What's new

It's popping off in the middle east again

Screenshot_20240824-225402_Google.jpg
 
It's the only stable place in the region that we can store assets at.

But I think that we go ahead and green light them wiping Hamas and Palestine off the map. Muslims that the other Muslim countries won't touch, because they're the wrong Muslim.
Maybe it wouldn't be the only stable place in the region had we not spent the last 50 or so years completely destabilizing the region on their behalf.
 
It's the only stable place in the region that we can store assets at.

But I think that we go ahead and green light them wiping Hamas and Palestine off the map. Muslims that the other Muslim countries won't touch, because they're the wrong Muslim.

Well we nominally have a bunch of territory that we could carve StoreOurShitIstan out of. We also have a shit load of stuff stored in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Not sure why we need to keep supporting we haven't figured out how to get along with our neighbors and steal nuclear secrets from the US Istan.
 
Maybe it wouldn't be the only stable place in the region had we not spent the last 50 or so years completely destabilizing the region on their behalf.

To be fair that area has never really been stable, they have periods of a hundred years here or there but it always collapses. Last stable time was when ottomans, British and Persians dominated the area.

Even going back to biblical times they were all fighting and raiding each other, then you inject religious violence and it’s a cluster.

Now has the west done anything to help stabilize the region no, they haven’t really helped themselves at all either. The powers at be in the area and in the world don’t want to see it develop thinking that they may become opposition, just look at Egypt.
 
Maybe it wouldn't be the only stable place in the region had we not spent the last 50 or so years completely destabilizing the region on their behalf.

That entire place is/was/has always been, unstable. They've taken turns killing each other since the second person arrived. What the west has never clued into, is that those people NEED to be ruled with an iron fist. It's all they know.
In all honesty, Iran used to be the most westernized country there. Besides Israel.
 
To be fair that area has never really been stable, they have periods of a hundred years here or there but it always collapses. Last stable time was when ottomans, British and Persians dominated the area.

Even going back to biblical times they were all fighting and raiding each other, then you inject religious violence and it’s a cluster.

Now has the west done anything to help stabilize the region no, they haven’t really helped themselves at all either. The powers at be in the area and in the world don’t want to see it develop thinking that they may become opposition, just look at Egypt.

Every part of the world has been like since before recorded history. Europe has been fighting itself the entire time and almost none of the modern boundaries or even unified countries existed 150 years ago. Same thing in Asia, same thing in North America with the American Indians.

That entire place is/was/has always been, unstable. They've taken turns killing each other since the second person arrived. What the west has never clued into, is that those people NEED to be ruled with an iron fist. It's all they know.
In all honesty, Iran used to be the most westernized country there. Besides Israel.
Remind me again who it was that destablized Iran, had their elected government overthrown, and current religious zealots installed.
 
I'm not thinking we started the instability in the Middle East. We may not have helped but think that may have been going on for centuries...:flipoff2:
Europe had their hand in it for several hundred years and finally learned enough to pull out. The Middle East had started to stabilize from the beginning of the 20th century through post-WWII. Americans were pretty well liked in the Arab world because we weren't trying to colonize them. It wasn't until post-WWII when the MIC came into play under Eisenhower that the area started to fall apart again and the rise of radical Islamist fundamentalism in Egypt was a direct result of US intervention in the area and our continued involvement, more often than not at the behest of the Israeli government, that it started to spread like wildfire and brought Islamist terrorism out of the region and into the West.
 
Last edited:
Every part of the world has been like since before recorded history. Europe has been fighting itself the entire time and almost none of the modern boundaries or even unified countries existed 150 years ago. Same thing in Asia, same thing in North America with the American Indians.

Up until 100 years ago or the start of modern warfare. Only place I can think of that hasn’t had any wars has been Australia. All of the typically unstable places need strong leadership to rule which is usually harsh. Saudis want to do it but then Iran will start messing with them because it would mean a shift in power in the region, same with iran the Saudis won’t let them do it.

I have no problem with the Middle East but there’s nothing of value there. You could remove every single person from that and nothing in the world would change. Their economy is built on oil and that can easily be done with robots. You could argue to some historically significant sights but they have been destroying them over the last decade or two. The area just offers nothing of value but bloodshed and violence yet the west is doing all it can to import those people into our world and are amazed when it goes to hell.

Did the west have a part in it yes but the west aka British fucked with everything for a few centuries and that area and Africa are the only two who haven’t been able to figure it out. To solely blame the west for the instability in the region is intellectually dishonest at best and just sowing further division.
 
They must have ran out of US tax payers money so they need a new reason to scrape the rest out of our hands
 
Top Back Refresh