Why do we need to be so involved in the Middle East?

[Hugabear]

Much of what is going on in the Middle East is a direct result of Western intervention over the past century or so, with much of that coming from US policy over the past few decades.

Perhaps the best thing we can do at this point is to walk away, withdraw all of our troops, stop providing Israel with a blank check, and let the Middle Eastern nations handle their own affairs. They don't hate us for our freedom, despite what conservative talk radio keeps saying. They hate us because we keep insisting on interfering. They hate us because we continue to prop up Israel, they hate us because we keep bombing their countries, they hate us because we keep playing one side against another depending on which side happens to best serve our interests at that particular time.

If a brutal Islamic State emerges from the ashes of what we burned down, then we should let the affected countries deal with them. To say that we're taking action because of all the horrific stories we hear about seems a little simplistic, especially considering we did practically nothing about similarly horrific stories coming out of sub-Saharan Africa. Of course, there wasn't much oil to be had in places like Rwanda, Sierra Leone, etc.

[CBGLuthier]

1. Oil and christian prophecy.

That and our general desire to rule the world for our corporate masters.

[SwankyXomb]

12. Nailed it in one.

[trof]

14. +1000 Especially black gold.

Bingo

[malaise]

2. They're still sharing up the spoils

and looting the region and yet they expect to be greeted with garlands.

I'll never get it.

[leftstreet]

3. To protect the profits of the wealthy few n/t

[pampango]

4. "If a brutal Islamic State emerges ..., then we should let the affected countries deal with them."

You seem to be saying that, since we did little in Rwanda and Sierra Leone, we should do nothing anywhere. That begs the question of whether we should have done something in Rwanda or were we right to ignore the genocide there?

Should we ignore all genocides? Just those in non-oil producing countries? We have an extremely flawed history in this area. The question is - do we improve this history by helping the world deal with genocides everywhere or just leave it up to the countries in the area where the genocides occur?

[Hugabear]

8. I stand by my statement

Let the countries nearby deal with the issue, since they're the ones most likely to be affected. In the case of Rwanda, Sierra Leone, etc the African Union should have handled that. In this case, let the Arab League handle it. Wet can't be the world's policeman.

[pampango]

9. France should have handled Germany. China should have handled Japan.

South Korea should have handled North Korea.

Indeed, we cannot (and should not) be the world's policeman. But we cannot ignore what happens in the rest of the world either. We should work with other countries to deal with global problems - whether they are disease, terrorism, genocide, invasions, etc.

[Rex]

5. I'm afraid we are directly and indirectly responsible for all the monsters we help create.

Kill the secular, big monster and hundreds of fundamentalist monsters show up to take his place. There is no win-win in helping create monsters...unless you are a certain type of person that makes money off the MIC.

[frazzled]

6. Perhaps, because as President Franklin D. Roosevelt said:

The peace loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a state of international anarchy and instability from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality.... When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.

Read more at http://quotes.dictionary.com/The_peace_loving_nations_must_make_a_concerted#zlihg7D4y15r53mH.99

We were wrong to let thousands be massacred at Srebeniska, in Rwanda. It's true that we can't fix the world (and that we have often made things worse for trying), but neither can we merely sit back and bury our heads in the sand in selfish cowardice, either. There are options other than war (though sometimes war or military actions are necessary to stop a genocide), and of course all of those options must be exhausted before actions are taken. But "involved"? Of course we must be involved, to one degree or another. You might as well ask why any of us should be so involved in some small suburb in Missouri.

It is because this is what it means to be civilized.

[L0oniX]

7. Because we are exceptional ...and well ...fuck it ...because we can.

[Maedhros]

10. [n/t]

[HipChick]

11. oil

one word

[randome]

13. Some of those countries have nuclear weapons.

Letting them murder each other can have long-term consequences for the world.

The Eastern world is still 'backward', culturally speaking. You only have to look at how many of these countries treat women and gays -or even thieves- to understand that.

'Backward' can translate into 'world-wide disaster' if we take a hands-off approach.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]