Can't we just bail on the Middle-East?

[juansavage1]

The guy isn't stupid, your response to him was. In a non intellectual way, just plain stupid arrogance. And don't pull the semantics game, your insult was veiled in any way.

Do you have any instances of correcting people who insult people you disagree with?

[Tank]

remember how sarah palin was a like a bat signal for Light The Halo and he always posted stuff about her? i think josh duggar is the bat signal for nate.

[NrM]

I'll just leave this here...just..cause..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcrbyxe3LW4

Sherif Gaber (full name Sherif Gaber Abdelzim Bakr), born c. 1993 (Arabic: شريف جابر عبد العظيم بكر)[1] is an Egyptian political activist and blogger who was arrested on October 27, 2013 for professing atheism, contempt of religion relating to activities on campus and atheist statements online, and spreading immoral values "defending homosexuality".[2]

 

I don’t see myself as an activist, I simply want people to listen, and think without fear. I could do it from anywhere else in the world, but I believe it would have a more powerful effect to do it here, where we’re born and raised. I was offered asylum from Switzerland but I refused.

[UndertheHalo]

Israel is admirable for many of the points this guy brings up.  The conflict has nothing to do with the achievements of Israel.  IMO, his mic analogy fails pretty badly.  The zionist movement at no point had any desire to create a multi ethnic jewish/arab state and even if it had theres that problem of why should that minority objective be imposed on the majority population.  It also supposes that the arabs are incapable of effectively using the mic compared to the jews, which is an obscenely unfair assumption.  Israel gets to be a democracy sponsored by the west.  The arabs get to have tyrannical governments propped up by the great powers to suit their needs.  Thats an overly simple statement on a complex geopolitical reality but the point is not inaccurate.  The comparison is stupid and unfair.

[juansavage1]

Israel is admirable for many of the points this guy brings up.  The conflict has nothing to do with the achievements of Israel.  IMO, his mic analogy fails pretty badly.  The zionist movement at no point had any desire to create a multi ethnic jewish/arab state and even if it had theres that problem of why should that minority objective be imposed on the majority population.  It also supposes that the arabs are incapable of effectively using the mic compared to the jews, which is an obscenely unfair assumption.  Israel gets to be a democracy sponsored by the west.  The arabs get to have tyrannical governments propped up by the great powers to suit their needs.  Thats an overly simple statement on a complex geopolitical reality but the point is not inaccurate.  The comparison is stupid and unfair.

Sorry, this has a lot of Left assumptions. I'll deal with one: 

 

 It also supposes that the arabs are incapable of effectively using the mic compared to the jews, which is an obscenely unfair assumption.  Israel gets to be a democracy sponsored by the west.  The arabs get to have tyrannical governments propped up by the great powers to suit their needs.  Thats an overly simple statement on a complex geopolitical reality but the point is not inaccurate.  The comparison is stupid and unfair.

Are you saying that the Arabs have tyrannical governments because the West wants them to and not because they have a belief system antithetical to democracy? Why would the West prefer this? Do you think Canada is less corrupt than Mexico because Americans wanted one corrupt neighbor and one non-corrupt one? Not only is what you said pretty much the opposite of the truth, but denigrates the decision-making ability of the people of that region. 

 

Step one: Identify a problem. 

Step two: Find a way to tie it to your enemy. 

Step three: Evidence. 

 

Step one: Middle East if full of homicidal maniacs and/or  people who want to impose Islamic government. 

Step two: This is because of the United States and the Western world. 

Step three: Who cares? 

 

If you want to continue with this line of reasoning, do step three for us and tell us how the US squashed moderate democracies in the ME and propped up tyrants. Or, given a choice between Democracy like Israel in the ME and tyrants, the US chose tyrants. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Amazing Larry]

If you don't think the US supports tyrannical governments in the Middle East then there is no hope for you.

[UndertheHalo]

Juan, I said that it was a simple assesment. Obviously the "west" is not wholly responsible for the authoritarian Arab regimes. That was not what I said. I said they they are propped up, which is not untrue. The Saudi, Egyptian, and Bahraini among others have all been the recipients of extensive western backing that also includes saddam hussein once upon a time. In the 50's the cia and mi6 coordinated the overthrow of the democratically elected mossadeq government in Iran when they tried to nationalize Iranian oil. This was about petro dollars and access to it. Which is ultimately what drives much policy in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the population has suffered much as a consequence and extremism has become a major problem as we all know.

[wopphil]

If you don't think the US supports tyrannical governments in the Middle East then there is no hope for you.

Though it has been proven time again that these tyrannical governments are far better for these people, who can't seem to embrace anything that isn't stone age.

All of these places were better off with a good dictator in charge, making me wonder why we aren't supporting Assad.

[juansavage1]

Juan, I said that it was a simple assesment. Obviously the "west" is not wholly responsible for the authoritarian Arab regimes. That was not what I said. I said they they are propped up, which is not untrue. The Saudi, Egyptian, and Bahraini among others have all been the recipients of extensive western backing that also includes saddam hussein once upon a time. In the 50's the cia and mi6 coordinated the overthrow of the democratically elected mossadeq government in Iran when they tried to nationalize Iranian oil. This was about petro dollars and access to it. Which is ultimately what drives much policy in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the population has suffered much as a consequence and extremism has become a major problem as we all know.

We deal with the governments that are there. With the complicated possible exception of Mossadegh in Iran in the fifties (cold war complicated things and caused some unsavory alliances), I don't remember a choice between an Israel-style democracy and tyrants. It's more accurate to say that we deal with the tyrants that are there. 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Amazing Larry]

Though it has been proven time again that these tyrannical governments are far better for these people, who can't seem to embrace anything that isn't stone age.

All of these places were better off with a good dictator in charge, making me wonder why we aren't supporting Assad.

 

The usual.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline