Should the Middle East be left to its own devices?

Posted by: Zylorarchy

  • Yes

  • No

71% 10 votes
29% 4 votes
  • For the most part yes, I cannot help but think the reason the West is seen as a target so much is due to the fact we interfere in the first place. That and also, many Western nations simply cannot afford to go to war every five years or so. Not to mention, as seen in Iraq... clearly there has been NO improvement in the longer term (quite the opposite). I am not saying we should ignore the region permanently, but for now especially, we (the West) need to economically recover first.

  • So long as we have no other contract binding us, no.

  • No, the 18 nations are important to the global economy, and interdependence also means interrelations. What I don't think we should be doing, is funding huge wars that replace their values with ours. I think we should be active in the region, but show a little more respect for sovereignty by not getting into their interior politics. For example, I'm willing to work with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who have slowly adopted human and civil right reforms, but the sad thing about democracy, is that they'll just elect the same idiots again. Which is why we need to guide them through reform, and not force them into it. Iraq was a joke, and pending the Afghan election (If they don't vote for Ashraf, they're idiots), Afghanistan might also be a joke. We need to work with nations to set up benchmarks and goals. As for military independence, I am a supporter or concentrated warfare. No need to make a costly spectacle. Just send in marines, special forces, CIA agents, and cheap drones to accomplish one objective and get out. For those who didn't know, we defeated Saddam's army twice, the second time in three days with only 200 casualties. America doesn't need to occupy a country. Just accomplish one objective and have no dreams of granduer, such as rebuilding nations from scratch.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Fight4Liberty says2014-07-07T20:23:52.7330714-05:00
ChosenWolff, Why should these countries even be the concern of America? "Which is why we need to guide them through reform, and not force them into it." And what happens if they reject our 'guidance,' we force them into it?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-07T20:38:36.8474543-05:00
No, you never force a nation to do anything. Or if you have to, you don't use conventional means. Everything's driven by something. Poverty is the best example. Our financial interactions with the Al-Saud family has led to much reform in the nation. Fight poverty and you fight war. Among other things.
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-07T21:17:33.3736287-05:00
ChosenWolff, you mention just sending in CIA/marines to do a single job and get out... Reference a time in history where that has actually worked out for the long term intended benefit, because I have only a plethora of negative examples countering the mere need for the CIA. Especially with your example of 'defeating' Saddam's, army... How has/is that working out?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-07T21:26:17.7676287-05:00
There was a difference between ousting a dictator and helping the man after him rebuild his country. We don't need to look out for the long term. Foreign policy dealing with military intervention should be in the manner of quick and decisive actions. I would of supported ousting Saddam in Iraq. The fact that we took the opposition government and affirmed their power in the country was where we screwed up. Are you saying Kuwait was a failure? Cambodia? We have the military strength to defeat an army in three days. We should use that to some extent.
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-07T21:51:14.0919414-05:00
This is a very short-sited and equally ironic comment coming from someone who apparently idolizes Mengistu/Communism. You say you support concentrated warfare, yet embrace a genocidal dictator? It is the ignorance and carelessness of not considering long term effects from the CIA/MI6/others that has resulted in much geopolitical strife today. (I would list countries too, but my list would be inappropriately long). You would have supported the ousting of Saddam, but to what end and by what pretext; WMDs? Terrorism? Genocide (ironic again)? Kuwait and Cambodia are bought and paid for sadly, one exploited for resources, and the other for that and very cheep labor. Saying that we (US, if you assume the US has to do all the world's fighting) can defeat an army in 3 days sounds eerily familiar to our past oligarch, Bush, but we see what became of that timeline. And sadly, yes, we have used that to some extent, to practically no avail. The only time we ever came close to a '3-day' timeline, was nuking two civilian cities and forcing Japan into humanitarian submission. I hope thats not the example you are/were referring to. (Don't say Grenada, or BoP, cause that doesn't count)
HammerPairUSMC says2014-07-07T23:23:26.9055318-05:00
At this point with History the West and Middle East have behind them it does not matter what we do. If we stay out of the Middle east and watch ICIS or now calling themselves IS and Al Queda and Taliban fill the void then you have a Muslim state that WILL stretch from India to Libya. If we try to attack pockets of Terror cells across the Middle East we will be there the rest of our days and our childrens generations to come. I guess the question we should be asking is what happens when we pack up the last troop bring them home and let Middle east become consumed by Terrorist cells? Will they forgive and let go? Will their ambitions of eradicating Non muslim practicing Infadels remain only in middle east targets? We all see the failing civil wars in Syria, Libya, Egypt and Iraq. Soon Afgan will join the ranks as soon as we pull out. Sure we can circle the wagons at Home in America and watch our incredible southern border that is already over run by south American immigrants and refugees become a demilitirized zone. Additionally maybe we could hope that TSA can step up the screening process for international flights where hundreds of Thousands of people fly into our country daily and hope no terrorist cells make it through. Where has our American Foreign policy gotten us in the last 6 years? I have one prediction, after we pull out of middle east all eyes will be on Israel, which means they will be surrounded, out manned and out gunned. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt will all consume an entire nation. It will sadly be the largest Genocide the world has ever known. But hey the stay out of it Americans have nothing to worry about because once Israel falls they would not dare attack America again. Would they?
ChosenWolff says2014-07-07T23:31:04.8595743-05:00
To summarize what you just said in that unnecessarily long block of text, you insulted me, used ad hominen, and straw maned my beliefs, which you know nothing about. Don't say I'm a communist, as you don't know me. Don't say I support a genocidal dictator, you don't know me. Nor do you know the definition of the word genocide, because if you did, you wouldn't of used it to describe Mengitsu Mariam Haile. The correct terminology would be democidal, which is something you learn right off the bat in history class. As for your statements on concentrated warfare, save me the bull$hit. Your trying to scape goat this saying I'm a Bush supporter, which I'm not, nor did I support his sandbox in Iraq. I suggest you stop scape goating my views. You chose to attack the cause behind the wars I mentioned rather than the logic behind my contention. The war in Kuwait was finished in a week, using coalition warfare, which defeated and demolished an entire army, with a full rout at the cost of only 100 American deaths. The Iraq invasion killed 300,000 people, once again, in three days with only 200 deaths. Cambodia? We were able to abdicate an entire party with no American deaths, so yes, I do believe concentrated warfare works. It has never failed, and I doubt you can give me an example in which it has. We have defeated two armies, over the past decade. Those wars cumulated into only 2 weeks. Concentrated warfare does work. Armies aren't needed to fight wars, which is why I support active military without getting ourselves to involved in a conflict.
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-07T23:54:35.5085780-05:00
I don't know you, as you I, but only of what you communicate through your profile, posts, pics, and debates, which suggest so, but apparently there is absolutely no room for inference with you. You can categorize or flavor your style of killing to placate yourself or audience; genocide, democide, invasion, war,,, and in any number, 200 to 300,000, but ultimately to what avail? I will concede that there have been few and small actions the US has taken to address geopolitical issues with the ultimately intended beneficence reached, but not nearly enough to make up for our crimes. I am most definitely not attacking the cause, but rather the ends that were, as you say, don't need to be looked at. This is because you logic of these issues is flawed and/or incomplete. I, and others, were fooled into believing there were WMDs and babies being left on cold hospital floors, only to find that the CIA had writ these scrips to fit the public narrative to fulfill their covert ends; invade Iraq, kill leadership, disband the army, create havoc, US solution and exploitation, oil/$. So was killing these 300,000 people worth it? Were they all army? Why? Cambodia wasn't the first or last time we've done this, but this was one of few times it went smoothly. Now they serve us as a great underpaid outsourced labor option to avoid legal restrictions in our capitalistic system. I am not saying concentrated warfare CAN work, my argument is SHOULD it work, and HOW/WHEN should it work, and to what avail? I support not getting into ANY conflict if we can help it, which we haven't learned since America was born. BTW: I am deff not attributing you to Bush, nor am I myself. Like I said, you communicated that through your profile and such.
ChosenWolff says2014-07-08T00:04:47.8400601-05:00
Fvck, had a 700 word comment, but got moderated. Oh well, I'll rewrite it later.
Haroush says2014-07-08T08:32:27.3697061-05:00
Vere, Both DEMS and REPS believe strongly in foreign affairs and both have the same goals, it's just they both have unique strategies to bring about these goals to reality.
Haroush says2014-07-08T08:35:12.5725184-05:00
Also, you want to talk to someone who supported some of Bush's moves when it comes to the War On Terror, talk to me. You may think it will be an easy cake walk debating with me about this issue, but if you think this, you have sadly mistaken me for an easy target.
Vere_Mendacium says2014-07-08T21:58:07.7767155-05:00
Haroush, Im not really sure what you mean by believing in foreign affairs. Do you mean agree with our current position on US foreign policy, because its just like saying that they 'believe in economy'.... However, I am sure that there are Dems and GoPs that would disagree with your generalized categorization of their own position. Reality is a very fun subject to debate :) Given you acceptance of lame-stream news now to justify our needed presents in Iraq now, it is no wonder you would have accepted the unlawful invasion (and subsequent destruction, as seen today) of Iraq. I never thought you were a cake walk, but, if that is a carrot in my face, i'll pass.
Haroush says2014-07-09T05:57:41.9398893-05:00
Vere, Just because I believe there is a need for our presence over in Iraq doesn't mean I just watch mainstream media... Because I don't..Just a FYI And when I said both DEMS and REPS believe in foreign affairs, I meant they both strongly see a need for our presence over in other countries whether if it would be by military intervention or diplomacy. Also, there was things that happened long before the U.S. even got involved in Iraq that brought devastation to that country. If anything, I would say since the War on Terror was launched people have a greater understanding for each other than they once did. Is there proof of this? Let's just look at ISIS. Believe it or not, this group is an off-shoot of Al Qaeda, but do you know why they formed? It was because Al Qaeda wasn't radical enough for them! Meaning over all, since the War on Terror, some of the most powerful terrorist groups have become more docile. Though there is plenty of room for work to be done. That is for sure.

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.