What's your opinion on this 'War on Terrorism' in the Middle East?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Right. I know about the Arab Spring. I do not disagree. Again, I have been referring to the mess in Syria.
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.
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.
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.
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
I disagree. The oil hypotheses is a myth.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/182499/ … old-ahlert
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.
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.
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.
"...in response to a West that doesn't want to fight." Thank you for stating this sad fact.
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.
by nightwork4 7 years ago
Will things in the middle east ever become stable?it seems like throught history the middle east is always in some kind of conflict, is it possible for this to end?
by Billy Hicks 6 years ago
For the last week now, the Internet has been going crazy with discussions/arguments/fights and other activities concerning the murder of a US Diplomat in Libya. Since then, there have been more protests in the Middle East, more violence, more destruction, and more death. Was it the video, was it an...
by nightwork4 7 years ago
would the western world be better off ignoring problems in the middle east?it seems to backfire when ever the west gets involved, should we just let them solve their own problems or keep trying to influence them?
by Marwan Asmar 7 years ago
Are the popular protests in the Middle East genuine, or is there a "foreign" hand involved in directing what is happening, as it is frequently claimed.
by Ralph Deeds 6 years ago
Is Israel about to attack Iran? Many believe that a war in the Middle East is imminent.Netanyahu and Barak apparently believe that Israel has no choice to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan disagrees. Here's a link to this week's NYTimes Sunday Magazine's front page...
by PierAllegro 6 years ago
Would secularization of the region bring hopes of peace for the Middle East?While fights for the preservation of human dignity in the Middle East begin to bring some positive results, many questions concerning the future of the region rise.
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|