Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to re: Agreed, that the Middle East wouldn't be stable anyway.

re: Agreed, that the Middle East wouldn't be stable anyway.

The US hasn't been universally blamed for instability in the Middle East in the past, except by the Arabs, until now. Now, having destabilized a major political unit and made a civil war possible there, we actually are responsible.

We had the sympathy of the world after 9/11. No more. You want a list? The list of our supporters is much shorter. Our major supporter, Tony Blair, has lost his support in his own country.

Military strenth exists not only to attack other people, but to create anxiety and to prevent other actions by enforced embargo. To invade Iran would be as foolish as invading Iraq, but for other reasons. But that's not even an option now. We have been just about played out. We need more people just to chew what's on our plate now. We couldn't invade New Orleans. Besides our people, what has this done to our equipment? And to what end?

This is a mess, from beginning to end. The only people happy about the outcome in Iraq are religious extremists. The Muslim extremists had the great good luck of the United States making their case for them that we are the enemy of Muslims, and the Christian extremists can take comfort in the fact that Armageddon grows a little closer every day.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (111 posts)