Western Forces in Middle East

[practicaldreamer]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

[1715135137]

1715135137

[1715135137]

1715135137

[1715135137]

1715135137

[1715135137]

1715135137

[criptix]

I will quote Peter Struck our Minister of Defense a.D. (2002-2005):

"Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt."

A decade later we are defending it in iraq and syria.
I hope we wont be in Japan in 2050  

[Snail2]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

We are there for oil and pipelines of course.

Soon we will not have any other choice if we don't want to fight this war at home

[practicaldreamer]

I will quote Peter Struck our Minister of Defense a.D. (2002-2005):

"Deutschlands Freiheit wird am Hindukusch verteidigt."

"The security of Germany is also defended in the Hindu Kush"

Did Mr. Struck ever define "security" ?

[Emersonnets]

Because of oil and the war that's going on in the Middle East

Everyone in the West wants peace over there, but because there's no peace over there the united nations started going over there

There are a lot groups and organizations involved, not counting the West, you got the rebels, Assad, the kurds, ISIS.

There are a bunch of disagreements between these groups.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Why are we there ?

Should we be there ?

Why are we there ?

To take oil and gas cheaply, destabilize the region and build up ISIS through funding rebels to topple other government heads like Al Assad.

Should we be there ?

That depends

If your pro Israel a weaker middle east allows it to expand its territory with relative ease.
If your job is in the military and you get work for building weapons to fight then there would be no jobs see American budget on military spending, and the idea of war investments for peace.

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

And if your a corporation less government to deal with less tax = a better bankroll, hiring a few thugs to keep an oil area safe is cheaper than taxes on production.

[RJX]

Why we there? Because we need oil. Should we be there? Yes, if not they come to us as they recently did and that left quite a mess.

Rather messy overthere then in beautiful streets of Paris.

[bryant.coleman]

Why are we there ?

There are a number of reasons. Protecting the American allies (such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar) from Iran is one of the reasons. Protecting the US owned oil infrastructure is another.

Should we be there ?

IMO, the answer is Yes. Without the Petrodollar and the OPEC, the United States will cease to be a superpower.

[practicaldreamer]

Protecting the US owned oil infrastructure ..... Without the Petrodollar and the OPEC, the United States will cease to be a superpower.

I thought we were promoting and protecting Freedom and Democracy ?  Thats what I'm being told anyhow.

You mean to say, we aren't actually there for their interests, we are, in fact, there for ours ?

[saddampbuh]

we should not be there, and muslims should not be here

[Gronthaing]

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

A lot of the dictators there are in power because of the support of the west. And because the west killed or helped them kill the moderate forces. And topple democratic movements in several countries. Peace in the middle east is possible if we let it happen. But that would interfere with the west trying to control the world.

[Swordsoffreedom]

If your trying to create peace in the Middle East
(NO you'll only make it worse killing the dictators there they are what creates meta-stability in that chaotic environment destroying them creates a serious power vacuum where more radical elements moderated by these dictators can now thrive in)

A lot of the dictators there are in power because of the support of the west. And because the west killed or helped them kill the moderate forces. And topple democratic movements in several countries. Peace in the middle east is possible if we let it happen. But that would interfere with the west trying to control the world.

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

Lets look at Libya the richest African Nation prior to their revolution with a solid infrastructure system and large projects like the Great Man Made River which would address Libya's water problems for decades to come, it was peaceful if tense under that dictatorship and the relationships between feuding parties under Gadaffi were under control now we just see a mess as the moderate elements were wiped out and ISIL came into the power vacuum (Islamic State of Libya), I'll concede Gadaffi funded terrorism as a way to keep the element in check and stabilize the country but we can see that compared to the funding they can acquire now and the land they gained that was a pittance to keep the region in check.

Russia is supporting Syria and Basshar Al Assad the West is trying to wipe him out and remove any role he has in Syria despite the problem that is ISIS putting him as an even greater threat priority wise, while he is a dictator and crazy his dictatorship kept Syria stable the power vacuum that has emerged is completely due to US intervention that allowed them to gain territory (Islamic State of Syria) were a major part of the Rebel elements the US gave weapons to in the Arab Spring.

Iraq - As everyone knows now had no Weapons of Mass Destruction but it was used as a major reason to invade the country and destroy Saddam Hussein along with 9/11. Prior to that historically there was the Shah but they haven't really had much influence their since the Iranian revolution of 1979.

Iran - Under Obama trying to make a partner there and peacefully disarm nukes then do a Gadaffi in the future, under other governments particularly Bush trying to destroy the country economically through boycotts, starving the people and sabotaging their nuclear abilities to keep Israel as the only Middle-Eastern Nuclear/Non Nuclear power.

[zenitzz]

Because of oil and the war that's going on in the Middle East

Everyone in the West wants peace over there, but because there's no peace over there the united nations started going over there

There are a lot groups and organizations involved, not counting the West, you got the rebels, Assad, the kurds, ISIS.

There are a bunch of disagreements between these groups.

oil without it there would just be desert and the west wouldn't even care what went on there they buy western weapons on mass who's complaining well everybody now they are turning them westward

[RealPhotoshoper]

i see this http://www.news.com.au/world/middle-east/australia-should-not-respond-to-paris-attacks-with-more-troops/news-story/f9457c46ce42716fd87ad22882c2981a
a former chief of the Australian Army and a senior military commander in the Middle East have warned against any increase to Australia’s military presence in Iraq or Syria in the wake of the deadly Paris attacks.

[vero]

Why we there? Because we need oil. Should we be there? Yes, if not they come to us as they recently did and that left quite a mess.

Rather messy overthere then in beautiful streets of Paris.

fundamentalists are trying to make the whole world live by their standards, and people don't want to, plus, oil, oil, and more oil. Don't think for one minute that if Canada and Argentina cut off the oil to US, there wouldn't be American troops here/there too.

[Gronthaing]

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

I don't agree. On several things. What you're saying is the old people in the middle east don't know how to live in democracy. If they don't have western backed dictators in power, they have radical fundamentalists. But american policy is to make governments open to its influence. And open to us companies. Doesn't matter if it's dictators or fundamentalists or whatever in power. Not to remove dictators and spread democracy or prevent worst people getting in power. Saddam was a major us ally in the region for a long time. Before he tried to interfere with western control of kuwait. Iran had a democracy before they tried to nationalize their oil company. The west immediately moved to prevent that and get an obedient dictator in power. When the population rebelled against him the west helped saddam attack iran. Even helped iraq use chemical weapons in the war. Afghanistan had a more or less progressive society before the us funded, trained and supported fundamentalists destroy the country. Support for saudi arabia and their oppressive regime is well known. And so is the spread of their radical ideology in the region. You know building terrorist training camps in other countries with the consent of the west. And in all these countries and many others one of the first things done is remove moderate forces. Send them to prison, terrorize them or kill them and their family. Not very fair to now say it's their own fault. In latin america it was the same thing. The excuse used to go there was the same used in the middle east: russians, socialists and communists. So there was huge support for dictators there too. But countries in latin america managed to integrate and cooperate between themselves and resist us control up to some point. So now you see some progress there. Though the us still tries to interfere like they did with the coup against chavez for example.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Not at all in fact US policy is to have those dictators destroyed not supported, if you were to compare strategy it would be similar to putting up Puppet Governments in Latin America in the 1970's like Pinochet to keep them under a tight leash instead of uncontrolled elements like the Dictators in the Middle East unfortunately they discovered they were far less worse than the Extremists.

I don't agree. On several things. What you're saying is the old people in the middle east don't know how to live in democracy. If they don't have western backed dictators in power, they have radical fundamentalists. But american policy is to make governments open to its influence. And open to us companies. Doesn't matter if it's dictators or fundamentalists or whatever in power. Not to remove dictators and spread democracy or prevent worst people getting in power. Saddam was a major us ally in the region for a long time. Before he tried to interfere with western control of kuwait. Iran had a democracy before they tried to nationalize their oil company. The west immediately moved to prevent that and get an obedient dictator in power. When the population rebelled against him the west helped saddam attack iran. Even helped iraq use chemical weapons in the war. Afghanistan had a more or less progressive society before the us funded, trained and supported fundamentalists destroy the country. Support for saudi arabia and their oppressive regime is well known. And so is the spread of their radical ideology in the region. You know building terrorist training camps in other countries with the consent of the west. And in all these countries and many others one of the first things done is remove moderate forces. Send them to prison, terrorize them or kill them and their family. Not very fair to now say it's their own fault. In latin america it was the same thing. The excuse used to go there was the same used in the middle east: russians, socialists and communists. So there was huge support for dictators there too. But countries in latin america managed to integrate and cooperate between themselves and resist us control up to some point. So now you see some progress there. Though the us still tries to interfere like they did with the coup against chavez for example.

I think we might be agreeing but interpreting it differently, in the end I meant that they are supporting Dictators that benefit US interests, the list of examples you used illustrate that the name changes but the concept is the same we must take out the bogeyman and build up a puppet state to support our internationals.

As for the old people in the Middle East it's not that they don't recognize democracy it's just that their democracy leans towards fundamentalist elements and if it does not and people try to introduce modernist elements more chaos occurs from the radical elements who disagree, the citizens there just want a semblance of normalcy to their daily lives instead of fearing bomb runs. Your right about Saddam he was strong US ally until their interests diverged.

The main difference between the Middle East and the Latin American dictatorships were that the rebel forces in Latin America remained internal in their conflicts and rarely spread out to target the Western backed powers, those of the Middle East also include external targets to their list, primarily toward those groups that are supporting the civil war in their countries, to this day there are still many people in Latin America that do no like the United States because of all the atrocities it supported over there in the past and Western influence has declined over the years except for a few holdouts which is why were starting to see some growth as many countries align to China.

If a person loses their brothers sisters and parents to bombing runs by Western Powers and has basically nothing to live for then they have no reason not to join those fundamentalists and declare war (Jihad) on those that made their life crap.
Following that line of reasoning one can understand the even us calling ISIS cowards could be retorted by saying Americans Use drones, bomb their homes and don't even see the people they are harming innocent civilians or not, weapons make the army and it's like fighting with a stick against a rocket when comparing weaponry.

[avw1982]

we should not be there, and muslims should not be here

I don't think so your thoughts are good. we all are human beings only, We should not see the people with religion or other discriminating things. we are considering ISIS as Muslims. Islam telling peace is first index for humans. we are welcome to middle east all Asian countries with full heart.

[mohsin qureshi]

This might be not fhe fight against terrorism, but to protect the rights of some counties. Westren countries seems that the power of oil musf be in their control, otherwise terrorist used against them. On the other hand terrorist thought ones they got all the power they must destroy there countries as westren countries had done in the past. So it is the meanless war but the results might be more horrible then the world seems today.

[Nemo1024]

Russia finally started doing what USA should have done 2-3 years ago IF USA was fighting ISIS - bombing oil wells and oil infrastructure, used by ISIS to supply dirt-cheap oil through Turkey.

USA is livid that their pet project is dismantled at every level, so quite expectedly, Russia is hit by a retaliatory blow below the belt:

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/hybrid-war-in-sports-doping-and-demands-to-ban-russia-from-2016-summer-olympics/

And no, Western forces should not be there, as they were not invited. Russian forces (30 war planes only!) and Iranian ground forces that participate in the anti-ISIS operation are there by a direct request from the country's government, calling upon these specific countries for help.

UPDATE: Actually, 69 planes as of today:
http://ren.tv/novosti/2015-11-20/shoygu-rossiyskaya-aviagruppirovka-v-sirii-uvelichena-v-dva-raza