CDZ Let's Take Over Syria!

[oldsoul]

What does islam have to do with the leap you are making? You are not making any sense.

YES! Because Islam has NOTHING to do with the ME. By God, you are a fuckin GENIUS!

I said:

So your saying that from birth, they want to die for their parent's religion? They are taught to not want options, noone is born that way

To which you said:

So you going to go rip their kids from them? Your exceptionalism is blinding the reality..

This is getting exhausting. You can't even follow your own logic.

What? Their ISLAMIC parents are NOT going to let you indoctrinate their kids with "open minds"!
Jesus Christ. This is like arguing economics with a fuckin socialist.

For the hard core fundamentalist, you are correct. Why do you assume they are all fundamentalists?

I thought Islam didn't have anything to do with it? LMAO Good day sir

You keep going around in circles, you can't even keep up.

 

[wrathbone]

Yeah, they're fucked up! How does one educate a group of people who walk around in Biblical robes preaching Islam and abuse women and girls. Flogging is all they know and castration may be an option, too.

 

[oldsoul]

Yeah, they're fucked up! How does one educate a group of people who walk around in Biblical robes preaching Islam and abuse women and girls. Flogging is all they know and castration may be an option, too.

The same way the left has "educated" our youth to hate America. One step, one generation, one person at a time.

 

[wrathbone]

It seems that the Islamic governments want to de-evolutionize further into the stone age. That's fine for them, but not the populations, so just stop terrorizing the globe based upon this ideal rooted in the koran. Much like Christianity, thousands of years ago, the masses had nothing tangible to put their faith into.....we then evolved and realised there was a better life to live. Muslims don't get that simple concept. If You can't get beyond human suffering, there's no hope for educating them while they kick and scream, attempting to drag them into the 21st century.

 

[Elvis Obama]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

Here's what we do well. We can topple a dictator. We can help rebuild regions with a tradition of democracy.

Here's what we cannot seem to do. We cannot institute a democratic government in regions without previous experience in democracy.

We keep trying, but so far, no success on day two after the overthrow of dictators.

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

I agree with you, in theory, however, how would we establish and maintain law and order? Marshal law? That would work for a while, until people started to get used to it, then eventually, revolt, maybe revolution (see Communist China as an example). The answer is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of the youth. That is the ONLY path to a stable and peaceful ME. OMHO.

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

In the 19th-20th centuries everyone wanted a state. The Italians and Germans merged their principalities into countries. India sought independence. African nations threw off the shackles of colonialism. The Zionist movement sought a state for the Jewish people. And the Arabs wanted a Pan-Arabia.

So, how have they done? Germany had some well documented growing pains, but they seem stable now. Italy? Well, at least the food is great. India? Headed in the right direction, as well as some African nations. Israel? Beleaguered, but unbowed. The Arabs? Unmitigated disaster.

These regions sought statehood because they recognized the importance of the modern nation state. They sought this legitimacy, this recognition, from the other nations of the world. This recognition is not unconditional, and it is not irrevocable. The UN, which stands right now as the sanctioning body for sovereignty, has stated that countries which fail to live up to the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect", can have their sovereignty revoked.

There is not one ME nation which lives up to the UN's responsibility to protect doctrine.

"Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people."

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

 

[wrathbone]

Yeah, well true leaders need to step up. We had our forefathers....where are those moderate voices of reason leaving the sunni/shiite civil war behind them?

 

[Elvis Obama]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

Here's what we do well. We can topple a dictator. We can help rebuild regions with a tradition of democracy.

Here's what we cannot seem to do. We cannot institute a democratic government in regions without previous experience in democracy.

We keep trying, but so far, no success on day two after the overthrow of dictators.

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

Germany andJapan had a free press, local elections, a tradition of democratic comportment. Where in the Middle East can that be said?

We suck at nation building where the foundation for democracy hasn't already been laid.

I agree. As I said, Germany and Japan were much more advanced. The question is, can we allow them to continue to evolve at their own pace? How far will we allow them to go in their threats to destabilize civilization? When they become too unmanageable we are forced to take military action, then we walk away and leave them to their own devices. Then the cycle starts anew.

I agree that we don't know how to do this. I just think we need to keep trying to figure out how we can succeed. Our interference in the region so far has no done nothing but make matters worse, but inaction is not an option. My point is simply that doing the same old thing is not an option either. So what is the best option?

 

[Elvis Obama]

This thread is a great example of what liberals consider "clean debate."

Your reply is a good example of hyper-partisan psychosis. What has this thread got to do with political ideology?

Since it's YOUR thread, what does it have to do with ANYTHING?

Middle Easy policy. The value of maintaining the illusion of sovereignty.

You seem to be completely and pointlessly argumentative. If you're not interested in discussing the subject of this post, then don't. I assure you I have no interest in the opinion of someone who is incapable of seeing anything except through the prism of hyper-partisanism.

Actually, I was making an observation about your self-described "silly idea" which quickly devolved into an anti-Trump love fest (Posts 1-5). At that point, it did not appear to be a genuine topic for Clean (i.e., serious) Debate. I am still not convinced it is, but I apologize for my "hyper-partisan" tone.

Seriously, you need to take a hard look at yourself. There were two, completely incidental, references to Mr. Trump. FWIW, I do think he would be perfect for this hypothetical job. I also, as a lifelong resident of Brooklyn, regarded Trump as a boorish, self-aggrandizing ass when he was a so-called liberal democrat. The idea of taking over Syria and managing it is, if anything, a far right notion. I can't begin to understand how you can see this as "liberal".

 

[Elvis Obama]

And that is what we are discussing. Giving them the means to do it themselves, with our help, as needed. This is what we did in Japan, and Germany, and we can do it again. This time we will have to lay the groundwork for it ourselves, that is the only difference.

It almost seems as though you want the ME to stay unstable. Why is it that you think that (if, indeed, you do)?

Germans and Asians are different from Islamic Arabs. History is on my side, unfortunately.
Its not about me wanting them stabilized or de-stabilized. Islam is its own system and handles its own problems.
It almost seems as though you want another IS to pop up in due time

What are you talking about? I am advocating educating them on other options, so they CAN handle it themselves.

I do not want anymore ISIS like groups to pop up, however, I am not stupid enough to beleive that they will not, so we must have a plan to deal with them.

So you want to keep soldiers in the ME indefinitely?
You want to deny multiple times in history and think they want us to teach them ANYTHING? Again, you don't understand islam at all. They do what they think is right. It is their religion, not some faint mentality dwelled on by a minority.
How would you feel if Islam came here and FORCED us to learn things they thought were relevant? They told us which side we lived on? They propped up leaders for us to listen to and told us what to do?

If they had other options that we where uneducated on I would not have a problem with them assiting us. I also, would have no problem with them assisting us militarily, if we should need it. What are you getting at? Are you suggesting we should pull out and just let them do as they like?

Yes. We have failed consistently and miserably for DECADES.
Every time we intervene in the ME it goes to shit.
Hell, the only reason we started is because of greed. Look at Africa. Why haven't we invaded them? There are millions of slaves there. Constant death and disease. Corruption etc
We have no business over there just like they have no business trying to tell us how to live our life. Their lives suck, but to them, they are doing what they are supposed to do.
Why do you think you can tell them how to live their lives better than them?

"Hell, the only reason we started is because of greed."

No, we were not motivated by greed. We were motivated by the world shrinking. After WWI there was nowhere left to hide. We have been managing them, poorly, ever since. Oil came about later, as a kind of perverse joke. We may not know how to manage them, but ignoring them is not an option.

 

[Elvis Obama]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

"The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization."

Sounds like Israel.

Yup. That's what we need in that region. More Israels. More modern nations. More governments dedicated to providing a decent standard of living for their citizens.

 

[Elvis Obama]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

How many American lives are you willing to lose to accomplish this?
How much more in taxes are you willing to pay to do this?

Both excellent questions. Lives are being expended every day. The San Bernadino victims and the Paris victims and... Would this idea save or cost people their lives? I have no idea.

The cost. Well, I don't want to echo the Bush administration's line about the war paying for itself. I think a well managed, oil producing country could establish a stable, equitable economy of opportunity. If this idea worked ideally, the cost would be manageable and the benefits would outweigh the costs. What would happen in the real, messy world?

Personally, I believe this is going to happen, up to a point. We will be putting boots on the ground to fight ISIS. I have not heard one military expert say that we can deal with ISIS with bombs alone. Once we do that, the military-industrial genie is out of the bottle and the money will flow. The question is, what will we do in the aftermath? Assuming that Assad goes the way of Saddam and Gaddafi, and ISIS is dealt with, do we find a "moderate rebel", put them in charge of Syria and walk away?

 

[Elvis Obama]

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

 

[Tehon]

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

 

[Elvis Obama]

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

 

[Tehon]

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

 

[oldsoul]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

Here's what we do well. We can topple a dictator. We can help rebuild regions with a tradition of democracy.

Here's what we cannot seem to do. We cannot institute a democratic government in regions without previous experience in democracy.

We keep trying, but so far, no success on day two after the overthrow of dictators.

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

I agree with you, in theory, however, how would we establish and maintain law and order? Marshal law? That would work for a while, until people started to get used to it, then eventually, revolt, maybe revolution (see Communist China as an example). The answer is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of the youth. That is the ONLY path to a stable and peaceful ME. OMHO.

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

In the 19th-20th centuries everyone wanted a state. The Italians and Germans merged their principalities into countries. India sought independence. African nations threw off the shackles of colonialism. The Zionist movement sought a state for the Jewish people. And the Arabs wanted a Pan-Arabia.

So, how have they done? Germany had some well documented growing pains, but they seem stable now. Italy? Well, at least the food is great. India? Headed in the right direction, as well as some African nations. Israel? Beleaguered, but unbowed. The Arabs? Unmitigated disaster.

These regions sought statehood because they recognized the importance of the modern nation state. They sought this legitimacy, this recognition, from the other nations of the world. This recognition is not unconditional, and it is not irrevocable. The UN, which stands right now as the sanctioning body for sovereignty, has stated that countries which fail to live up to the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect", can have their sovereignty revoked.

There is not one ME nation which lives up to the UN's responsibility to protect doctrine.

"Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people."

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

There enlies the problem, and I have no answers. I have not done the study, nor do I have the inclination to, in order to form a serious proposal. I leave that tho those who have the desire and expertise.

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

So, what would you propose?

 

[Elvis Obama]

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

My allies? Hmmn. Yeah, they're all the same, by and large. All states which reject secularism are essentially the same. So? Destabilization is not the name of the game, keeping the lid on is the name of the game. We are pathetically inept at doing so, but that's what we want. ISIS and Assad are equally unworthy of managing countries and we want neither. We did not create ISIS as a tool to remove Assad.

As far as your final question goes, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Every country in the world has primitives running around in it. The only relevant question is which countries have the primitives in charge of the government. Assad got the country from his daddy, like it's a freaking family heirloom or something. That is primitivism.

 

[Nosmo King]

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

My allies? Hmmn. Yeah, they're all the same, by and large. All states which reject secularism are essentially the same. So? Destabilization is not the name of the game, keeping the lid on is the name of the game. We are pathetically inept at doing so, but that's what we want. ISIS and Assad are equally unworthy of managing countries and we want neither. We did not create ISIS as a tool to remove Assad.

As far as your final question goes, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Every country in the world has primitives running around in it. The only relevant question is which countries have the primitives in charge of the government. Assad got the country from his daddy, like it's a freaking family heirloom or something. That is primitivism.

As for our experience in Afghanistan, our longest war begun 16 years ago next month, our stabs at nation building overlooked the local custom of corruption on an Olympic proportion. Have a trial, pay a bribe to the judge and the prosecutor. Open a tea stand, pay a bribe. Go to the emergency room, pay a bribe.

And we put leaders of this corrupt culture in charge of running civic functions. The system is unfair, the citizens aren't dupes and the government topples without internal enforcement. And democracy dies in its cradle because we Americans, he'll, we Westerners try to cram round pegs into square holes. Eliminate corruption, make leaders legally liable for the discharge of their offices. Lean on every level of government for twenty years or so then get out.

 

[Elvis Obama]

And Iraq too. Let's merge them into one country, Syraq.

A silly fantasy, of course. Just food for thought. The only way to make such an idea work is to have China, Russia, the EU and the US on the same page. The we could run it like Berlin after WWII, with each entity in control of its own sector. Or like Japan, except each entity would have control for ten year periods.

I would guess this project would take about two centuries. The goal is to create a stable, economically successful state in the midst of the cesspool that is the Middle East. A haven for all those people in the region who are crushed under religious fanaticism and ruthless dictatorship. To consolidate the talents of the region and accelerated modernization.

Why? Because the Middle East is too much damn trouble. Ninth Century mentalities are tolerable only so long as they stay within their borders and don't bother anyone. The only sure-fire cure for terrorism is a thriving middle-class. Something which provides disaffected youth with an alternative to religious fanaticism. We cannot trust any of the governments of the Middle East to achieve this for their young people. These countries are in desperate need of training wheels.

Here's what we do well. We can topple a dictator. We can help rebuild regions with a tradition of democracy.

Here's what we cannot seem to do. We cannot institute a democratic government in regions without previous experience in democracy.

We keep trying, but so far, no success on day two after the overthrow of dictators.

How about Japan and Germany after WWII? We took over these countries and managed them, because in the collective view of the world they were incapable of managing themselves. Now they're democracies. What was true for Germany and Japan is a thousand times truer for the countries of the Middle East. They cannot manage themselves, and their ineptitude is simple to destabilizing to be allowed to continue. Both Germany and Japan were much more advanced, industrial nations, though. That's why it would take so much longer in the ME. The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

I agree with you, in theory, however, how would we establish and maintain law and order? Marshal law? That would work for a while, until people started to get used to it, then eventually, revolt, maybe revolution (see Communist China as an example). The answer is to find a way to win the hearts and minds of the youth. That is the ONLY path to a stable and peaceful ME. OMHO.

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

In the 19th-20th centuries everyone wanted a state. The Italians and Germans merged their principalities into countries. India sought independence. African nations threw off the shackles of colonialism. The Zionist movement sought a state for the Jewish people. And the Arabs wanted a Pan-Arabia.

So, how have they done? Germany had some well documented growing pains, but they seem stable now. Italy? Well, at least the food is great. India? Headed in the right direction, as well as some African nations. Israel? Beleaguered, but unbowed. The Arabs? Unmitigated disaster.

These regions sought statehood because they recognized the importance of the modern nation state. They sought this legitimacy, this recognition, from the other nations of the world. This recognition is not unconditional, and it is not irrevocable. The UN, which stands right now as the sanctioning body for sovereignty, has stated that countries which fail to live up to the doctrine of "the responsibility to protect", can have their sovereignty revoked.

There is not one ME nation which lives up to the UN's responsibility to protect doctrine.

"Sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference; it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people."

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

I agree, but how do we get to the point where the countries of the region realize that they have to provide their youth with opportunity?

There enlies the problem, and I have no answers. I have not done the study, nor do I have the inclination to, in order to form a serious proposal. I leave that tho those who have the desire and expertise.

It's time for the report card. It's time to stop pretending that Junior will find his feet on his own. The people of the ME have proven themselves to be incapable of managing modern nations. Their countries are collapsing before our eyes. ISIS is a symptom, not the disease. Wipe out ISIS and then do what? Install another al-Maliki? Doesn't that fit the classical definition of insanity?

So, what would you propose?

"So, what would you propose?"
All I am seeking is a recognition of the failure of both the Arabs to manage their own countries, and the western world to properly manage these people. A recognition that purple fingers are meaningless. A recognition that none of these countries deserve to have their sovereignty respected. A recognition that these half-measures, from the first Gulf war to our current bombing campaign in Syria, have failed, and have indeed made things worse. The management paradigm that we have maintained since the end of WWI has failed. We need a new paradigm.

I think we need to go from covert to overt management. I recognize the impossibility of Russia and China, themselves less than civilized, recognizing the value of getting on the same page with us. Maybe if enough Russian planes get knocked from the sky they will come to their sense, but I doubt it.

 

[Tehon]

The alternative is to leave them to their own devices, which isn't working out too well right now.

In what world have we left them to their own devices? Not realizing that we are and have been the destabilizing effect in that region creates the false dilemma that you are espousing. If we cooperated on energy resources instead of trying to control them we would probably not be entertaining this discussion which is centered around even more control.

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism. Primitive, tribal, religious forces. With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how? ISIS?

The destabilizing force in the region is primitivism.
Riiight......Did primitivism overthrow Mossadegh or was that the CIA? And what was the net result of that......the Ayatollahs. You probably think of them as primitive for their religious views and yet Iran still has a very modern society not unlike what Iraq had before we started intervening there. So did primitivism overthrow Saddam or was that the US military? And after how many years of crippling Western sanctions? Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s? And what was the net result of arming and training the mujahideen.......al qaeda. It's easy to criticize a society as primitive when their country is in ruins and there infrastructure destroyed from American made bombs, but these conditions weren't always so.
With whom are we supposed to cooperate on energy resources and how?
Cooperation has to be between all the energy producing and exporting countries. There is enough energy in the ground and enough consumers to make accommodations for everyone to have a piece of the pie. The people of the world do not benefit from all the conflicts and it should matter not to the people where the energy comes from. Those that benefit are the same ones that use the military and economic superiority of our government to control the resources for their own profits, the corporations.

Primitives throw acid in the faces of little girls who want to go to school. Primitives treat homosexuals as criminals and execute them. Primitives smash artworks that offend them. Primitives subjugate women.

The fact that we are far from perfect does not negate the fact that we are the more advanced culture. That was not always so, but it sure as hell is true now. The difference between us is far from absolute, but it is very important. The most civilized people in Arab society are more civilized than the most primitive people in our society. Operation Ajax was a crime against all of humanity. Nonetheless, we Western nations represent an advancement in human culture, in human governance. The most enlightened people in Arab society want what we have, because they recognize it is superior, but they failed to get it, and the Arab Spring died. Mossadegh could have been the Atatürk that the Arabs so desperately need, but we thoughtlessly stepped on him. Both tragic, but we can't do anything about it now. They tried to leap forward, tripped and face-planted.

"Do you think ISIS is a natural reflection of a backwards people or a useful tool of Western states to achieve policy goals not unlike the mujahideen was used in Afghanistan back in the '80s?"
ISIS is not a tool of Western states. The Mujahideen were. We created ISIS, but not intentionally, and we certainly don't benefit from them.

The primitives that you are speaking of in your first paragraph happen to share the same religious ideology as your allies in the KSA and some other Gulf countries. And of course ISIS benefits the US policy to remove Assad. Destabilization is the name of the game, don't you know?

To understand what I'm saying just ask yourself which countries are your primitives running around in and which are they not. The answer is telling.

My allies? Hmmn. Yeah, they're all the same, by and large. All states which reject secularism are essentially the same. So? Destabilization is not the name of the game, keeping the lid on is the name of the game. We are pathetically inept at doing so, but that's what we want. ISIS and Assad are equally unworthy of managing countries and we want neither. We did not create ISIS as a tool to remove Assad.

As far as your final question goes, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Every country in the world has primitives running around in it. The only relevant question is which countries have the primitives in charge of the government. Assad got the country from his daddy, like it's a freaking family heirloom or something. That is primitivism.

It is all about destabilization. The destabilization that occurred when we took out Saddam and invited the Shia expansion led directly to the further destabilization of Iraq and Syria in an effort to counter the Shia expansion. And lets not forget the destabilization of Libya to fund and equip the war in Syria. ISIS is integral to this destabilization and the overthrow of Assad. I think our policy makers do want to keep a lid on it..... to a degree, that is why Obama's policy towards ISIS has been containment.

The final point I was making is that the worst of the actors in the ME are all acting in countries that the West has destabilized. The other countries, our allies, all have their bad actors under control. Just as Iraq, Syria and Libya did before US destabilization. It's not coincidence. US foreign policy is not benevolent and it is no accident things are as they are. The history of US foreign policies is replete with examples that support my position.