Because the progressives have been very smart and very successful in their 60 year stealth campaign at infecting the country with revisionist history and social engineering through their complete take over of the educational system.
Because the progressives have been very smart and very successful in their 60 year stealth campaign at infecting the country with revisionist history and social engineering through their complete take over of the educational system.
.
Liberal doublespeak...their view depending on what the argument of the day is....
"We should not be in the Middle East attempting to impose Western Democracy on a culture thousands of years old."
"So what if Middle Eastern immigrants rape, murder and terrorize...we white people are no different than them."
Liberal doublespeak...their view depending on what the argument of the day is....
"We should not be in the Middle East attempting to impose Western Democracy on a culture thousands of years old."
"So what if Middle Eastern immigrants rape, murder and terrorize...we white people are no different than them."
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Aw, so cute. Welcome to America! - http://www.infowars.com/video-parents-train-3-year-old-girl-to-say-we-have-to-kill-donald-trump/
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
Russia wasn't even targeting ISIS, they were killing enemies of Asad (their buddy). They were killing the militants and
innocent bystanders that are trying to oust Asad. Also doubtful they killed 28K, when they were not there very long.
innocent bystanders that are trying to oust Asad. Also doubtful they killed 28K, when they were not there very long.
we didnt stick around Hiroshima, but a few people died there.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
That is the right thing to do. Support the guy who actually held the savages in check.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 11,822
- Points
- 113
Sadam Hussein, Momar Khaddafi, Hosni Mubarak all did the same, with American "support", until the support shifted and they suffered very public, humiliating circumstances.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2014
- Messages
- 6,982
- Reaction score
- 6,963
- Points
- 113
That is absolutely true. The problem we are faced with though is that Arabs are culturally unable to live in a constitutional republic. Their religious differences, Clan divisions and tribal rivalries guarantee that they will always be battling one another for supremacy. add to that the fact that culturally they have no tradition of self and must be presided over by potentate fall into anarchy. Our choice is to prop up a test spot just to maintain stability in the region, or walk away and let everything in the Middle East descendent to internecine war.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
The only thing that will solve the Middle East is technology that reduces the value of oil. Fracking, renewables, electric cars, etc...
The light bulb has finally gone off in Saudi Arabia's head, they know oil does not have a long-term future and are starting to reform
their economy to get off it's dependence in oil. We have only supported the despots and dictators to ensure the safe transport of
oil from Middle East sands to refineries then to US gas stations/tanks.
The light bulb has finally gone off in Saudi Arabia's head, they know oil does not have a long-term future and are starting to reform
their economy to get off it's dependence in oil. We have only supported the despots and dictators to ensure the safe transport of
oil from Middle East sands to refineries then to US gas stations/tanks.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 11,822
- Points
- 113
You almost got it right!
Oil is fungible, and only traded in US$. Every barrel of oil sold benefits the US.....now you know why the US let the French Total run Iraq for decades, and the Germans have had so much fun in Iran.
And you know why Hussein and Khaddafi, who both had the stupid arrogance to suggest trading oil in non-US dollars, met very public and humiliating deaths.
You could look it up.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,605
- Reaction score
- 29,987
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
That is going to be an immensely difficult transformation, since the nation has incredibly limited natural resources, other than oil. Further, Saudi Arabia is antithetical to allowing half the population run businesses, work, etc.
Given the nation's very limited resources and its hostility towards females contributing to the country's economic growth, I do not see a good future for them. And before we say, "Great!!", just remember who will wind up taking charge should the Saudi economy fail.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,083
- Reaction score
- 11,822
- Points
- 113
You forgot centuries of in breeding.......
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I don't agree the Middle East is a total lost cause.
I do agree the very radical changes in our foreign policy (and it's not just us by the way, it's most of the World) since WWII towards the middle east has partly created the problems we face.
As a conservative, I do want the United States to be the biggest, baddest cop on the planet and I would worry if that role in the world would be filled by Russia or China in their respective areas of the world. I don't think that leads to a very stable World Order.
My frustration is America's lack of long-term planning in the area due mostly to media/public sentiment (and thus votes). We have a long history as a country of massive military and financial support in areas for DECADES. The Marshall Plan and military bases throughout Europe. The rebuilding of Japan's infrastructure. The defense and support along the DMZ line.
We have, at any given moment, upwards of 100,000 troops stationed internationally around the globe. Mostly in relatively safe environs but still "on duty".
Iraq was our opportunity to be a part of the rebuilding of a potential secular Middle Eastern state but the (minimal) deaths at the hands of terrorists (it's not even guerrilla warfare what was happening circa 2008-2009) on foreign soil was politicized into an all-or-nothing, black/white debate that unfortunately (in my opinion) was won by the side that promised ALL troops withdrawal from the Middle East theater despite the fact we keep 50,000 troops in Europe, 30,000 troops in South Korea and numerous other "important, tactical" locations around the globe.
How Iraq isn't considered an important tactical location in the face of global order is beyond me but obviously the America people don't think so (or were swindled into thinking so by the political process/media coverage).
While established in Iraq we also did an incredibly poor job of negotiating an acceptable Iraq constitution/government that could form the foundation of a more "Western Republic". We gave way to much power to the "old school" Shia regime with their close ties to Iran and their selfish interests concerning their country on from Baghdad south. Since our troops left under Obama's watch, the divide and government structure in Iraq has completely ignored native Sunnis and Kurds and clearly self-support only Shia interests. The Iraqi government at this point is so Shia-controlled that it's almost a puppet of the Iranian government. In fact military/civilian movement between southern Iraq and Iran is so rampant there is barely a difference in the countries anymore.
And we haven't even begun to discuss Syria, which is doing almost the identical "plan" that Iraq is doing. Protecting their Shia-majority regions with strong military support from Russia/Iran while basically leaving the Sunni portions along the Euphrates River to completely fend for themselves.
In many ways what might be the best approach at this point is using American/Turkey/Saudi/European military coalition to force the creation of a Sunni country along the Euphrates river encompassing land from both Syria and Iraq. Our efforts to work with either Syria or Shia Iraq to integrate Sunnis into their governments have failed.
At this point it might be best to cut our losses and allow Syria and Iraq to remain allies with Iran/Russia but create a new Sunni state more closely allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and thus America and Europe).
The problem with this plan is twofold:
1. Sunnis are actually more religious and trying to create a secular "Western Culture" constitution/government might be impossible. You'd hope a new country would be closer to Turkey but in reality will likely be very similar to the Saudi Arabia without a strong monarchy to keep it in line. There is almost no possible answer to this dilemma. The region is so anti-Shia and so entrenched in extremism that creating a free government from the pieces left by ISIS would be very, very difficult (although not impossible if we remain for decades and stay true to the course).
2. The Kurds are the thorn in this whole issue. They too likely need their own country/state but Turkey seems unwilling to cooperate on this (and we need Turkey to create a Sunni state vs. Iraq/Syria). There might be room for a Kurdish state out of just Iraqi territory and we leave it at that but there could be a lot of issues with the Kurds in Turkey during this whole mess.
It's just an odd situation that we are sitting around and talking about the Iraqi government as a potential enemy now because Obama has abandoned them so much they are now Iran light and have no interest in fixing any problems along the Sunni controlled Euphrates River. We might have to forcibly take Iraqi land and fix the border issues that were created after WWII.
You'd love for a Utopian ideal that the Sunnis and Shias could get along and create a fair and equal government but that just seems impossible. The minute we let Iraq fall back into a Shia-controlled Sharia government we were doomed. They will never give a **** about Sunnis and will continue to oppress them at every opportunity once we left. The rise of ISIS is a direct result of both Syria and Iraq basically saying "**** you" and "hands off" control of a HUGE swath of land and peoples that have devolved into gang control, torture and oppression by thugs.
The Shia regimes only want the "best" of those areas and fight in the dirtiest ways possible to retain control of them: oil fields, water/dams, resources. Everything else is just fodder for their military to rule with cruelty.
I do agree the very radical changes in our foreign policy (and it's not just us by the way, it's most of the World) since WWII towards the middle east has partly created the problems we face.
As a conservative, I do want the United States to be the biggest, baddest cop on the planet and I would worry if that role in the world would be filled by Russia or China in their respective areas of the world. I don't think that leads to a very stable World Order.
My frustration is America's lack of long-term planning in the area due mostly to media/public sentiment (and thus votes). We have a long history as a country of massive military and financial support in areas for DECADES. The Marshall Plan and military bases throughout Europe. The rebuilding of Japan's infrastructure. The defense and support along the DMZ line.
We have, at any given moment, upwards of 100,000 troops stationed internationally around the globe. Mostly in relatively safe environs but still "on duty".
Iraq was our opportunity to be a part of the rebuilding of a potential secular Middle Eastern state but the (minimal) deaths at the hands of terrorists (it's not even guerrilla warfare what was happening circa 2008-2009) on foreign soil was politicized into an all-or-nothing, black/white debate that unfortunately (in my opinion) was won by the side that promised ALL troops withdrawal from the Middle East theater despite the fact we keep 50,000 troops in Europe, 30,000 troops in South Korea and numerous other "important, tactical" locations around the globe.
How Iraq isn't considered an important tactical location in the face of global order is beyond me but obviously the America people don't think so (or were swindled into thinking so by the political process/media coverage).
While established in Iraq we also did an incredibly poor job of negotiating an acceptable Iraq constitution/government that could form the foundation of a more "Western Republic". We gave way to much power to the "old school" Shia regime with their close ties to Iran and their selfish interests concerning their country on from Baghdad south. Since our troops left under Obama's watch, the divide and government structure in Iraq has completely ignored native Sunnis and Kurds and clearly self-support only Shia interests. The Iraqi government at this point is so Shia-controlled that it's almost a puppet of the Iranian government. In fact military/civilian movement between southern Iraq and Iran is so rampant there is barely a difference in the countries anymore.
And we haven't even begun to discuss Syria, which is doing almost the identical "plan" that Iraq is doing. Protecting their Shia-majority regions with strong military support from Russia/Iran while basically leaving the Sunni portions along the Euphrates River to completely fend for themselves.
In many ways what might be the best approach at this point is using American/Turkey/Saudi/European military coalition to force the creation of a Sunni country along the Euphrates river encompassing land from both Syria and Iraq. Our efforts to work with either Syria or Shia Iraq to integrate Sunnis into their governments have failed.
At this point it might be best to cut our losses and allow Syria and Iraq to remain allies with Iran/Russia but create a new Sunni state more closely allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia (and thus America and Europe).
The problem with this plan is twofold:
1. Sunnis are actually more religious and trying to create a secular "Western Culture" constitution/government might be impossible. You'd hope a new country would be closer to Turkey but in reality will likely be very similar to the Saudi Arabia without a strong monarchy to keep it in line. There is almost no possible answer to this dilemma. The region is so anti-Shia and so entrenched in extremism that creating a free government from the pieces left by ISIS would be very, very difficult (although not impossible if we remain for decades and stay true to the course).
2. The Kurds are the thorn in this whole issue. They too likely need their own country/state but Turkey seems unwilling to cooperate on this (and we need Turkey to create a Sunni state vs. Iraq/Syria). There might be room for a Kurdish state out of just Iraqi territory and we leave it at that but there could be a lot of issues with the Kurds in Turkey during this whole mess.
It's just an odd situation that we are sitting around and talking about the Iraqi government as a potential enemy now because Obama has abandoned them so much they are now Iran light and have no interest in fixing any problems along the Sunni controlled Euphrates River. We might have to forcibly take Iraqi land and fix the border issues that were created after WWII.
You'd love for a Utopian ideal that the Sunnis and Shias could get along and create a fair and equal government but that just seems impossible. The minute we let Iraq fall back into a Shia-controlled Sharia government we were doomed. They will never give a **** about Sunnis and will continue to oppress them at every opportunity once we left. The rise of ISIS is a direct result of both Syria and Iraq basically saying "**** you" and "hands off" control of a HUGE swath of land and peoples that have devolved into gang control, torture and oppression by thugs.
The Shia regimes only want the "best" of those areas and fight in the dirtiest ways possible to retain control of them: oil fields, water/dams, resources. Everything else is just fodder for their military to rule with cruelty.