#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Middle East is in Flames
According to this article anyway: The Middle East is in Flames
Among the points made in the article: "Extremists are scoring the most points. "Gaza is the latest evidence that most of the trends are pointed in the wrong direction. It's yet another gain for radical forces. It's another gain for Iran. It's another setback for the U.S., Israel and the Sunni regimes," said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and State Department policy planning chief during President Bush's first term. "The United States has not shown that moderation pays or will accomplish more than violence." A second danger is that conflicts now overlap. "You can't look at Lebanon or Iraq or the Palestinians or Syria or Iran and try to deal with them separately anymore. You could have 10 years ago. Now they are politically and structurally linked," said Rami Khouri of the American University of Beirut. Khouri said the United States deserves a good share of the blame for a confluence of disasters spawning pessimism and anger across the region. " ------------------------------------------------------- There are of course simmering conflicts in autocratic Egypt and the horn of Africa is becoming an area of more intense conflict. Pakistan is rapidly becoming more fractured and Musharraf is barely able to hold power. The Taliban are growing in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Armageddon, apparently, is on the horizon. And then Jihad can cleanse the souls of all the world's Holy Warriors. -Zeno |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Middle East is in Flames
[ QUOTE ]
"The United States has not shown that moderation pays or will accomplish more than violence." [/ QUOTE ] Wait, the United States is being moderate? Just to be clear, the invasion of two separate countries = moderate? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Middle East is in Flames
Yes. We're trying to kill the "evil doers". Extreme, would be going "hey, [censored] it, they let terrorists in their nation, we should just lump them all together and kill them all."
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Middle East is in Flames
Also, the groups and conflicts mentioned in the article have been around and active for a long time. More than 5 years. Before that, US policy could be described as extremely moderate.
I dont think that was what the author meant in the article, however it is stil relevant. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Middle East is in Flames
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. We're trying to kill the "evil doers". Extreme, would be going "hey, [censored] it, they let terrorists in their nation, we should just lump them all together and kill them all." [/ QUOTE ] So your saying moderate equals the invasion of two countries and not killing the civilains only the "evil doers" (lol)of that country, and extreme equals invading a country and killing everyone man women and child. Well if your scale slides that far than yes the invasions are moderate, but in the real world the latter options are just ridiculous if not insane, therefore the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are both extreme if the word is to have any real world relevance. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Middle East is in Flames
Well,
Maybe things have finally come to a head.... I've thought in the past that they were at a head and it turned out not to be true. There are two mistakes that can be made in a scenario such as this. The idea is that you can go too far in opposite directions. A bad decision would make the situation worse and it could get beyond control. The other extreme, and just as bad, is to find a way to stabalize what the situation is right now and set the groundwork for it to continue indefinately without resolution, kind of like what happened in Korea 50 years ago. Eventually, it will come to a head again. It's all the same, only the names will change. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. |
|
|