Leave the Middle Easterners to themselves?

It's never been clearer. We cannot leave Middle Easterners to themselves to achieve peace. As has always been known and feared, when left to themselves, their various tribes, factions, etc. would be at war with one another. It's also always been known that Russia would fill any vacuum left by American absence of power.

Obama got the dreams from his father, the anti-colonialist. The left has been preaching for decades that if we only left them alone and went away, not to mention turn on back on Israel, they wouldn't hate us and we'd achieve peace. Look at what it got us.

Not being an ideologue, and not eager to enter unjustifiable wars; I believe our foreign alliances under Trump will have one goal, American interests. Fortunately, he believes it's in America's interest to use our own natural resources, so finally dependence on foreign oil may be in the rear view mirror.

 

2016

 

It's not a bad idea actually to let the middle east take its own course. If Israel ends up owning the whole area so be it it's not like we had anything to do with it.

 

Is this a guessing game?

 

Didn't you write this?

Fortunately, he believes it's in America's interest to use our own natural resources, so finally dependence on foreign oil may be in the rear view mirror.

 

We don't need peace. Them killing each other off makes it less likely they will spend energy on us, and it will reduce carbon output to have the global population thinned.

 

If the unstated representation of the graph is the percentages of our oil sources, 12.9% is significant considering the effects of destabilization of oil producing countries in that 12.9%.

Probably more important to their interests and ours is their dependency on being able to export to stable markets (ours and others).

"Saudi Arabia possesses 18 per cent of the world’s proven petroleum reserves and ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum. The oil and gas sector accounts for about 50 per cent of gross domestic product, and about 85 per cent of export earnings."

http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/169.htm

 

The only way there can be peace and stability there, is to leave it to themselves. Sure, the fighting will continue, and new lines will be drawn, away from the way the West drew lines for our convenience in regards to their oil. And eventually you will have tribes/sects, homogenous, and then the fighting is over. It might be hard to get a secular gov't there, but these people will have to bring themselves into modernity, for it cannot be forced on them without problems. So, allow nature to take its course, and get out, and not arm and support anyone there.

Now what shall we do with our own war mongering? How do we stop waging perpetual war for perpetual peace. Perhaps we should clean up our own back yard? For we are the number ONE wager of war on earth. As we seem to be incapable of minding our own business. Yet the reason we do not mind our own business, is in the interests of some very rich and powerful elites, who want to plunder and extract the wealth from other nations. Read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Read War is a Racket, and finally understand the world, as it actually exists. If one can handle the truth. If not, keep getting informed from western media and gov't.

 

If history has taught us nothing else, it's that we do need peace.

 

US oil is always more expensive than the OPEC price basket.

 

Margot wrote:Fortunately, he believes it's in America's interest to use our own natural resources, so finally dependence on foreign oil may be in the rear view mirror.

Whether we use their's or our's...

... there is a finite supply of oil...

... which someday will eventually run out...

... the trick is to develop alternative sources of energy...

... so when it does, it doesn't leave us in the pre-industrial era.

 

Something else has never been clearer. We cannot be involved in Middle Eastern internal national politics and achieve peace. As has always been known and feared, when faced with outside involvement, some of their various tribes, factions, etc. would be at war with one another and the outside force.

While it is true that when one looks at the outcomes of US involvement in wars and conflicts BETWEEN Middle Eastern nations, we do okay. We set achievable goals like removing combatants from within their neighbor's borders, establishing border security to the best level possible, and establish, however uneasy or temporary, peace (cessation of open war). Sometimes we even help to normalize relations between the erstwhile foes, as with Egypt and Israel.

Our efforts to achieve peace WITHIN nations is, however, predictably disastrous. This is, in part, because there are so rarely only two sides in these conflicts.

For example:
In Syria there are three main forces; they are Asad and his supporters, DAESH (ISIS), and the coalition of non-DAESH rebel "organizations", some of whom the US DOS and Military have classified as "terrorist organizations." Each of these three sides are enemies of the other two, and that whole the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend principle just is not working there. This means that international allies to any of these groups cannot get involved in the Syrian internal conflict without a very high risk of entering into military conflicts with each other outside Syria.

I do not think anyone wants to risk repeating World War One.

Regardless of which of the three sides wins in Syria, the nation is almost guaranteed to end up with an oppressive government, to have periodic (if not perpetual) civil uprisings. The most likely of the three sides to institute any sort of government that promotes peace, freedom, or justice would be the non-DAESH rebels, but the chances of them being headed by the more moderate groups in that coalition are slim to none.

I may be wrong, but I see no realistic path to peace in Syria. Even complete conquest by some foreign power would be followed by years of civil uprising, draconian responses, more civil uprisings, etc., in which case it would be cheaper just to pull out, let Asad win, and be done with it.

Sure, if the US is not a strong presence, then Russia will fill the gap, but considering that they are fighting DAESH, I think we can live with that. It is not like Russia is capable of any greater success in bringing peace to Syria than the US, and the US is completely incapable of making peace happen in Syria.

I worked at Child Protective Services in Texas for a year. If I learned anything from the experience it was that it is IMPOSSIBLE to fix somebody else's family. The dynamics are almost impossible to define. The relationship habits are so entrenched that there is no changing them. Moreover, none of those involved trust the outsider to either understand the situation well enough to craft a "reasonable" solution, or to be involved for any unselfish purpose. Everyone in the family resents, fears, and distrusts the people meddling in their affairs. The people only change while someone is watching and applying pressure. The best outcome is that the behavior modifications and relationship improvements forced onto the family last for a couple months before it starts over and they are reported to CPS again.

This principle applies to countries, as well.

I do not think the US should shirk involvement when there are well defined and clearly achievable objectives that verifiably support US domestic and international interests. However, I definitely would never classify "achieving peace" as defined or clearly achievable regardless of how much it may be in our interest.

 

The EU has a plan B for peace in Syria that leaves Assad in place.. I haven't read it yet.

 

Surely the fighting and strife will continue until the scourge of Islamism is extinguished from the region. I think this has been stated many times and never more true than the present day.

 

We already have alternative sources of energy, it is just that they are not currently financially competitive with oil. As the supply of oil begins to run low, its price will increase, and the alternative energy sources will become the best financial option. The notion that we are going to be left in some sort of pre industrial era is detached from reality. All we have to do is let the free market run its course.

 

When in history has their been this peace that you have learned so much from?

 

Islam isn't going anywhere.

 

I notice not even Islam's most ardent apologists claim it's the "Religion of Peace" anymore. That's progress.

 

We've learned from war that we need peace.

 

We have learned from history there is no peace. It is not the natural state of man.

 

Well, we see who the real chicken hawks are. And many on the RW are of the same.

Let them kill each other off. So what.

It's not like we've achieved any sort of peace there in the last 60 years. And we never will.
Stop being the worlds dictator.

You realize it's your god that is the source of all the wars. Going back 3000 or more years.

 

I'm all for energy independence. I also think all our intervention in the middle east has made it a worst place. Saddam wasn't a nice guy, but he held that country together much like Tito did with Yugoslavia back in day. Libya is a much worst place since we took out Qaddafi, it is now a safe haven, training base and a jumping off point for terrorist either going into the soft under belly of Europe or going south into those African Nations. The people of Libya worst off today than under Qaddafi and so is the world.

Syria, Assad was in the process of putting down the rebellion there until we stepped in and tried to overthrow him. ISIS became stronger because of our intervention there and of course, the Russians have now stepped in. Iraq doesn't know what its doing, whether it will be closer to Iran or to us. Afghanistan is still going on. What a mess.

 

How do you think this can/should be done? Are you proposing we forcibly convert them all or kill them or what?

 

I'm willing to pay more for gas not to use any oil from the Middle East.

 

Yes, there is peace. A majority of the world is at peace. What's the world's population? How many are at war? This is largely due to America's leadership.