Jump to content

To defeat terrorism, we must leave the Middle-East


Recommended Posts

There will always be chaos in the ME, but my opinion is that there would be less if we weren't. Look at how Western intervention in the ME over the last century+ has contributed to ever-worsening non-stop war. It's a mess! Also, if we didn't intervene in the ME, al-Qaeda would almost certainly not have made attacking the West their primary goal (what would be their reason?), they would have targeted "the near enemy" as ISIS is and al-Qaeda did before the 1991 Gulf War (US bases in S. Arabia, home of Mecca & Medina, deeply angered Bin Laden), the "near-enemy" being apostates regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq etc & of course Israel, & then those countries would be dealing with this terrorism crap instead of us. No ME intervention = no 9/11, no Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or ISIS wars, no Iranian Revolution etc.

Fact: ISIS didn't attack Canada until we attacked them. The Ottawa/Quebec terror attacks in Oct. 2014 came only 2 weeks after Parliament passed the vote to conduct airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq. THAT'S NO COINCIDENCE!

The primary goal of Islamist extremist groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS etc. is the creation of a worldwide Islamic caliphate adhering to strict Sunni Islamic fundamentalism (of their own interpretation) & to rid Muslim society in the ME of apostates & apostate influences (whether Muslim or foreign). In order to form/grow a Caliphate they must 1. control the ME and destroy and absorb its "apostate" governments who aren't radical Sunni fundamentalists of their stripe, and convert or kill (if they refuse) all people within these Muslim countries, 2. Rid the ME of powerful foreign influences that may interfere, and 3. grow the caliphate worldwide, & covert or kill everyone on earth.

To do this, ISIS focuses on the "near enemy", to create a caliphate state, expand it, & control most/all of the ME before going worldwide. Al-Qaeda's strategy differs, & focuses on the "far enemy", namely the US/West, to rid the ME of all foreign intervention & support of "apostate" ME states first to make it easier to then create/grow a caliphate in the ME. If we give al-Qaeda their goal of leaving the ME (no, not an appealing idea at first), they'll be forced to then fight the "near enemy", & I don't think they'll have much of a chance against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel etc. If radicals did eventually make huge gains & took down some strong regimes (unlikely), then that would be the time to intervene in the ME. Meanwhile, just let the other ME govs defeat them for us. By removing Saddam & Gaddafi (& support tossing Assad) & weakening their govs, we actually made it EASIER for ISIS/al-Qaeda to make a Caliphate. By lighting up the ME, we've made countless Muslims hate us and want to kill us and inspired them to radicalize. The best way to spread democracy is to be "a shining city upon a hill", an enticing example for the rest of the world to aspire to.

The money we might save by securing oil access in the ME we waste in blood & treasure trying to do so & then the ensuing blood/treasure fixing the multiplying damage it causes. If we speed up the inevitable and switch to renewable power sources, or even nuclear, we would have no reason to be in the ME anyways. Terror attacks/attempts against Canada/Westerners would drop dramatically. We'd save many, many trillions, enough to afford life without dependence on oil. Climate change, pollution, war, terrorism, debt...these problems would be massively improved for Canada/the West. We must also end our financial/military support for Israel. As much as i'd like a peaceful Israeli state, it's not our fight, we need to be a neutral 3rd party and peace negotiator in that conflict. It costs us how much money & blood in return for next to no help in fighting ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc.? The war on terror is an endless war. Kill 1 bastard and 3 pop up. Let's secure our own borders as best we can, try to help those in need with humanitarian relief, and GTFO!

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.... Also, if we didn't intervene in the ME, al-Qaeda would almost certainly not have made attacking the West their primary goal (what would be their reason?), they would have targeted "the near enemy" as ISIS is and al-Qaeda did before the 1991 Gulf War (US bases in S. Arabia, home of Mecca & Medina, deeply angered Bin Laden) apostates regimes like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq etc & of course Israel, then those countries would be dealing with this terrorism crap instead of us. No ME intervention = no 9/11, no Afghanistan or Iraq or Yemen or ISIS wars, no Iranian Revolution etc.

False assumptions and conclusions. Iraq and Afghanistan were engaged long before and irrespective of Al Qaeda for geopolitical reasons that will not just go away by hiding in Canada. These identical reasons preclude any realistic expectation of "GTFO!".

If Canada chooses a different foreign policy based on nation state interests that's fine, but don't expect allies and other nations to do the same.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

False assumptions and conclusions. Iraq and Afghanistan were engaged long before and irrespective of Al Qaeda for geopolitical reasons that will not just go away by hiding in Canada. These identical reasons preclude any realistic expectation of "GTFO!".

I normally ignore you, but since it's my thread and a good discussion i'll make an exception this once.

If the West completely disengaged from the ME in the 80's, would there have been an Iraq War in 2003? What about a 1991 Gulf War? Would al-Qaeda have bothered attacking the US or any other Western nation? In 1991, more likely there would have been a regional fight between ME powers over Kuwait, and if Saddam caused problems later, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel etc. would have taken care of it. Bin Laden would have continued to attack Saudi Arabia and other "apostate" regimes.

Heck, we don't even have to switch to renewable sources of energy or nuclear, just trade oil with the ME. They wouldn't have a problem selling to us if we're not their enemies. Letting countries nationalize their oil is far less harmful to Western national interests than spending trillions going to war over it...for half a century.

If Canada chooses a different foreign policy based on nation state interests that's fine, but don't expect allies and other nations to do the same.

Canada's interests in the ME are almost identical to all other Western nations. In fact, the US and Canada have far less reason to worry about the ME than any other Western nations because of our geographical location. Greece and Italy would have the most to worry about. But if any ME nation or ISIS group attacked them on their sovereign soil they would be repelled easily, with the might of NATO if need be. Islamists will never hate another country for repelling an attack of theirs on their own soil near as much as when another country continuously bombs and occupies their holy lands, assassinates their leaders, installs puppet regimes, and steals their resources.

US/Canada/Western foreign policy in the ME has been an epic disaster, except for Israel of course. US foreign policy has largely been a disaster for US interests (and the world) since its interventionist policies began after WWII. How many Americans died in Vietnam and Iraq again fighting hypothetical threats?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we left Hitler alone , he would have been ok. I guess we better apologize also while we are at it. And no one knows whay would have happened if the communists were given a free hand in asia. These people are slaughtering everyone in the way ,in ways that we have never seem before. How people can look the other way and then say we are Canadian, that is not the Canadian way.

Edited by PIK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I normally ignore you, but since it's my thread and a good discussion i'll make an exception this once.

They always come crawling back to me...sooner or later...likes moths to a flame.

If the West completely disengaged from the ME in the 80's, would there have been an Iraq War in 2003? What about a 1991 Gulf War? Would al-Qaeda have bothered attacking the US or any other Western nation? In 1991, more likely there would have been a regional fight between ME powers over Kuwait, and if Saddam caused problems later, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel etc. would have taken care of it. Bin Laden would have continued to attack Saudi Arabia and other "apostate" regimes.

Yes...because Kuwait was allied with powerful nations with very strong interests in the region, irrespective of Canada and even the UN. The Iran-Iraq war was allowed to rage on and the region was not better settled because of it.

Heck, we don't even have to switch to renewable sources of energy or nuclear, just trade oil with the ME. They wouldn't have a problem selling to us if we're not their enemies. Letting countries nationalize their oil is far less harmful to Western national interests than spending trillions going to war over it...for half a century.

It's not just about ME oil for western interests, but ME oil for a global market as other economies ramped up demand. Their proven reserves of sweet crude will not be ignored for alternatives like green energy. Dick Cheney explained this all years ago...paraphrasing....."we can have access to ME oil with terrorism, or we can have no access to ME oil with terrorism." PMs Howard and Blair agreed. PM Chretien did not, so he was ignored.

Canada's interests in the ME are almost identical to all other Western nations. In fact, the US and Canada have far less reason to worry about the ME than any other Western nations because of our geographical location. Greece and Italy would have the most to worry about. But if any ME nation or ISIS group attacked them on their sovereign soil they would be repelled easily, with the might of NATO if need be. Islamists will never hate another country for repelling an attack of theirs on their own soil near as much as when another country continuously bombs and occupies their holy lands, assassinates their leaders, installs puppet regimes, and steals their resources.

Canada has very little nation state interest in the ME, has no great influence in the region, and lacks the military or economic resources to be a major player anyway. This is not true of the U.S., U.K. or France. And again, ME oil is a global resource with global impact far beyond the U.S. or Canada. Canada's main economic interest in the region was/is oil services and huge civil construction contracts....that's why PM Martin was in Gadaffi's tent.

US/Canada/Western foreign policy in the ME has been an epic disaster, except for Israel of course. US foreign policy has largely been a disaster for US interests (and the world) since its interventionist policies began after WWII. How many Americans died in Vietnam and Iraq again fighting hypothetical threats?

As many as necessary. If Israel has benefited, then there is some margin of success. Canadians like to book-end American foreign policy interventions "mistakes" at WWII for obvious reasons, ignoring the prior 100 years. God Save The Queen and her "empire", right ?

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we left Hitler alone , he would have been ok. I guess we better apologize also while we are at it. And no one knows whay would have happened if the communists were given a free hand in asia. These people are slaughtering everyone in the way ,in ways that we have never seem before. How people can look the other way and then say we are Canadian, that is not the Canadian way.

First of all, every situation is different depending on context. Fascism is not Communism nor radical Islamism, each are different threats in different areas of the world threatening different things, countries, interests etc. etc. And every Communist threat is not the same as the other. Context! I'm not saying we should be completely isolationist or pacifist. I'm talking about the middle-east and our foreign policy there. And i'm not saying we won't fight radical Islamism, because we need to fight it hard within our borders.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, every situation is different depending on context. Fascism is not Communism nor radical Islamism, each are different threats in different areas of the world threatening different things, countries, interests etc. etc. And every Communist threat is not the same as the other. Context! I'm not saying we should be completely isolationist or pacifist. I'm talking about the middle-east and our foreign policy there. And i'm not saying we won't fight radical Islamism, because we need to fight it hard within our borders.

Again, that is all well and good. Canada can go its own way, but being a nation with long established collective security interests, that is not very likely. Other nations will make their choices as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They always come crawling back to me...sooner or later...likes moths to a flame.

:lol:

Yes...because Kuwait was allied with powerful nations with very strong interests in the region, irrespective of Canada and even the UN. The Iran-Iraq war was allowed to rage on and the region was not better settled because of it.

The only interests with Kuwait were oil. The difference between Kuwait and Rwanda or Mali, in our government's eyes, is oil.

It's not just about ME oil for western interests, but ME oil for a global market as other economies ramped up demand. Their proven reserves of sweet crude will not be ignored for alternatives like green energy. Dick Cheney explained this all years ago...paraphrasing....."we can have access to ME oil with terrorism, or we can have no access to ME oil with terrorism." PMs Howard and Blair agreed. PM Chretien did not, so he was ignored.

Chretien has been proven right. Again, why would the West (or anyone else) not have access to oil if we had no presence in the ME? This isn't the Cold War anymore. If China wants to take over our place in the ME I don't give a hoot, good riddance to that hell-hole.

Canada has very little nation state interest in the ME...

Per capita, "Canada's interests in the ME are almost identical to all other Western nations".

[Canada] has no great influence in the region, and lacks the military or economic resources to be a major player anyway. This is not true of the U.S., U.K. or France.

Never stated otherwise. The West needs to leave, NATO nations need to leave, not just Canada. But if only Canada leaves, it will still greatly benefit Canada. Let other nations waste blood/treasure and become targets of radical fury.

As many as necessary.

Necessary for what? You're just being stubborn and learn nothing from history. In any successful policy of virtually any kind, the benefits must outweigh the costs.

If Israel has benefited, then there is some margin of success.

At what cost? Compared to what are the benefits?

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only interests with Kuwait were oil. The difference between Kuwait and Rwanda or Mali, in our government's eyes, is oil.

Oil matters...oil matters a lot. Make no mistake about that. Oil is worth dying for.

Chretien has been proven right. Again, why would the West (or anyone else) not have access to oil if we had no presence in the ME? This isn't the Cold War anymore. If China wants to take over our place in the ME I don't give a hoot, good riddance to that hell-hole.

You still don't understand....world oil demand is about 80,000,000 bpd. Mideast oil is part of the global supply.

Chretien, like Canada, was proven to be irrelevant.

Per capita, "Canada's interests in the ME are almost identical to all other Western nations".

Not sure what that means. Canada doesn't have the resources to project significant power in the region anyway. Calculus for the region would not change if Canada were to completely disengage at all levels.

Never stated otherwise. The West needs to leave, NATO nations need to leave, not just Canada. But if only Canada leaves, it will still greatly benefit Canada. Let other nations waste blood/treasure and become targets of radical fury.

Not going to happen. One cannot successfully project a pacifist Canadian perspective on Western and global interests. The Cold War wasn't won by leaving Europe.

Necessary for what? You're just being stubborn and learn nothing from history. In any successful policy of virtually any kind, the benefits must outweigh the costs.

At what cost? Compared to what are the benefits?

No, it is you who ignores history. JFK already answered your question in 1961:

....Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/JFK-Quotations/Inaugural-Address.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why countries from outside the ME region have acted there matters far less than how they've acted - which has been nearly universally very-badly and against all civilized norms expected back home.

Back home has nothing to do with it. Hell, the 'merkins fought a civil war...back home !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bush_cheney2004, on 17 Sept 2015 - 3:42 PM, said:

Back home has nothing to do with it. Hell, the 'merkins fought a civil war...back home !

All on your own without any outside interference. Of course ya'll likely would of been on the same side just as soon as at each other's throats if there was.

Home you see, has everything to do with it.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All on your own without any outside interference. Of course ya'll likely would of been on the same side just as soon as at each other's throats if there was.

Home you see, has everything to do with it.

That's not true at all...there was "outside interference", including Canadians. Why couldn't they just ignore it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics, power and wealth would be my guess. But again, why is not as important as how these interests are pursued, especially between people who hate each other's guts and are trying to kill each other. Be a real dick and really stupid about it and you can expect a lot of that to blow right back in your face. Be more careful and principled and you should come out everyone's friend.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politics, power and wealth would be my guess. But again, why is not as important as how these interests are pursued, especially between people who hate each other's guts and are trying to kill each other. Be a real dick and really stupid about it and you can expect a lot of that to blow right back in your face. Be more careful and principled and you should come out everyone's friend.

Who the hell wants to be everybody's friend ? Competition is about conflict...winners...and losers.

Just ask your First Nations.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil matters...oil matters a lot. Make no mistake about that. Oil is worth dying for.

You still don't understand....world oil demand is about 80,000,000 bpd. Mideast oil is part of the global supply.

Oil does matter a lot. But I don't see a lack of oil anywhere, do you? I don't see why oil supply would suddenly contract significantly if at all if the West left the ME. Maybe it would even expand!

Not sure what that means. Canada doesn't have the resources to project significant power in the region anyway. Calculus for the region would not change if Canada were to completely disengage at all levels.

My point is Canada and the West should leave, not just Canada.

Not going to happen. One cannot successfully project a pacifist Canadian perspective on Western and global interests. The Cold War wasn't won by leaving Europe.

I don't understand this point.

No, it is you who ignores history. JFK already answered your question in 1961:

....Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Just words. How is military intervention in the ME assuring liberty? Freedom to waste trillions & bury our young? Looks like an Islamist hell-hole to me. Here's a quote from a far wiser man (hint: he wrote the Declaration of Independence), also lived twice as long as JFK!:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

And guess what...they were both wrong! See my signature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good post MG

Personally, I do not think oil is the only motivation for this foreign policy. But the interference of the West especially the Brits and the Americans will always haunt us back with the tragic legacies of wars and hostilities they have left behind in that region.

The Brits use the 'religion' as the tool to divide and conquer. They thrive on this policy and the more hostlity there is between vaious factions creating chaos the better it is. It serves he lucrative arms deal market to that region by the West. And I am afraid the apetite for this viscious cycle trend is taking us further and further into a quagmire...

Alternative sources of energy, the frackings that has been going on in the US does not provide any justification for this interference.

Edited by kactus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oil does matter a lot. But I don't see a lack of oil anywhere, do you? I don't see why oil supply would suddenly contract significantly if at all if the West left the ME. Maybe it would even expand!

Production capacity does not expand by chance. Saddam's oil production infrastructure was damaged and obsolete.

oil-production-iraq_energy_insights_net.

My point is Canada and the West should leave, not just Canada.

Understood, but that isn't going to happen for lots of reasons that you can't just wish away from Canada. And even if "the West" left the region, there is no assurance that terrorism would stop. Canada's request for a new "ethical" bitumen pipeline into the U.S. was rejected.

Just words. How is military intervention in the ME assuring liberty? Freedom to waste trillions & bury our young? Looks like an Islamist hell-hole to me. Here's a quote from a far wiser man (hint: he wrote the Declaration of Independence), also lived twice as long as JFK!:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

Just words....his nation was not born peacefully...and it sure didn't become a superpower that way either. If Canada wants to take all its marbles and go home, do it. Talk is cheap.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just words....his nation was not born peacefully...and it sure didn't become a superpower that way either. If Canada wants to take all its marbles and go home, do it. Talk is cheap.

I'm not advocating a pan-pacifist/isolationist policy around the world. But America was not born out of going over to the British mainland in Europe and attacking it there, it defended its own borders it claimed as sovereign and expelled the enemy. US became a superpower by staying out of conflicts as much as it could, where the costs outweighed the benefits. That should be virtually every country's foreign policy.

The US and NATO didn't defeat Communism with bombs & intervention, Communism defeated itself. Even China and Vietnam have figured it out. And your quotable JFK's and his VP Lyndon B.'s interventionist foreign policy was largely a disaster. The Cuban Missile Crisis was caused by JFK, and we all know how Vietnam turned out. USA 1776 to 1945 had their foreign policy figured out much better than they have since.

Edited by Moonlight Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...