The paternalism in western policy in the Middle East has its roots in colonialism and imperialism, and the notion that western civilization is somehow greater and superior than others, and that others cannot manage their own regional affairs without the beneficial assistance and guidance of the western powers, which feels compelled to share its greatness and nurture these less fortunate civilizations. Although we are now way past the colonial era, the political residue of these condescending, imperialist notions of intervention still have an unhealthy stranglehold on our lapdog politicians, who haven’t figured out how to break the cycle. You break the cycle when you recognize the underpinnings of the policy for what it is, and for what it is seen as by citizens throughout the Middle East on both sides.
The Kurds
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
^^^^^ Up 2. From what I got out of the article it was criticizing the Liberals, NDP and Green for doing or saying nothing.
That is because you never look at the big picture, only very narrowly at whether the article looks badly on the conservatives or the liberals, which is all that you seem to care about. That's really irrelevant to my criticism of the article because the writer uses all the usual code words that are used by those who do not understand why interventionist policy is wrong in the first place. It's actually coincidental that Trump happens to be the one who has correctly identified a US policy that makes no sense and has made no sense for 50 plus years; while Trump's reasons for altering the policy may not be the same ones I have put forth, they steer the US on a correct path.
^^^^^ Did you even read the headline? I am guessing you are putting lots into it that is not there.
Or, as the famous pastor Wright eloquently put it, "Chickens coming home to roost." Are you by any chance moonlighting as his speechwriter?
No, I actually read the article and the reasoning. Stop looking at issues as conservative vs. liberal point of view. They are both wrong. Read what the writer actually says and the presumptions that are made and assumed to be correct, which actually aren't correct. Nobody has betrayed the Kurds. "Betrayal" presumes some obligation to intervene for them. Such interventionism only stems from the notions I discussed in the 2 posts I made above which you can go back and read..
So I guess it is ok to intervene when cheap oil is at stake, but otherwise the US should mind its own business.
Bred you can be quite funny....sometimes...lol
Beav, just doesn`t get the big picture. It`s the US`s responsibility to defeat Isis since they helped create them by invading Iraq without a sound exit plan. So they used the Kurds who have lost 11,000 men and women to clean up the mess the US made in the region. Now by abandoning the Kurds before the job was finished , they have unleashed 10,000 Isis fighters many of whom will return to their home countries as terrorists .
Beav, just doesn`t get the big picture. It`s the US`s responsibility to defeat Isis since they helped create them by invading Iraq without a sound exit plan. So they used the Kurds who have lost 11,000 men and women to clean up the mess the US made in the region. Now by abandoning the Kurds before the job was finished , they have unleashed 10,000 Isis fighters many of whom will return to their home countries as terrorists .
Cloudsurf,
As I already said “defeating ISIS” does not solve the issue, it will just create some new group with a new name to take its place and on and on we go, as we have for 50 years. You are the one who doesn’t get it. The cycle has to be broken and it is broken by withdrawing intervention. You presume that a lasting “defeat” can be achieved, and that is where you and the naive, pandering politicians are wrong. History has proven you wrong already. Now it’s time to learn the lessons that should have been learned long ago, get out and stay out.
As I already said “defeating ISIS” does not solve the issue, it will just create some new group with a new name to take its place and on and on we go, as we have for 50 years. You are the one who doesn’t get it. The cycle has to be broken and it is broken by withdrawing intervention. You presume that a lasting “defeat” can be achieved, and that is where you and the naive, pandering politicians are wrong. History has proven you wrong already. Now it’s time to learn the lessons that should have been learned long ago, get out and stay out.
World War II is not a suitable comparison because the United States was militarily attacked by both Germany and Japan. Pearl Harbor was the last in a series of aggressions against US targets.
The Middle East is a different situation. It involves us only because we chose to get involved, and we chose to get involved due to a lingering legacy of imperialism towards countries perceived to be “unable to handle their own conflicts due to not being as advanced as the rest of western civilization.” What I am saying and have been saying is we have to stop perpetuating that reasoning. That’s why ISIS exists. ISIS (or it’s successor) will eventually be Russia and Putin’s problem. Let them deal with it and let them get financially and resource exhausted in the process, not us.
Don’t construe my posts in this matter as an endorsement of Trump. It’s the first time I have wholeheartedly agreed with his policy on an issue. He may have inadvertently stumbled into the correct approach, but it is the correct approach. Future US leaders must follow his lead on this issue.
The Middle East is a different situation. It involves us only because we chose to get involved, and we chose to get involved due to a lingering legacy of imperialism towards countries perceived to be “unable to handle their own conflicts due to not being as advanced as the rest of western civilization.” What I am saying and have been saying is we have to stop perpetuating that reasoning. That’s why ISIS exists. ISIS (or it’s successor) will eventually be Russia and Putin’s problem. Let them deal with it and let them get financially and resource exhausted in the process, not us.
Don’t construe my posts in this matter as an endorsement of Trump. It’s the first time I have wholeheartedly agreed with his policy on an issue. He may have inadvertently stumbled into the correct approach, but it is the correct approach. Future US leaders must follow his lead on this issue.
Let’s not kid anyone, the US will always be involved in the Middle East as soon as there is the slightest threat to the supply of cheap oil or Israel.
It looks like the Kurds are expendable.
It is always all about money and power.
It looks like the Kurds are expendable.
It is always all about money and power.
You are forgetting about the oil embargo of 1973, which proved that expensive oil wasn’t going to provoke a new war in response. The power dynamics in the Middle East have changed since then. Israel has become a much more powerful country capable of resisting armed incursions by military forces on its own, while the embargoed countries did more to diversify their energy investment. Probably Canada more than anyone but also the USA.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
That being said, the terrorist attacks on the Saudi oil fields could not be ignored. I believe US military went to Saudi Arabia at its request to assist with defensive measures, not offensive measures. Oil field security is a common interest we all share as US and your Canadian oil fields could also be potentially attacked if such attacks are not discouraged.
Israel is capable of defending itself, with the aid of the best military equipment that the US has to offer and the money pouring in from the US.
There is many ways to back a country it does not always need to be with military force.
So now it is terrorist attacks when it is an assault on Saudi Supply of cheap oil. funny I thought ISIS was a terrorist organization also , perhaps I was mistaken.
Funny how we can all share one thing but not another.
There is many ways to back a country it does not always need to be with military force.
So now it is terrorist attacks when it is an assault on Saudi Supply of cheap oil. funny I thought ISIS was a terrorist organization also , perhaps I was mistaken.
Funny how we can all share one thing but not another.
Your version of history is truly eye-opening. Are you saying that before "then" (the oil embargo of 1973) Israel was not capable of resisting armed incursions on its own? Like, for example, in 1948, 1967 and 1973 itself?
I think you misunderstood what I said. It was the cumulative effect of those 3 conflicts that sent a message and that as a result, the power dynamics changed. They further changed because Israel’s economy and specifically its tech industry has become even more powerful since.
In 1948, 1967 and 1973 the Arab countries had significantly more aid and military equipment from the USSR than Israel did from the USA. The 1967 Six Day war was primarily lost due to incompetent leadership of the Egyptian forces leading to the requested suicide of the leader of the armed forces who complied with the request under pain of execution. Do you think he was required to and did kill himself because the Egyptians believed they had lost the war due to the Israelis having better weapons or support? The Israelis had more competent leadership on the battlefield and both sides to the conflict recognized this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdel_Hakim_Amer
EB,
Yes the Israelis were far more competent in warfare and better trained, but get serious for a minute, they had far superior military equipment especially aircrafts and tanks which were the deciding factor.
You are not seriously trying to imply that Russian military equipment is on par with the technology of the US especially then and now I doubt that Russian technology would even rival that of what Israel can produce on their own.
Yes the Israelis were far more competent in warfare and better trained, but get serious for a minute, they had far superior military equipment especially aircrafts and tanks which were the deciding factor.
You are not seriously trying to imply that Russian military equipment is on par with the technology of the US especially then and now I doubt that Russian technology would even rival that of what Israel can produce on their own.
Similar threads
