4 ms·

I think it's clear now, that the time for intervention has long since passed, and given our track record we're unlikely to improve the situation. The problem is

by M_Grey 10y ago

I think it's clear now, that the time for intervention has long since passed, and given our track record we're unlikely to improve the situation. The problem isn't increased interventionism, it's that we've already intervened by arming and funding people. Far more importantly though, we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded for decades now. We shouldn't make the mistake of intervening in their civil war, but we should take a long hard look at ourselves and plan for the blowback.

frozenport 10y ago
>>we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded This isn't quite true. Iran goaded the US into invading Iraq, perhaps supplying the fake evidence used to link Saddam Hussein to WMDs. This was at least Hussein's opinion, and why he did not take US threats immediately leading up to the war seriously. Saddam's successor, Chalabi, was an Iranian agent [[1]. Bashar Al-Assad aggressively sponsored terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. In the early days, most fighters from Iraq were from Syria, or came through Syria. It was not without irony that the conflict later spilled over into his country. The leaders of the Middle East are not without fault, they clumsily used the West's domestic insecurities (and Russia's) for their own military gain. In Syria they unleashed forces they could no longer control. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26-bahrain-conflict.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26...
- anticodon 10y ago
  Oh, now it's Iran that is responsible for Iraq war. How convenient. Maybe US should start bombing Iran now, too? I'm really afraid at how easily it has become to find any pretext to bomb and destroy any country by the US. All of course in the name of "democracy and freedom". It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. And as it was reported here several weeks ago, sometimes pretext is not even necessary. Just send a bomb or rocket any time - it's a thirld world country, no one care about people living in those countries.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    > It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. The Iraqi Kurds generally seem pretty happy about not being murdered anymore. (Just saying there's two sides to every story. Giving peace a chance only works if the other party is willing to as well - sometimes they just take the opportunity to invade Poland)
- finid 10y ago
  Wow! Just wow! Everything you stated belongs in the "alternative fact" category.
  - frozenport 10y ago
    Why? For example, on Wikipedia you can see In January 2012, a French intelligence official stated that they believed Chalabi to be an Iranian agent.[8] There is nothing alternative about saying that Iran and Syria persued aggressive anti-us policy at the expense of the Iraqi and later Syrian people.
    - finid 10y ago
      Syria pursued "anti-us policy" at the expense of Syrian people? I think this world is upside down.

by M_Grey 10y ago

frozenport 10y ago

>>we're the prime architects of how life in the Middle East has proceeded This isn't quite true. Iran goaded the US into invading Iraq, perhaps supplying the fake evidence used to link Saddam Hussein to WMDs. This was at least Hussein's opinion, and why he did not take US threats immediately leading up to the war seriously. Saddam's successor, Chalabi, was an Iranian agent [[1]. Bashar Al-Assad aggressively sponsored terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq. In the early days, most fighters from Iraq were from Syria, or came through Syria. It was not without irony that the conflict later spilled over into his country. The leaders of the Middle East are not without fault, they clumsily used the West's domestic insecurities (and Russia's) for their own military gain. In Syria they unleashed forces they could no longer control. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26-bahrain-conflict.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/world/middleeast/26iht-m26...

anticodon 10y ago
Oh, now it's Iran that is responsible for Iraq war. How convenient. Maybe US should start bombing Iran now, too? I'm really afraid at how easily it has become to find any pretext to bomb and destroy any country by the US. All of course in the name of "democracy and freedom". It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. And as it was reported here several weeks ago, sometimes pretext is not even necessary. Just send a bomb or rocket any time - it's a thirld world country, no one care about people living in those countries.
- ethbro 10y ago
  > It's a pity that whole generations of people living in destroyed countries are either dead or have no democracy and freedom at all. The Iraqi Kurds generally seem pretty happy about not being murdered anymore. (Just saying there's two sides to every story. Giving peace a chance only works if the other party is willing to as well - sometimes they just take the opportunity to invade Poland)
finid 10y ago
Wow! Just wow! Everything you stated belongs in the "alternative fact" category.
- frozenport 10y ago
  Why? For example, on Wikipedia you can see In January 2012, a French intelligence official stated that they believed Chalabi to be an Iranian agent.[8] There is nothing alternative about saying that Iran and Syria persued aggressive anti-us policy at the expense of the Iraqi and later Syrian people.
  - finid 10y ago
    Syria pursued "anti-us policy" at the expense of Syrian people? I think this world is upside down.