DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I found the above very interesting and informative. There are several points one could discuss but I shall start with the middle east. At the end of WW2 American foreign policy started to expand into the middle east, both with Egypt and Iran. America decided to support Nasser, and install him as a buffer to the USSR. America, along with the UK, decided to depose Mossadeq and put the Shah back on the throne, mostly due to oil. At this time Israel wasnt all that great in Americas plans, infact America decided in 1956 not to supply Israel with bombers and it was another ten years before America changed their mind. The British Empire had been built by trade, but we had the problem of not being able to defend all our supply lines. So in many parts of the world we turned a blind eye to despotic leaders that were our friends. America did the same with the Shah, Nasser, Hussein and others. To a degree this still happens today. Millions of weapons poured into the ME, both from the west and east. So now we have the US, the West, China, and USSR arming different governments at an alarming rate Very interesting history, in a sad, SMH way. Thanks for pointing it out. My one big question regarding these things, is, why does it seem the US is drawing the ire more than any other country, outside of Israel? If ya'all had a hand in this shit, too, would you please take some of the shit that's being thrown out. Please? quote:
The general populace in the ME started to resent the luxurious lives of those in power, one by one they have started to be deposed, starting with the Shah. A void has formed in many of these nations that has been filled by fundementalists. So today, much of the ME is unstable. To give one example, Bush and Blairs adventure into Iraq has left the economy broken, infrastructure fractured and the population more deeply divided than it was under Saddam. There is no real explaination for this exept either gross stupidity or gross culpability. My view it is the later. Is it possible that Saddam's Baathist Party ruled with an iron fist and kept the divisions under wraps? If people were afraid to complain, it could keep the divisions hidden. But, when people aren't as afraid, it can be seen as the divisions getting worse, while they may not be getting worse at all, simply finally being heard. The fear of speaking up was alleged to have happened under Saddam and Qaddhafi. While I'm not saying this is the answer you're missing, it's possible. quote:
Israel is part of the solution, with no lasting peace there it gives extremists something to preach about. All sides need to start talking, and soon. Netenyahus speech at the UN telling us we need to draw a red line in the sand was farcical. Sooner or later friendly regimes in the area will fall (regimes always fall ) what happens then ? I still don't understand wtf is going on between Israel and Palestine. While I'm not there and not privy to all the things that are going on, it seems to me that talks move forward, and peace is near, then Israel launches missiles and Palestinians react with their own munitions, or Palestinians launch mortars and grenades and Israel responds with missiles. Netanyahu and Abbas both talk peace and getting close to reaching an agreement, and then one of their countries does something to move everything back a ways. Is the talk simply talk and not truly indicative of what's going on?
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|