1journeyman
Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
http:///forum/post/2570111
No what I'm trying to tell you is if we left them alone in the first place, they may never have attacked us. This goes back way past our current involvement in that area. I'm talking about decades ago. You're the historian, so I dare not go try to reference the first time the US got involved with some Middle East dispute. That's where I'm coming from. You can take the attitude that if we NEVER got involved with Middle East politics, we would be a target anyway. So Mr. Historian, tell me - has any Middle Eastern nation in the last 100 years ever attempted a full scale invasion on any other country OUTSIDE their region? Meaning, have they ever attempted an attack on a nation like Russia, China, Europe, the US, Southern Africa? If the answer is no, then I would say they didn't do that because:
a) They didn't have the capability to wage an all-out war since they didn't have the resources to do it (Naval ships, airplanes, artillery, etc.)
b) They weren't stupid enough to try it because they know if they did, the retaliation would have meant the end of their entire existence.
So if we go on that premise, what would the world be like if we never got involved with the Middle East? My gut feeling is they'd just fight each other like they have for centuries, and could care less what the rest of the world thought. But of course there's the magical elixir called Black Gold. That's what the Middle East is really about. So we suck up to them and give them all the firepower they want for a piece of the pie. And look what that's gotten us. Trillions of dollars spent, and a world changing event that will affect evey American for the rest of their lives.
Ok, while I disagree with your conclusions we can reasonably discuss this.
We can both agree that the Suez Canal and oil are the two primary reasons the world and the USA is interested in the region. We also have a vested interest in our allies in the region. That's why we supported Iraq during the
80's while Russia supplied Iran. As I previously pointed out, every war fought against Isreal since their formation has had direct or indirect support from the Soviets.
Your premise is correct as far as I know; No Middle Eastern country has attacked a Nation outside of the Middle East in the last 100 years. That, however, is deceptive; Name a country outside of Europe Germany attacked and tried to invade in the last 100 years? They attacked islands in the Med. Sea and North African countries (primarily to bail out the inept Italian military excursions there) and they went east in Russia (Asia). Still, you could just as easily argue that The USA shouldn't have been involved in either WW1 or
WW2 against Germany. After all, it was the Japanese that attacked us.
We can agree wars are fought over resources. Our presence in the middle East is certainly tied to oil. That said, we cannot allow terrorists to tell us where we can be involved and where we shouldn't be involved.
Let's bring it closer to home. Let's say tomorrow Mexican Drug Lords cross into Laredo and bomb a school full of kids.
Is that our fault for fighting the drug lords in Mexico and Central America? Should we quit trying to prosecute international drug lords for fear they might retaliate?
http:///forum/post/2570111
No what I'm trying to tell you is if we left them alone in the first place, they may never have attacked us. This goes back way past our current involvement in that area. I'm talking about decades ago. You're the historian, so I dare not go try to reference the first time the US got involved with some Middle East dispute. That's where I'm coming from. You can take the attitude that if we NEVER got involved with Middle East politics, we would be a target anyway. So Mr. Historian, tell me - has any Middle Eastern nation in the last 100 years ever attempted a full scale invasion on any other country OUTSIDE their region? Meaning, have they ever attempted an attack on a nation like Russia, China, Europe, the US, Southern Africa? If the answer is no, then I would say they didn't do that because:
a) They didn't have the capability to wage an all-out war since they didn't have the resources to do it (Naval ships, airplanes, artillery, etc.)
b) They weren't stupid enough to try it because they know if they did, the retaliation would have meant the end of their entire existence.
So if we go on that premise, what would the world be like if we never got involved with the Middle East? My gut feeling is they'd just fight each other like they have for centuries, and could care less what the rest of the world thought. But of course there's the magical elixir called Black Gold. That's what the Middle East is really about. So we suck up to them and give them all the firepower they want for a piece of the pie. And look what that's gotten us. Trillions of dollars spent, and a world changing event that will affect evey American for the rest of their lives.
Ok, while I disagree with your conclusions we can reasonably discuss this.
We can both agree that the Suez Canal and oil are the two primary reasons the world and the USA is interested in the region. We also have a vested interest in our allies in the region. That's why we supported Iraq during the
80's while Russia supplied Iran. As I previously pointed out, every war fought against Isreal since their formation has had direct or indirect support from the Soviets.
Your premise is correct as far as I know; No Middle Eastern country has attacked a Nation outside of the Middle East in the last 100 years. That, however, is deceptive; Name a country outside of Europe Germany attacked and tried to invade in the last 100 years? They attacked islands in the Med. Sea and North African countries (primarily to bail out the inept Italian military excursions there) and they went east in Russia (Asia). Still, you could just as easily argue that The USA shouldn't have been involved in either WW1 or
WW2 against Germany. After all, it was the Japanese that attacked us.
We can agree wars are fought over resources. Our presence in the middle East is certainly tied to oil. That said, we cannot allow terrorists to tell us where we can be involved and where we shouldn't be involved.
Let's bring it closer to home. Let's say tomorrow Mexican Drug Lords cross into Laredo and bomb a school full of kids.
Is that our fault for fighting the drug lords in Mexico and Central America? Should we quit trying to prosecute international drug lords for fear they might retaliate?
