obama's foreign policy is a disaster, then yeah it's hard to argue with that. If it is that the US should leave the cesspool Middle East and become energy-independent, then I would agree with that as well.

First of all only 20 percent od oil comes from middle east.

Second of all leaving the middle east is not an option. Not a good one anyway. Best option is to send ground troops and seize the country and its resources
Im not a Nazi
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 3:28:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/24/2016 2:13:50 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:05:52 PM, RookieApologist wrote:

It's difficult to tell what your main point is here. If it is that President Obama's foreign policy is a disaster, then yeah it's hard to argue with that. If it is that the US should leave the cesspool Middle East and become energy-independent, then I would agree with that as well.

First of all only 20 percent od oil comes from middle east.

Second of all leaving the middle east is not an option. Not a good one anyway. Best option is to send ground troops and seize the country and its resources

Um, no, that's the worst option. The best option is to rule through proxy state. In the modern era, the occupation of a hostile, culturally disparate population is ridiculously costly. That's why no intelligent countries do that. The closest that you get is Israel, and they can only do it by slowly purging and displacing hostile populations in a gradual process of expansion.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -