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.
TB — (archived)

The US hasn't been universally blamed for instability in the Middle East in the past, except by the Arabs, until now.

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.


Now, see, that just isn't true. For as long as I've been old enough to pay attention, the sympathy in the U.N., Europe, and much of the rest of the world has been almost exclusively with the Palestinians in the Middle East, and blaming Israel, and by extension the U.S., for the problems in that area.

During the end of the Cold War, you are welcome to tally up the condemnation from Europe and the U.N. of, for example, Reagan, compared to that directed at the Soviet leadership.

The idea that America's foreign policy was loved by all until March of 2003 is a myth. Period.

I listed the wars involving Iraq that preceded the fall of Saddam. How can anyone pretend that this was more "stable" than things are now? If not for the universally-condemned attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities by Israel, Saddam would very probably have had the bomb on the day he invaded Kuwait. I leave you to figure out where that would have gone. From Korea on up to today, the West has dodged some serious bullets by being willing to use force where necessary.

As for military strength, most of our Navy and Air Force are idle right now. I suspect they can create plenty of "anxiety" on their own. The only premise you can make that stands up is the idea that we don't have enough ground forces to effect a major ground invasion and occupation of a nation. If you believe that such an invasion would be a good idea in any current circumstance, point it out.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (111 posts)