I laughed, well done.

Well put.

There are things we have done which engendered the creation of "bad guys". If we keep doing those things the number of "bad guys" is going to increase. Killing the "bad guys" is only going to make things worse. Clearly, we differ on this critical point. I have empirical evidence to back up my claim and you have nothing but propaganda.

If we took an ethical position towards the ME the bad guys would dissolve. A lot of the bad guys are ones we are actively supporting, the Gulf state dictators, for example. Not only that, but every group that metastasizes into a a terror threat is a group which couldn't have formed without us- blowback.

They know better and they aren't completely stupid. I've cited polls showing the attitude of the upper class, Westernized Muslims toward terrorists. They disagree with the tactic of terror but they agree completely with the terrorist's critique of American foreign policy.

You have a fundamentally incorrect view of the populations you are referencing. It's a totally oversimplification. The situation is dynamic, and most all of them are good people who see themselves as freedom fighters. Everyone in the region sees the wealth of their lands flowing unfairly to the West. And they see the West supporting brutal dictators who oppress them, supporting them with weapons and diplomatic cover. The only difference between what you call the good ones and the bad ones is a disagreement as to how to fix the situation. The "good ones" want to integrate more into the West and attempt democratic and diplomatic reforms. The "bad ones" want to inflame tensions to the point where desperation forces more people to join them. If we stop being bad to them then there is simply no wind in their sails of desperation.

Let them handle their own affairs if you want them to be free. First, find out what your government is actually doing because you don't seem to have the first clue. Once you assess the situation, then bring your advice.

The Obama administration.

It didn't have many members. It wasn't able to do much. It essentially accomplished nothing more than a series of OKC stye bombings, an attack carried out by one lone wolf guy (if you forget about John Doe #2 which I'm positive you have) in America. It was not much compared to ISIS.

Please tell me about how mighty and grand Al Quaeda was.

People are willing to take on the risk of associating with violent movements/leaders when facing relentless attacks from outsiders. For example, the Khmer Rouge was nothing before Kissinger inadvertently created it with his terrorist, mass murdering bombing campaigns. There are many historical examples of this phenomenon, and you don't have to dig too deep to find them.

This is going to be fun. I thank you in advance.

Or, we could strengthen the U.N. by extracting our hypocrisy. We shouldn't be selling any weapons to the Saudis, and neither should any U.N. members, because the Saudis are human rights violators who wage war crimes and the U.S. flaunts international law by selling them weapons. We have a lot of other sticks we could use against them. [QUOTE]

GTFO. They are nothing without us. Did Iraq get nukes from China? Did Iran? We could put tremendous pressure on them to stop the Anti-West propaganda, to give some concessions on human rights. We don't because we like the way they are. Saudis Arabia might be the most oppressive country in the world, and we like it when the suppress regional movements toward democracy. Dictators just want their cut. A democracy wants the people's cut, and that's a terrifying thought for us.
Stabilizing presence? Did your eyes start to water as you wrote that? Or do you have a super-human tolerance for bull****?

They've already decided that. One of the main reasons they have done so is the Royal invitation of the U.S. military onto the supposed sovereign land.

We've had a seat at the head of the table for quite awhile. Do you prefer the results you see? How long do you think the oil is going to last? What I hear is that China is leading in developing green technology. From what I hear fossil fuels are destroying the planet. There are reasons why some people, those who have a tremendous amount to lose, want to keep sitting at that morbid table. But you don't. You think you do though, and I find that fascinating. How does big oil and weapons producers get you to think that you stand to gain a damn thing through their pernicious greed?

I'm happy with US hegemony. It is preferable than almost all alternatives.

Chinese "dominance" of green technology rings hollow at best. The country known for massive increases in coal fired electric power, ghost cities, government propaganda to cover up smog conditions, the three gorges dam, and teapot refineries who are massively inefficient. Oh, so they​ bought a wind turbine business or two, do tell.

There are a lot of people in a lot of non-hegemony countries who are happier than us by the standard measures. What do you think you personally gain from U.S. hegemony? And how many lives is it worth to you?

You understand that any country could be the richest on earth while it's majority population experiences abject poverty, right? It's about the way wealth is distributed.

Deuces, I find all of your posts ITT incoherent.

For the record:

Moab good.

US hegemony good considering other realistic options

Poverty sucks

I think I'm done here.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to do good there.

Clearly that's the biggest disagreement.
So..., just one example, thanks to BroadwaySushy:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-1...nistan/8445582
in which a man living near the MOAB dropped in Afghanistan talks about how happy he is that we made things better. Is he a propagandist? I could find hundreds of anecdotes like this.

This is absurd. You think if we stayed out of the ME, Sharia law would disappear? You think terrorism by one sect against another would disappear? You think terrorism against other countries (France, England, the U.S?) would disappear?

You think they will become free if we let them handle their own affairs?

I wrote:
???

I see you've achieved coherence by using stubby, baseless assertions. I wonder if that represents actual thought or something like the output of a human parrot.

But were you ever started?

Why do you think we are trying to do good in the Middle East? Every evil leader in history has always said they were doing good no matter what they were actually doing. Hitler said he was protecting people as he invaded countries. Are you getting that from the news? Hollywood? The white house press secretary? Because those sources would never, ever say we were doing anything except good. Those sources speaking on our motives are like a Barry Greenstein C-bet- no information there.

Poor people are easy to control. You give them a jar of jelly and they will tell you where to find Elvis. Those places are also very factious (in large part due to us). Bitter enemies of those we attack are also easy to control. Free of charge they will tell you tales of mobile weapons factories which are really ice cream trucks, or where babies are being taken out of the incubators and thrown on the floor (google that one if you don't get the reference).

Look man, you don't judge events by loosely sourced, single quotes of individuals. Think of it this way. If God descended from heaven and asked you why you approved of bombing this earth and it's people, would you really want to answer with "Some random person near the blast site supposedly said it was cool after the fact.". I don't believe in God, and I have way better answers to questions like that just for my mortal self.

It would be curtailed. In both Iran and the larger ME currently, extremist theocratic movements formed in direct response to U.S. actions. There are different mechanisms by which this happened. One is through a conscious effort on our part to engender it. I'm sure by now you know the story of how AQ was created through various operations, mostly covert. That was just part of a broader strategy to use radicalize Islam as a bulwark against Soviet influence in the ME. Not only was AQ created this way, with U.S. backing, but we also promoted rulers in the ME, like the Saudi Royal family, who promulgates radical Islam through the region. Your beliefs are astounding given that. I mean, we support the Saudis to this day, while they are out there spreading Mosques and schools of extremist Islam, cutting peoples heads of left and right for **** like sorcery. I mean...sorcery? That's who your government is- people who like to be pals with and support people who think it is good to cut off people's heads for the crime of sorcery. They sell those people massive amounts of weapons and give them political protection.

Another mechanism by which we engender extremist Islam is perhaps less intentional. We destroy their societies. We bomb them and break down their social structures. When the social contract breaks down, extremists tend to flourish. Iraq before we invaded was not a happy place. However, there were not deep divisions among the population. There was a lot of intermarriage between different sects, and religious distinctions were just passing thoughts. But when chaos reigned down, and it felt like every man for himself, suddenly religion became an organizing factor for survival groups to form. It didn't help that the border integrity went to **** and Jihadists from all over took the opportunity to come to Iraq and raise hell. We did that.

It absolutely would.

Think about what you said there. What have we done for them? We backed Saddam and pushed him into a war with Iran in which he used chemical weapons. Then we destroyed their country going after control of oil and to gratify the Pentagon's urge to spend trillions of dollars breaking things. We overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran because he wanted to nationalize the oil industry there and installed a Shaw in place. We have given the Saudis, who violently suppress any democratic movements in the whole region and who cut people's heads off for sorcery. We have done nothing but support dictators, train Jihadists, and smash their societies. That is all we have done. So of course letting them handle their own affairs will increase their freedom.

There are unfree people (under regimes we are allies with often) all over the world. Why do we only seem to "care" when they have things we want or are not friends with their oppressors?