Could we agree on the fact that most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....
We created them....
No, that's ridiculous.
I rarely disagree with you, but you're wrong on this one. The US and the USSR went out of their way to create this mess for over 80 years. One easy example being Saddam Hussein, who's Ba'ath revolution was almost entirely financed via CIA arranged pipelines. This is pretty well documented and public knowledge. Another one, the Shah of Iran.
Prior to the British Mandate, the Arab nations pretty much restricted themselves to killing each other. Not good, but not a global issue. They though Westerners were strange, but bought oil by the shipload, so they tolerated us. It would probably have turned out a lot different if the US and USSR weren't playing "let's you and him fight" all over the world. ...
You are reciting the anti-neo colonial rhetoric. Here's the problem. To note how we encouraged various dictators in that area and such does not equate to distorsions of history which makes, somehow in it's twisted logic, "the West" responsible. For example a prior poster's assertion...
most of those countries' dictators responsible for the frenzy killings and the terrorists organization have been
totally created financed and helped by the Western countries? ....We "consider the Saudis our friends" but there originates the Wahhibi extremist sects. We give massive foreign aid to Egypt and prop them up, but fundamentalists in Egypt are our enemies. "Propping up structure" and encouraging stability is not "being responsible for all the killings
.
In fact, there's nothing wrong with attempting to prop up unstable regions that are always going to be chock full of dictators with some that are allied with us or our interests. Thinking otherwise is exactly what created/is creating the stupid mess in Libya and Syria. Thinking otherwise was the primary cause of the mess in Lebanon.
Maybe it's just my view, but there can be benevolent dictators. There can also be areas which can only be ruled with an iron hand, whether it is that of a secular dictator or a religious one.
Take your pick and live with the consequences.
While I understand your point, I completely disagree on outcomes. Propping up one "devil" to fight or mitigate another, hasn't worked once in recorded history that I can find. The original American policy of extending friendship in trade and staying the hell out of the various controversies worked extraordinarily well. It was when our "enlightened" leaders decided that allying with various unsavory characters somehow made us stronger that America became a target. The moral hazard inherent in this is well explained by just looking at it.
As you pointed out, we turn a blind eye to the things that go on in Saudi Arabia because our rulers consider them an ally. I'd take a HARD look at that choice. In fact, I did. Our country has been embroiled in wars for over a decade now that have gained us nothing and made our nation become ever more like Germany just before the rise of the Nazi party. If this is "the price of freedom", then the cost is either too high, or we need to re-examine what we mean by freedom. Supposing for a moment that the fuckstains in DC actually had a brief moment in which they actually gave a tinker's damn about the people, the policies STILL simply cannot work. We prop up one monster until such time as it gets off the leash, then go kill it's subjects while allowing it to live, or making some mock trial like in the case of Hussein, and ANY rational outside observer sees tyranny.
Worse, WORST, I should say, is that unlike most nations, our government claims to be doing this shit in our name. So the extremists that such actions inevitably empower often actually BELIEVE that Americans in general are slavering, bloodthirsty monsters. The internet has mitigated this to some extent, because we can and do communicate without official sanction on all sides. But it's too little in the face of the war machine. When you get fucking morons like Albricht saying that it was "worth it" to starve half a million kids to death to piss off Saddam Hussein, what is any person on the other side of that idiocy to think?
Do I blame the west for the whole mess? NO! Do I state that they bear quite a burden and could have and very well should have enacted saner policies? Hell yes. If America had traded fairly with all comers and NOT embroiled itself in the politics of an area who's stability has been suspect for longer than we've been a nation, our ideas and ideals would have crossed the borders along with our gold. Would it have changed them to be more like us? Maybe. Would it have caused them to label us as their greatest enemy? Emphatically not.
I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I try to see all sides. And I think I've been fairly successful in that. What I see in all sides is that the lunatics are running the asylum, in all cases. Pretending that they are not is causing us great harm. I'm 47 years old, and the damage done by these idiotic policies has altered my nation to the point that I no longer recognize it. So much so that I don't want to live here anymore. I see it as the end of empire, and I don't want my children growing up in that environment. After it falls, perhaps Americans will remember what we once were, instead of the paranoid freaks that we are becoming. Then, perhaps, things will change for the better. But like every other major empire, this one has to run it's course and collapse. We've ceased to be the land of the free in any meaningful way, and it happened FAST. It wasn't because of foreign threats that were extant then, it's because of domestic treason. Whether that treason were deliberate or just that our rulers are even more stupid than they act, I can't say with certainty. The end result is the same. Chaos, increasing regulation over every facet of our lives, and the criminalization of thought. It is literally impossible to be alive in the United States without being in violation of some stupid statute. As Ayn Rand's character so eloquently put it, a government only really has the power to punish criminals. So if it wants more power, it must create more criminals. Our rulers have become incredibly good at this. Possibly better even than the Romans. But just like Rome, the paradigm is unsustainable, and in the modern world, the end of empire won't take centuries.
This in no way excuses the actions of the jihadists and other murdering bastards on the other sides, but it is very necessary to look at ALL sides of the conflicts if we're to have a meaningful dialog, and if we're to find solutions that don't increase the body count or even lead to a nuclear holocaust.
