Is it fair to blame America for the violence in the Middle East

Posted by: tajshar2k

  • Yes, stupid Yankees always screwing around everyone

  • No, the middle east has always been violent

27% 6 votes
73% 16 votes
  • To an extent. We can be blamed for the violence we directly caused, but the Middle East has been fucked up for over a century now. Many of their current problems can be dated back to the fall of the Ottomans and European Imperialism.

  • Yes the capitalist pigs went to the middle east searching for cheap oil, regardless of the cost that NOT they themselves would pay but the actual people living in the middle east. USSR FOREVER! LONG LIVE STALIN!!

  • but we are partly to blame

  • This is too black and white. The middle easy used to be way less violent than Europe in the past.

  • The US and the USSR are partly responsible.

  • The bottom line is the Middle East is a hotbed of religious turf war. At least America's Constitution allows peaceful plurality, so its own disparate faiths are existing side-by-side. The Middle East has various strands of Islam killing each other and the conflict between Israel and Jerusalem will never become a two state solution as it is routed in religion going back over 1000 years.

  • It's Europe's fault for toppling the Ottoman empire.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-08-15T19:01:46.7505903Z
Inb4 Mirza comes to start a flame war.
UtherPenguin says2015-08-15T19:14:48.5340017Z
This poll is WAY too black and white on the issue. Firstly, the Middle East was not always violent. Secondly, while America may not be the blame for violence in the Middle East, they definitely helped facilitate it (By overthrowing Iran's democratic government and replacing it with a dictatorship, Invading Iraq and provoked and funding the Taliban during the Cold War)
shalal12 says2015-08-15T19:14:52.6532180Z
A washed brain!
UtherPenguin says2015-08-15T19:16:09.8105227Z
I would have answered no, but the option saying "the middle east has always been violent" is complete and utter bullsh*t
UtherPenguin says2015-08-15T19:20:17.7897123Z
Spelling mistake, I meant invading Iraq *unprovoked
triangle.128k says2015-08-15T19:21:41.2563918Z
Oh no, here comes shalal12, who'll dismiss any argument against his view as "propaganda."
dietorangesoda says2015-08-15T19:40:42.9534016Z
I think by always violent he means the past 2000 years or so
stargate says2015-08-15T19:48:57.6071367Z
It is a little bias.
Texas14 says2015-08-15T20:42:11.2987482Z
The Middle East would be more stable without U.S intervention. ISIS wouldn't exist if there was no Iraq war.
Vox_Veritas says2015-08-15T21:32:33.3876680Z
The Iraq War should not have caused civil war in the country. There is no rule anywhere that if a foreign power decides it's gonna occupy your country (which you feel is just an artificial country put together by the Europeans anyway) for 10 years or so you have to declare civil war and try to establish a theocracy.
Vox_Veritas says2015-08-15T21:33:25.2165718Z
It could've been a very clean process, and it probably would've just lasted 3 years otherwise.
imabench says2015-08-15T22:14:56.2676816Z
It seems that the most chosen answer would have been 'to a degree'
58539672 says2015-08-15T23:19:13.3994868Z
This poll is too black and white for a question that is almost entirely in the gray area.
tajshar2k says2015-08-16T00:10:12.1630276Z
Uther, are you saying the middle east was peaceful!?! Now that is utter bullsh*t
tajshar2k says2015-08-16T02:07:40.9122116Z
Since the crusades, the middle east has been a battleground for the last 10 centuries. Simply blaming the United States for its current unrest is quite unfair.
tajshar2k says2015-08-16T02:21:21.5743972Z
Shalal12, If my brain is washed, I do not know what your brain is then.
Texas14 says2015-08-16T02:47:52.2196686Z
@tajshar2k, you would agree though that the region is worse off with U.S intervention than without though, right?
58539672 says2015-08-16T03:23:07.6556290Z
@Texas14 One of the problems with those kinds of statements is that we don't know what the middle east would be like without the US interventions. Remember, we have removed several questionable leaders and regimes so far. Would they be better or worse is simply something that has to be left to speculation.
Texas14 says2015-08-16T03:37:02.9161832Z
@58539672, well we do know what's happened when we've intervened. Iraq turned into a civil war, and in Iran after we put in the Shah, there was blowback there. To your point about what if we hadn't intervened or had stopped intervening, after we left Vietnam, the Vietnamese now get along with us. They're not perfect, but we trade with them. So that's a good example about how leaving a country that is unstable can actually benefit both parties involved.
tajshar2k says2015-08-16T03:45:50.3082320Z
@Texas Worse, yes I would, but there was a good reason for some of that too happen. For example we funding the Taliban had to happen, because the Soviets were a bigger threat to us at the time.
58539672 says2015-08-16T03:49:27.8011148Z
@Texas14 And if you look at several African countries (i'll use the Congo as an example), you can see what can also happen if you leave an unstable country. We can't really predict how a country will react with a power vacuum. Some do well and others don't. Its all just speculation.
58539672 says2015-08-16T03:52:05.5924139Z
And their have been good things to come out of our involvements. The Arab states (minus Yemen) have been extremely peaceful and prosperous (comparatively) thanks to US intervention. And thats surprising considering Al-Queda began there.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.