Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grimmlok
You know, not every government in the middle east is supported by the US.. take Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq (till 2002), etc etc. Not a whole lot of good feelings and chummy behavior between those nations and the 'west', so there's probably something else going on.
Oh right, Muslim fucking over Muslim. Why is that never addressed?
|
Lebanon's Emile Lahoud was funded by Syria...BUT for the fact that in Lebanon only Christian's can be the top leaders-that makes it OK in the U.S.'s eyes. They just wanna take away the Syrian influence.
Most of the dictators are funded by the U.S. with the exception of Syria, Iran right now-that is why they want to bring them down and "democratize" them. As for the rest, Jordan, Egypt, even Libya,Afghanistan and the rest of the oil rich Gulf countries, all supported by the U.S. The most important and big one is Saudi Arabia that the U.S. is funding-Saudi Arabia is one of the most vital regions ofthe Middle East because Saudis essentially act as the globe's Federal Reserve of oil.They can do whatever the hell they want with that oil.
But then again, the situation in the Middle East is too complex to deal with it with simplicity.
There is tension between different Muslim factions,sects and different Muslim political parties...There is just too many factors affecting them.
I will stick to my opinion,that once the western powers stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs then that will loosen tensions.Once the big bully stops, then the Middle Eastern people can turn to their OWN problems and start building from the bottom up and deal with their own problems.
I was reading this interview by a former CIA operative who worked in the Middle East for decades,Robert Baer,and his views he expressed in 03' about this whole Middle East situation. Also, George Clooney's character in
Syriana is based on him.
Quote:
BUZZFLASH: You’re in a small group of people that has had much contact with the darker side of terrorism, and you’ve had personal relationships that gave you an insight. The motivations for terrorism are multi-faceted. But we’ve been constantly perplexed by what one does about suicide bombers. If you’ve got the people who participate in 9/11 or Palestinians who blow themselves up on Israeli buses, you can’t punish them. You have no leverage to say: If you do that, you’re going to lose your life, because the mission itself involves their commitment to lose their lives by their own will. How does one gain an edge on that? And is there any way psychologically to gain that? Or is it purely a military function?
BAER: I think it’s more political. I think that the sooner we stop interfering in the Middle East, the more likely we'll be able to exact a truce with terrorism.
|
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/12_baer.html
Frankly,I agree with him.