Well, the US isn't supporting ISIS, but it doesn't really take them that seriously either. Or rather, our current president doesn't. He's too scared to call it what it is (Islamic terrorism) for one.
Right now the USA has a totally bizarre foreign policy. We're supporting Muslim terrorists in one place, and half-heartedly fighting them on the other hand.
As far as I know, the US at that time had the policy of "containment," trying to keep communism where it had already been established and trying to keep it from spreading.
USA & Israel are supporting all the 'Islamic terrorism' because the gain benefits from them, also how could those terrorists get all these weapons and HE Bombs
To be frank the Middle East has always been unstable, and has been an area with civil wars and conflicts between tribes for centuries. Conventional means can't tame it.
Crusaders tried subjugating it and failed.
As did the Soviets and the United States.
To claim the United States is responsible for radical Islam running rampant throughout the lands there is a naive belief. And, to be frank, it does not matter who is supporting the groups there if anyone. It makes no difference to what goes on. That's simply people with their own political frustrations talking.
The mideast are their own stewards, and they need to change their ideology themselves if this is ever going to stop, with all the wars and tribal/doctrinal conflicts. Such as the Sunni and Shia Muslims.
If the USA, Russia, whole world pulled our right now and left the mideast alone. That would not change the ideology nor the people there. They would still do what their beliefs demand of them. And if that involves having Russian planes go down with bombs, flying passenger jets into the Twin Towers, or committing acts of genocide in old Paris, than they will continue.
The U.S. foreign policy has been feckless with the Mideast in recent years, but that itself is not to blame for the heart of the problem. Until people start realize that, and the mideast itself starts dealing with its ideology. Things will not change and many more will die. That's just a simple fact of life.
'To be frank the Middle East has always been unstable, and has been an area with civil wars and conflicts between tribes for centuries. Conventional means can't tame it.'
- This is true.
'To claim the United States is responsible for radical Islam running rampant throughout the lands there is a naive belief. And, to be frank, it does not matter who is supporting the groups there if anyone. It makes no difference to what goes on. That's simply people with their own political frustrations talking.'
- And this is not. At least not entirely. Local dictators fought against radicals and kept it as a local conflicts. Saddam, Kaddafi, Assad... It is always after US intervention radicals getting more power. Also Saudi Arabia, being USA ally is 'allowed' to fund any radicals they want.
Local dictators did keep things under wraps in this region which "usually" kept the radicals a local problem in the mideast.
The U.S. going in and try to Democratize nations exasperated the problem simply because they removed those dictators. Was this intentional though? I do not believe so, as we all know the West can be overly naive with dealing with what they would consider "primitive cultures". Even the East could behave like that.
If it was the USA who would do it, then I am left to question, what if Russia instead got involved in the mideast? And the USA left it. Or perhaps a shift in interests of power. And naturally whoever gained influence in the region would play this game with the dictators, trying to put in place government they could work with.
My stance is this, what has happened in the mideast was inevitable. Because if it wasn't going to be the United States it could've been China, or Russia. And the Soviets were looking to set up shop there back before they fell. But thanks to U.S. meddling and the Taliban that didn't happen. Yet, the Soviets would've tried setting up their own satellite states just the same if they could have.
And since neither the west nor east have the money nor the time to waste the lives of their soldiers trying to maintain control and order of the mideast. It would have inevitably fallen apart for whoever tried taming it. Leaving either dictatorships as a solution or change in the region ideologically as solutions.
Even now, things begin falling apart with the U.S. in Afghanistan as the Taliban has taken a city, and regained steam. This after more than 10 years of occupation. All that time, energy, and resources. Like roaches the Taliban still fights on despite all the "nuking". Got to give them credit, even if they do suck in firefights.
Superpowers would try to tame this region, and they would all fail. So that's why to me it doesn't matter who does it. It's the region and its ideology that is the problem. The superpowers are just the naive victims of their own ignorance who have opened Pandora's box for us all. And I must say... it is quite nasty what's in that box...
About soviets, they crashed hard with their invasion, but they kept and are now keeping some dictators as allies. For example Assad, they can't let him go, especially when that's the real reason US want him to go. Finally they can do something about their own interests, NATO is shocked.
As I said, ignorance to the problem. That's part of why people are so focused on the 2016 elections. They don't believe Obama or the current administration understands the issues, and they are right. He does not, the same day he said ISIS was contained was the same day of the Paris attack on Friday the 13th. A bad omen.
I appreciate what a President like George H. W. Bush senior did in the Gulf War. Instead of dethroning Saddam after pushing him out of Kuwait. Bush saw to the security of Kuwait and then pulled us out. He did what was sensible, see to our interests but avoid changing the regions power holds.
It's a shame that Bush senior only got 1 term as President.
He was a under rated President given his wisdom in that action.
But of course, the economy is what threw him out.
I almost never hear anyone complain about the Gulf War.
One of the few conflicts we got right in the mideast.
I feel so bad for what happened to them...
So do I.
The best start would be if USA stopped supporting the terrorists.
Well, the US isn't supporting ISIS, but it doesn't really take them that seriously either. Or rather, our current president doesn't. He's too scared to call it what it is (Islamic terrorism) for one.
Right now the USA has a totally bizarre foreign policy. We're supporting Muslim terrorists in one place, and half-heartedly fighting them on the other hand.
It's not just right now, it started when Soviets showed interest in Arabic countries.
As far as I know, the US at that time had the policy of "containment," trying to keep communism where it had already been established and trying to keep it from spreading.
USA & Israel are supporting all the 'Islamic terrorism' because the gain benefits from them, also how could those terrorists get all these weapons and HE Bombs
To be frank the Middle East has always been unstable, and has been an area with civil wars and conflicts between tribes for centuries. Conventional means can't tame it.
Crusaders tried subjugating it and failed.
As did the Soviets and the United States.
To claim the United States is responsible for radical Islam running rampant throughout the lands there is a naive belief. And, to be frank, it does not matter who is supporting the groups there if anyone. It makes no difference to what goes on. That's simply people with their own political frustrations talking.
The mideast are their own stewards, and they need to change their ideology themselves if this is ever going to stop, with all the wars and tribal/doctrinal conflicts. Such as the Sunni and Shia Muslims.
If the USA, Russia, whole world pulled our right now and left the mideast alone. That would not change the ideology nor the people there. They would still do what their beliefs demand of them. And if that involves having Russian planes go down with bombs, flying passenger jets into the Twin Towers, or committing acts of genocide in old Paris, than they will continue.
The U.S. foreign policy has been feckless with the Mideast in recent years, but that itself is not to blame for the heart of the problem. Until people start realize that, and the mideast itself starts dealing with its ideology. Things will not change and many more will die. That's just a simple fact of life.
'To be frank the Middle East has always been unstable, and has been an area with civil wars and conflicts between tribes for centuries. Conventional means can't tame it.'
- This is true.
'To claim the United States is responsible for radical Islam running rampant throughout the lands there is a naive belief. And, to be frank, it does not matter who is supporting the groups there if anyone. It makes no difference to what goes on. That's simply people with their own political frustrations talking.'
- And this is not. At least not entirely. Local dictators fought against radicals and kept it as a local conflicts. Saddam, Kaddafi, Assad... It is always after US intervention radicals getting more power. Also Saudi Arabia, being USA ally is 'allowed' to fund any radicals they want.
True.
Local dictators did keep things under wraps in this region which "usually" kept the radicals a local problem in the mideast.
The U.S. going in and try to Democratize nations exasperated the problem simply because they removed those dictators. Was this intentional though? I do not believe so, as we all know the West can be overly naive with dealing with what they would consider "primitive cultures". Even the East could behave like that.
If it was the USA who would do it, then I am left to question, what if Russia instead got involved in the mideast? And the USA left it. Or perhaps a shift in interests of power. And naturally whoever gained influence in the region would play this game with the dictators, trying to put in place government they could work with.
My stance is this, what has happened in the mideast was inevitable. Because if it wasn't going to be the United States it could've been China, or Russia. And the Soviets were looking to set up shop there back before they fell. But thanks to U.S. meddling and the Taliban that didn't happen. Yet, the Soviets would've tried setting up their own satellite states just the same if they could have.
And since neither the west nor east have the money nor the time to waste the lives of their soldiers trying to maintain control and order of the mideast. It would have inevitably fallen apart for whoever tried taming it. Leaving either dictatorships as a solution or change in the region ideologically as solutions.
Even now, things begin falling apart with the U.S. in Afghanistan as the Taliban has taken a city, and regained steam. This after more than 10 years of occupation. All that time, energy, and resources. Like roaches the Taliban still fights on despite all the "nuking". Got to give them credit, even if they do suck in firefights.
Superpowers would try to tame this region, and they would all fail. So that's why to me it doesn't matter who does it. It's the region and its ideology that is the problem. The superpowers are just the naive victims of their own ignorance who have opened Pandora's box for us all. And I must say... it is quite nasty what's in that box...
Is it intentional? Well, maybe not in the first time, but your country is doing it over and over again with same result.
Here, have some propaganda. Youtube.com
About soviets, they crashed hard with their invasion, but they kept and are now keeping some dictators as allies. For example Assad, they can't let him go, especially when that's the real reason US want him to go. Finally they can do something about their own interests, NATO is shocked.
As I said, ignorance to the problem. That's part of why people are so focused on the 2016 elections. They don't believe Obama or the current administration understands the issues, and they are right. He does not, the same day he said ISIS was contained was the same day of the Paris attack on Friday the 13th. A bad omen.
I appreciate what a President like George H. W. Bush senior did in the Gulf War. Instead of dethroning Saddam after pushing him out of Kuwait. Bush saw to the security of Kuwait and then pulled us out. He did what was sensible, see to our interests but avoid changing the regions power holds.
It's a shame that Bush senior only got 1 term as President.
He was a under rated President given his wisdom in that action.
But of course, the economy is what threw him out.
I almost never hear anyone complain about the Gulf War.
One of the few conflicts we got right in the mideast.