How Does the American Presence in the Middle East Benefit Americans?

[Mr. Peepers]

The MIC makes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ask Cheney.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

It would be a double standard if in the course of the US presence the killing of civilians was an intentional act and the plan was solely to kill those civilians.

You mean like what we did to the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have yet to prove your point.

Actually I have. That your standard of proof is so high that it's nonexistent has nothing to do with me. Any reasonable person can see that I've provided ample proof to support my position, regardless of whether you agree with that position or not.

My "standard of proof" is equal to the gravity of your accusation. There is nothing unreasonable about my request. You have simply failed to meet your burden.

You're asking me to provide something that doesn't exist. That's a perfect example of unreasonableness. I have, however, gone over and above any actual burden that fell on me in an attempt to support my position by citing several prominent and respected sources on the subject.

 

[Truthseeker420]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Um....to kill the bad guys?

George Bush is in the Middle East?

 

[georgephillip]

I can't think of one single reason for the US government to be involved in the Middle East.

Why do we have troops over there?

Can anyone tell me?

Wow, what a great thread.

It's not our land. It's not our sand. We don't have the right to occupy and blow the living shit out of other sovereign countries to advance our agenda, which can (and does) change at any given time. We don't have the right to kill innocent civilians just because we're going after "the bad guys".

To those who defend this madness: What would you do if another country decided that it had the "right" to do the above, here in America? You'd hate them, wouldn't you? You'd defend your country, your land, your property, your family, wouldn't you? Your hatred for these invaders would grow by the minute, would it not? Would you like to deny any of this?

We pretend we own the fucking planet -- evidently because we're "exceptional" -- and then we're shocked when we learn that people hate us more and more because of it. They're told when they're young that we're "evil", and then we prove it to them when our tanks roll down their streets, when their friends and families are killed by our bombs. Holy crap. That's willful blindness.

Nothing "exceptional" about that.

.

You're absolutely correct. However, this problem began over a half century ago with our commitment to Israel and the lure of $2 a barrel oil. Stepping back from our commitments to Israel would be a huge political problem for both the Democrats and the Republicans probably even a greater problem than our dependence on Arab oil. Islamic terrorism is now feeding on our presence in these countries and provides another reason for even more interference in the region.

The oil problem can solve itself. America has the capacity to become energy independent through increased production and alternative energy sources. OPEC does not have near the control over oil prices as they once did. We can solve the oil problem if we are forced to do so.


Israel is a much greater problem. Our current course is to establishing governments friendly to the US in the region which would give us an opportunity to step back from our commitments to Israel. I don't think this is going to work because those governments are not going to have the support of the people.

I see the only solution is to back off from our commitments to Israel. If we don't, we're going find ourselves in an even deeper hole.

We seem to have inherited our commitments to Israel from the British at the end of WWII.
A generation before that, His Majesty saw fit to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine at the same time His Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets.

The first British military governor of Jerusalem said it pretty clearly ninety years ago:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,” he said, “a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Storr's Irish analogy was no accident.

In 1609 another British King removed two large Catholic clans from the north of Ireland, replacing them with 20,000 Protestant settler-colonialists from Scotland and Wales. In 1969 the bombs were still going off in Belfast, and I don't think we have that much time left in Bethlehem, Baghdad, or Boston for that matter.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF