What's your opinion on this 'War on Terrorism' in the Middle East?

1. 84

   AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 years ago

   What's your opinion on this 'War on Terrorism' in the Middle East?

   replyreport
2. 76

   Ken Burgessposted 7 years ago

   Well lets see... 15 years ago, the Middle East was what I would call stable compared to today.  Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, etc. while not ideal places to live, had functioning governments and stable living conditions (again, in comparison to today).
   
   Now those nations are what I would call 'slaughter houses' where those with the firepower decide who lives and dies on any given day.
   
   That has inspired millions of refugees to flee to Europe, and slowly but surely be brought here to America, and they bring with them all the beliefs and issues that have inflamed the middle east into a land of intolerance and aggression.  They are intolerant of other faiths, other societal norms, and fan out their terrorism in the states that harbor them.
   
   It is interesting to watch... I have seen every now and then, someone describe this threat as dangerous and inhumane as Nazi Germany.  And if there is some truth to that, we are once again turning away from recognizing the evil that we face... just like we turned away from Germany as it swallowed up one neighbor after another, until it was knocking on the door of global domination... a couple different choices, like not invading Russia, or completing the A-bomb before we did, and history would have been very different.
   
   Who knows where things will lead, where Iran will stray to, where ISIS will spread, and so on... what is obvious is that it will continue, because no one has done anything to stop it of any significance, and the problem spreads even as it gains more support and more funding.
   
   The war on terrorism in the middle east?  We are having our a___s handed to us, that is what I think.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      More stable? Hardly. Saddam Hussein has killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades. Over 1 million dead. Assad has committed unimaginable abuses- even against children as young as 7.

      replyreport
   2. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Stable for us,

      replyreport
   3. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Savvydating, Hussein may have committed atrocities against his own people and the Iranians, Assad the same against his people, but those regimes, like North Korea, were functioning states... not lawless lands of anarchy and terror spreading everywher

      replyreport
   4. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      False. Those states did and do spread terror everywhere. Your use of the word anarchy does not apply within the context you have suggested. Thus, it is not relevant to this discussion.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That is your opinion Savvydating, I would classify Libya, Iraq, Syria, at the least as lawless lands where radical extremists hold control and spread their terror from those and other lands, to our own... you may not see it, but it is so.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with that statement fully. What I disagree with is our not helping the Syrian Rebels when we had a chance. They were fighting against the brutality of Assad. Now look what has happened. I felt this matter was the gist of the author's question

      replyreport
   7. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Savvy, the Obama Admn DID help them, they shipped a boatload of weapons, anti-aircraft, etc. from Libya to them... it is why Benghazi happened... they supported it all  "From the Arab Spring to Benghazi" I wrote that hub years ago, read it.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      False. He did not help them. If he had, We would not have the Syrian refugee crises. Millions displaced. 300,000. Dead. Not my idea of help. Good luck with your theory. I prefer to get my news from prize winning journalists who are well respected.

      replyreport
   9. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It depends on what the goals were, it depends on what international matters they were forced to contend with, such as the positions Russia and China took on the matter.  Unfortunately these comments limit my ability to share info with you.

      replyreport
   10. 84

       AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Rightly said, 15 years back these nations were stable, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found in Iraq. Whether it be Gaddafi or Saddam, they never created a monsters like ISIS.

       replyreport
   11. 76

       Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I do not defend our invasion of Iraq, I do see that the Bush Admin and the Obama Admin have pursued very different policies, hoping for very different results... this is the truth, whether either Admin's goals was just is not my point.

       replyreport
3. 0

   savvydatingposted 7 years ago

   I think that if Obama had helped the Syrians rebels like he said he would, they might have had a fighting chance. But instead, he waited years before deciding to send in drones, which have helped very little. And now the Syrians are fleeing for their lives. I could go on, but I haven't the time right now. You might want to view this PBS Frontline special.
   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/obama-at-war/

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Obama did everything within his power to help the 'Arab Spring' to occur, he wrongly thought the people would bring about a better society if the dictators (in Libya, Egypt, etc.) were removed, so he helped remove them, and anarchy and terror grew in

      replyreport
   2. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      No. He did next to nothing, and very late at that. PBS leans left, but Frontline has good reporting nevertheless. Watch the video I provided. You will see the facts there.

      replyreport
   3. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I do not need to see a news story, see the Hubs/articles I wrote years ago, back when it was occurring.  The Obama administration had far more to do with making the Arab Spring happen than you'll ever see reported, by any televised news source.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Right. I know about the Arab Spring. I do not disagree. Again, I have been referring to the mess in Syria.

      replyreport
   5. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Well, one thing led to another, a long line of dominoes led Syria, Europe, the U.S. to where we are today... Syria is not an isolated matter, it is one of many pieces to the puzzle, as is Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, etc.

      replyreport
   6. 84

      AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think Obama always knew what he was doing.. "Assad must go" was the stand he long pursued, unfortunately Russians coming to Assad's rescue and fighting IS shifted the whole dynamics.

      replyreport
   7. 76

      Ken Burgessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, just like how we deal with Iran is limited by the relationship they have with China, and the protection China provides Iran.  So to, does how we deal with Syria depend on the relationship Russia has with Assad.

      replyreport
4. 63

   Laurinzo Scottposted 7 years ago

   If there were no oil in the Middle East there would be no war... plain and simple; yes there are atrocities committed against those people and certainly someone like Saddam Hussein should have been "taken out" a long time ago... but there are also such tragedies happening in every corner of the world , including South Africa, and the Christians in China.. bottom line is oil, and that's what are young people are dying for

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I disagree. The oil hypotheses is a myth.
      http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/ … old-ahlert

      replyreport
   2. 49

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Laurinzo
      I agree with most of your comment. Saddam kept the militiant radical Muslim extremists at bay, just like the USSR. and when they both disappeared that is when we had the Muslim Radical Extremists killing anyone not them.

      replyreport
   3. 84

      AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed end of day its all to do with petro-dollars. Now the radical elements essentially with their wahabi agenda are creating chaos and not difficult to tell who is helping them behind scenes supplying weapon and intel.

      replyreport
5. 86

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   Islam spread by war (jihad) for all of its history past Medina. Islam's spread by the sword stalled after Turkey became secular.
   Fueled by Western money for oil, Muslim terrorism started back up in the 1970s, they took out the Soviets in Afghanistan. Then it started to spread worldwide into Beslan Russia, western China.
   Now it is a worldwide phenomena, in response to a West that doesn't want to fight. This is why you see Al Shabab in east Africa, Boko Haram in north Africa, the Muslims demanding Shariah law from the Philippines to Indonesia to the Netherlands.
   This is a world war, fundamentalist Muslims verses everyone else. And their religion says they should be the ones in charge and will go to heaven fighting to make Islam the rule of the land. Note - Islam doesn't mean peace, it means submission.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      savvydatingposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "...in response to a West that doesn't want to fight." Thank you for stating this sad fact.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      AshutoshJoshi06posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Back in late 70s Taliban was good terrorism essentialy cuz they were fighting soviets with aids from America and support from Pakistan ISI. Post them defeating Soviet in '79 they unleashed their savegery as they were no longer a required entity.

      replyreport