To defeat terrorism, we must leave the Middle-East

[Moonlight Graham]

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...

Not just the Brits, many countries in the West and around the world. When Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other, it benefits Israel too. Unfortuantely. it's bad for oil production. Though far from perfect, the most stable countries in the middle-east (S.Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, UAE, Iran, pre-war Iraq/Syria/Libya, Israel, Pakistan etc.) are the least problematic to us compared to the countries in civil war (Afghanistan, Yemen, postIraq, Syria, Libya etc). And yes, our arms trading economy in the region is making us far less secure and we have to spend ridiculous amounts of public money to please that lobby, it's not in the West's national interest.

[PrimeNumber]

Sadly. Probably not. It's been around for centuries. According to the extremists they are following Islam as its written. So is Islam in and of itself extreme? I don't know. Sometimes it seems like it is.

All major religions have extremism. You'll never destroy these religions unless the entire human population suddenly has an epiphany and turns to atheism. Even then someone is bound to be born that grows up finding one of these religions and attempting to spread it.

Edited September 18, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[Rue]

Moonlight you beat that dead horse but It won't get up. The boogy man is real and he won't go away no matter where you hide or no matter how much you try close your eyes and block your ears. Boo.

[Moonlight Graham]

Moonlight you beat that dead horse but It won't get up. The boogy man is real and he won't go away no matter where you hide or no matter how much you try close your eyes and block your ears. Boo.

Any Westerner (besides a Zionist Jewish person like yourself, so you have a vested interest that the vast majority of Westerners don't) that supports this perpetual military intervention in the Middle-East is betting on a losing horse. We keep throwing money/blood at this loser of a horse and it keeps losing and losing. The Middle-East will defeat its own boogie men.

[Moonlight Graham]

Forty days and forty nights
Learn to swim, you'll be alright
Pull the pin, and see the light, yeah
We're all shallow's low

Down the dawn treader
All lies the love letters
Know the maiden always
We're all shallow's low

[Argus]

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?

Nope. Most likely the ME Soviet client states would have grown and the Soviets would have controlled Middle East oil, then begun using it to blackmail the West. Your scenario is silly and naive. If the "west" abandons the ME the Russians and Chinese will simply take our place and all the local states will become their client states. And they are considerably more ruthless than we are.

[Moonlight Graham]

Nope. Most likely the ME Soviet client states would have grown and the Soviets would have controlled Middle East oil, then begun using it to blackmail the West.

Which states, exactly? All those communist countries in the middle-east huh? Maybe you're talking about Afghanistan, that went well for the Soviets didn't it? Maybe if we let the Soviets invade Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq too we would have won the Cold War even sooner. We didn't have to give a dime to Pakistan to fund the mujahadeen in the 80's, that place is a black hole that has defeated the greatest armies in the history of mankind for thousands of years. The Muslim middle-east would not have accepted foreign domination by foreign invaders or foreign puppet governments. Do you not understand why there was a mujahadeed in the first place? Do you not understand why we lost in Iraq, and why Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan are a giant mess, and why jihadists have been blowing up the West increasingly over the decades? Do you not know why there was a 9/11? Have you not learned that by now?? History, man!

Your scenario is silly and naive. If the "west" abandons the ME the Russians and Chinese will simply take our place and all the local states will become their client states. And they are considerably more ruthless than we are.

Let them have that black hole. If the richest and most powerful countries in the world can't control it, they can't either, I guarantee you that. As long as we keep trading with China and stay out of their local business everything will be good my friend. Oil will flow, trade will prosper, our sons & daughters won't come back in flag-draped boxes, our debt will be far less, we'll be happy, and most everyone else will be happier too (oh, except Israel & the arms industry).

Speak softly...AND CARRY A BIG STIIIIIIIICK!!!!!!

Edited September 18, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[eyeball]

Nope. Most likely the ME Soviet client states would have grown and the Soviets would have controlled Middle East oil, then begun using it to blackmail the West. Your scenario is silly and naive. If the "west" abandons the ME the Russians and Chinese will simply take our place and all the local states will become their client states. And they are considerably more ruthless than we are.

Your right-wing conservative fear of commies is every bit as irrational and overblown as your fear of Muslims. Both fears are as phony as three dollar bills and serve the same disingenuous purpose. Always have and always will.

Baaaa.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Let them have that black hole. If the richest and most powerful countries in the world can't control it, they can't either, I guarantee you that. As long as we keep trading with China and stay out of their local business everything will be good my friend. Oil will flow, trade will prosper, our sons & daughters won't come back in flag-draped boxes, our debt will be far less, we'll be happy, and most everyone else will be happier too (oh, except Israel & the arms industry).

Why would Canada be unhappy ? Has Canada spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Middle East ? Last I checked, Canada was making billions of dollars in the ME for oil services contracts, mining, engineering, financial services, etc.

"Canada Go Home" if it is so "unhappy".

[Moonlight Graham]

Why would Canada be unhappy ? Has Canada spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the Middle East ? Last I checked, Canada was making billions of dollars in the ME for oil services contracts, mining, engineering, financial services, etc.

"Canada Go Home" if it is so "unhappy".

From the Globe and Mail:

Canada paid a heavy price for its Afghan mission. One hundred and fifty-eight soldiers, two civilians, a diplomat and a journalist were killed. More than 1,800 Canadians were wounded. The war cost Ottawa at least $18-billion – and much more if the cost of caring for veterans and their families is included. Was so much Canadian blood spilled and billions spent worth it, when Afghanistan’s future remains so uncertain?

The money in contracts isn't worth the price to secure them. Cost vs benefits. It's not worth it for the US or any other nation either, looking simply at the economics, national security, and casualties. Not to mention the moral & legal implications of killing hundreds of thousands if not millions and eroding their rights to self-determination and sovereignty. We tried your neocon thing, it doesn't work, doesn't spread democracy, doesn't make the US stronger or richer or safer. Western countries act like King George vs the 13 colonies to the ME (and others). Supporters of the continued ME intervention also hate freedom...of other peoples. Does this part of the US Declaration of Independence sound much like something that could be written by Iran in 1979, or Islamists like ISIS & al-Qaeda now?

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain Western governments and its installed ME puppet leaders is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

[bush_cheney2004]

.....The money in contracts isn't worth the price to secure them. Cost vs benefits. It's not worth it for the US or any other nation either, looking simply at the economics, national security, and casualties. Not to mention the moral & legal implications of killing hundreds of thousands if not millions and eroding their rights to self-determination and sovereignty. We tried your neocon thing, it doesn't work, doesn't spread democracy, doesn't make the US stronger or richer or safer. Western countries act like King George vs the 13 colonies to the ME (and others). Supporters of the continued ME intervention also hate freedom...of other peoples. Does this part of the US Declaration of Independence sound much like something that could be written by Iran in 1979, or Islamists like ISIS & al-Qaeda now?

No...the Americans were fighting you guys...not Islamic terrorists.

Not really your call...for Canada...and certainly not for other nations with democratic processes that elects leadership and makes such decisions.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East anyway....so what has Canada got to sob about with so little invested there ?

Is worrying so much about what the U.S.A. does just par for the course ?

Edited September 18, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

No. To defeat terrorism, you should arrest Muslim children in Texas.

Texas, loves guns, hates clocks.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not really your call...for Canada...and certainly not for other nations with democratic processes that elects leadership and makes such decisions.

My dad is Stephen Harper, i'll be PM some day soon!

Is worrying so much about what the U.S.A. does just par for the course ?

At the end of the day, the US can shoot itself in the foot if it wants..with or without your support Canada will do whatever they want too, nobody can stop them, and we'll be all the better for it. Doesn't matter, nobody in this thread has yet to show how the benefits for any NATO country (besides the few that border the region) staying in the ME are even near the benefits of leaving. Arguing that Canada has little power in the region of that NATO countries will do what it wants has nothing to do with whether my argument is wrong or not.

[GostHacked]

Leaving the Middle East won't defeat terrorism.

Over 20 year later and the West cannot defeat terrorism.

[Argus]

Which states, exactly?

Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq were all very close to the Soviets, and armed by them with Soviet military advisors helping, as was one of the then two Yemens.

Let them have that black hole. If the richest and most powerful countries in the world can't control it, they can't either,

We don't need to 'control' it. All the West has ever sought there was stability to ensure the West's oil supplies kept flowing. And it has generally been quite succesful at that. The Russians and Chinese, having far fewer scruples, would manage it even better, except they would ensure the oil flowed to them first.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....At the end of the day, the US can shoot itself in the foot if it wants..with or without your support Canada will do whatever they want too, nobody can stop them, and we'll be all the better for it. Doesn't matter, nobody in this thread has yet to show how the benefits for any NATO country (besides the few that border the region) staying in the ME are even near the benefits of leaving. Arguing that Canada has little power in the region of that NATO countries will do what it wants has nothing to do with whether my argument is wrong or not.

U.S. foreign policy benefits have already been enumerated, irrespective of NATO or Canada. Nothing I have stated precludes Canada from taking all its marbles and going home. Buh-bye.....

Your argument is neither right or wrong...it is irrelevant. Even peacemonger Jimmy Carter promised to open up a can of whup-ass in the region to support military and economic allies (Carter Doctrine translation = Israel and Oil).

Edited September 19, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[kactus]

U.S. foreign policy benefits have already been enumerated, irrespective of NATO or Canada. Nothing I have stated precludes Canada from taking all its marbles and going home. Buh-bye.....

Your argument is neither right or wrong...it is irrelevant. Even peacemonger Jimmy Carter promised to open up a can of whup-ass in the region to support military and economic allies (Carter Doctrine translation = Israel and Oil).

Uhumm! And we see what that policy got carter into....

An eight year Iran / iraq war ensued after his visit to Iran in 1977 and being a host to then an ally of (Shah)

Edited September 19, 2015 by kactus

[kactus]

Uhumm! And we see what that policy got carter into....

An eight year Iran / iraq war ensued After his visit to Iran in 1977 and being a host to Shah an ally of US

[bush_cheney2004]

Uhumm! And we see what that policy got carter into....

An eight year Iran / iraq war ensued After his visit to Iran in 1977 and being a host to Shah an ally of US

The U.S. was allied with Iran until the Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis. Accordingly, the U.S. backed Iraq against Iran in pursuit of foreign policy interests in the region. Terrorism was already in progress.

[eyeball]

The US was allied with the Shah and the US backed Hussein - ordinary Iranians and Iraqis not so much.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US was allied with the Shah and the US backed Hussein - ordinary Iranians and Iraqis not so much.

Nonsense....there are many more Iranian and Iraqi emigres in the U.S. than in "old stock" Canada.

[Rue]

First off Moonlight amazing how that tolerant liberal swag of yours just went poof. You remind me of the Wizard exposed when the curtain got moved back. Ooopsy dag nab that Toro who of course was a Jewish Zionist you say.

Now using your label, if I am a Jewish Zionist and therefore am slurred with the stereotype that I want continuous war in the ME as you have posted then this must mean someone who agrees with your policy of isiolationism mut be a Muslim, anti Israeli and want the ME conquered by Muslim extremism. Hey now, see how that works? Your labels are fun fun fun.

Now speaking for this Jewish Zionist, your stereotype of my position is a crock and it spar for the course but its good its out because you demonstrate mycontention, that beneath you liberal knee jerkists (stereotype right back at you) are as intolerant as anyone you criticize and are just as free and loose with your negative assumptions.

By the way I never have stated I want constant military intervention in the ME. That's your false inference baed on your stereotype of aa Jew Zionist. I have in fact repeatedly stated that I believe in strategic, limited, elite, anti-terrorist attacks that strike at the heart of terrorism and NOT conventional military intervention is the best solution. Your stereotype is a crock. I have consistently argued conventional war does not work on terrorism.

Your denial you are an isolationist is also a crock. It is exactly what your position is by saying hands off the ME. You blame all its problems on the West and lol Zionist Jews right? Its all our fault hmmmm? Not a problem in the ME until Zionist Jews or before them colonialists showed up-that is your thesis. You've repeated it until doomsday only its patently absurd.

Muslim on Muslim terrorism has existed as long as the religion has existed and pre-existed formal Islam. Trying to revise history to make it appear the ME was nirvana until some damn albinos and then some Jews showed up is a crock.

We Jews come from the ME and have always lived there and have always been subject to Christian and Muslim attacks. Its nothing new for us. In your world we just suddenly appeared and cause problems. This is why I consider your comments a joke.

You are woefully ignorant of Jewish history and the Hebrew people who pre-existed the very people engaging in terrorism you blame us for. You know nothing of our history and do not care to. Your world starts in your lifetime and is selected based on your subjective biases and ignorance of ME history. Pssst there's an Old Testament in the Bible. There's a history long before Muslims and Christians. The history of the ME is not the artificial snap shot in time you pose it as in your words.

You are as wrong as it gets about ME history. Terrorism has always been a fact. It won't ever end. At best as I have argued time and time again it can be contained. It won't end until the Muslim world denounces terror as a means to express political opinion. Islamic society across the world is not close to that realization. They are still in an era where the majority of their people are illiterate and depend on mullahs to tell them how to think. Those mullahs are all decentralized with the majority practicing a rigid fundamentalist totalitarian take on life similar to where Christianity was 500 years ago and Jews 2,000 years ago. That Sir is a fact and your snap shot and wishful denial of terrorism by ignoring it won't make it go away.

The world is connected today by internet and cell. The days of hiding from terrorists are over. They live next door to you and they are waiting to blow you up real good. But hey not to worry, after the kaboom you can suddenly wake up and ask for more police protection. It usually takes a crisis in your back yard to do that. Until then its just something you think you can isolate at arm's length.

Boo. Its in a neighbourhood right next to you. Welcome to Canada. Welcome.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Rue

[kactus]

The U.S. was allied with Iran until the Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis. Accordingly, the U.S. backed Iraq against Iran in pursuit of foreign policy interests in the region. Terrorism was already in progress.

Care to elaborate what foreign policy US was pursuing back then?

[bush_cheney2004]

Care to elaborate what foreign policy US was pursuing back then?

See "Carter Doctrine".

[Moonlight Graham]

Your argument is neither right or wrong...it is irrelevant.

Arguments that are correct are always relevant.