Originally Posted by ynvaser

Although looking at European interest, Trump would probably be better. He seems more likely to go and restore order to the middle east. Install a few new Husseins to keep the savages in check and we won't have to fence off our borders.

Originally Posted by Ele

You'd probably find a few new Husseins wouldn't be at all in the Europeans interest... or is that the joke?

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Actually, removing or undermining those brutal dictators (like Hussein or Assad) caused all the bloodshed we see today. That same bloodshed everybody is running from... towards Europe.
Killing Gaddafi in Libya removed a big chunk of the Northern African barrier that kept the masses from running. Stabilizing the region would take another ground war, and then installing new dictators to keep the ISIS stuff from repeating itself.
So yeah, thanks USA. Let's hope whoever comes to it's helm next will try to fix this mess.

Originally Posted by Ele

So, your strategy for peace in the Middle East is to do what we've been doing since the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and just clamp down on dissent?

Originally Posted by Ele

The borders of the Middle East need to readjust back to their natural frontiers. This can happen through war between the Middle Eastern nations/NSAs or perhaps through some big endogenic political summit. Whichever way it happens, the West should not be involved in it. Us perpetuating the unnatural borders we established for our own gain will never bring the Middle East peace. The very best thing we can do is cease all military involvement.

Originally Posted by HandsAndLegs

i dont like trump hes very racist i dont like bush either he was already president i think hillory clinton would be a good contidote

Originally Posted by ynvaser

Basically, yes. It's better than having an openly hostile ISIS controlling most of the Middle East. Disturbing the hornet's nest achieved nothing but civil war and a hostile force emerging.


ISIS is well equipped and has a significant amount of manpower. Unless you'd like to see a new Caliphate emerging, there needs to be an intervention. You forget that the West created this situation, ISIS is hostile towards the west and if we ever let them solidify their position, we'll have daily suicide bombings on our hands. Stuff has nothing to do with being unhappy with your government at the moment, these guys want to build an empire.

Restoring the natural borders is a good idea, but forcibly balkanizing the remnants of Iraq along ethnic lines is also plausible.

Originally Posted by Oracle

Because you can't do both. You have to focus on economic prosperity and throw civil liberties under the bus. To further accomplish this, let us put all the black people back in to chains until our agriculture and cotton industries become competitively viable in the global market again, then we can start talking about not shooting them. I sincerely hope I do not need to explain the sarcasm in this paragraph.

Second, the worst that can happen because of the U.S. not paying back it's debts is the U.S. dollar tanking and causing a global depression because of it's status as a market standard currency causing a lot of people to suddenly lose a lot of wealth. There is no magic disappearance of civil liberties, we do not magically become assimilated in to China, the economy just crashes and everybody scrambles to not lose the shirt on their back. The only way you will magically lose your rights is if we were invaded, which will not happen, or you let somebody take them away from you, which is what you are advocating for disadvantaged groups. Which I have already replied to with sarcasm and snark because of the one dimensional approach you take to political action.