Am serious. Don't be such a child.


This past century in the Middle East has been defined by its exploitation by the West. This is orthodox history bro. If you've got some revisionist ideas about this then I'd love to hear them. If most historians and analysts are wrong about this, then I think it'd be important to hear what you have to say.

The "Links pls" was a joke, because that's your speciality to ask people for link for anything and everything.

Also, are you really taking exemple of conquests and conflicts which happened like a 500 to 1000 years ago to explain today's modern conflicts and fucked up geopolitical situation of those regions ? The most recent stuffs you mentionned are like 200 years old. Wow big surprise, some empires were at war with other empires, and some tribes were at war with other tribes. This happened all over the world, not only in middle-east/africa/south-asia, every single country has an history of war and conquest. But we ain't all in the middle-east's situation, are we ? Because we don't sit on a shitload of natural ressources.

I never said Africa was a peaceful utopia before western influence, I even mentionned ennemy tribes in one of my previous post. Ennemy tribes put together in on country with boundaries delimited by western countries who were sharing the lands without any consideration for the war history of those tribes and the future consequences.
And what do you want me to be more specific about ? You already have quite some modern and recent exemples of western countries occupying those regions in previous posts, or google, or books.

Yes I blame the recent western colonization. Because as the western countries industrialized themselves and broke out of their own circle of conflicts, they kept and keep sucking african and middle-east ressources, and built their economy and power on it.
Building infrastructure and helping them is like patting them on the shoulder with one hand while you're robbing and stabbing them with the other hand. Those countries could have developped on their own pretty well if we didn't steal all their ressources and kept them in misery in order to control them easily. So yes, western countries had and have a huge influence on the present situation, even more considering modern jihadists and insurgents were born as a response to western occupation.

"And yet you want to blame the relatively recent western colonization? Westerns "invading" to build infrastructure, educate the population, provide food, water, etc is not a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination, and neither does western trading with African nations that are doing "bad" things cause the blame to rest solely on the west."

The people who actually helped African/Middle-East countries the most are Non Governmental Organisations, people who actually feel bad for what western countries did to those regions.
Like Divine, do you really think western countries occupy those regions in order to bring help and then, eventually, trade their natural ressources fairly ? Sweet carebear world m8.

"It should be telling that the only African nations that have a real semblance of stability are ones that are western supported."

They ALL have or had western intervention/occupation/support. What do you mean by stable ? peace ? decent life standard ? democracy ? solid economy ?
If you could give a concrete exemple that'd be cool.

Do you know what you sound like ? You sound like self-righteous colonialists 150 years ago, thinking the people in that region are lesser humans incapable of peace and civilization, and the civilized people that we are must show them how to live properly like civilized people. I know (hope) that's not what you think, but you really need to look back at what you said.

I'll have your Discussion access removed if you're going to keep acting like this.

It's good that you've taken to time to explain your perspective, since now we go can go through it and point out where you're wrong.


You said that it's not historically accurate to blame the West for exploiting the Middle East. The book documents several examples of the West doing just that. So, it's relevant. If you want to argue that the things recorded in the book never happened (e.g. the whole mess with Iran and the Shah), then I don't know how to help you there. Take some history classes, I guess.



You clearly believe the West isn't to blame for the instability in the Middle East today, or else you wouldn't have said that blaming the West is not historically accurate. I asked you to explain why it's not historically accurate. Your responded with...


You refused to elaborate. So, I told you I was serious, and again asked you to explain your position. You responded with..


After I already told you I was serious and asked you again to explain your position.

How uncooperative and unreasonable is that? Very uncooperative and unreasonable. If you're just here to troll, you can turn around and walk your backside out the door. If you're here to participate in a discussion like a normal human being and you can muster enough respect for people so as to take them seriously, then you can stay. Up to you.

Yes we are, you said Western exploitation isn't historically accurate. History includes the past century. If you never intended to sweep the past century under the rug like you're saying now, then you never should have said that it's historically inaccurate in the first place. I don't care if, in your argument with deprav, you're not talking about recent history. My argument, from the beginning, has always been directed against your statement that it's historically inaccurate, and the basis of that argument is recent history.

Yes, now that you've engaged with me. Thank-you. This wouldn't have been some 10 post exchange if you weren't so (rudely) uncooperative about it in the first place.

I even think you missinterpreted what I said in the first place Pig. Time is all very relative, when I said "for a lonnnng time" it was directed to Toribush's post which felt like he was saying the intervention of the occident was very recent and didn't have any prior history, like the past 100 years. Just like Divine who seems to think everything started 14 years ago with 9/11.
Now, not saying what happened before that past century didn't exist and wars never happened inbefore the west occupied the area, I'm saying it has a very little to no impact on the present situation.

Also, I'm too lazy to continue the point by point stuff, we're getting lost in details who popped up from a misunderstanding ("lonnnng time"). So, for you pig, I'll start fresh :

The world is not all black & white, the western intervention in the middle-east didn't come from good intentions toward those countries but for economical/financial reasons for the occupying western countries : ressources, and strategical occupation to open the way toward more ressources. Because ressources are not infinite, and that area holds the largest amount of natural ressources as of today ; which means whoever controls it makes a shitload of profit and has a comfortable control over the fossil-fuel dependent economy.

Now, there are two ways to keep an advantageous control over ressources that do not belong to you in the first place : keeping the locals in chaos and misery so you can help yourself on their ressources for very little costs and have very little questions asked from the international community, or put someone/something you can control/influence at the head of the country holding the ressources you desire, more expensive since there will be an intermediary inbetween the oil and the occupant, that's why it's generally judicious to let the country under a dictatorship, you can do business directly with the power in place, except when he decides he wants to change the deal (Iraq, Sadam Hussein)
The countries falling in the 2nd category has had some comfortable help and stability offered by the occupying country(ies) indeed, but that doesn't mean what western countries are doing is morally acceptable.
The ones falling in the first category aren't that lucky, obviously.
There are some other ones who resist and don't want the US or allies to come and take a hold of their shit (like Iran, for the "peaceful" part), and some others who've been forged in hatered, violence and fanatism, like ISIS and other jihadists groups, because war and death generally brings a strong desire for retaliation/revenge and more war and death.
And you have the ultraliberal business countries like Qatar or Saudi Arabia in which oil magnates don't know what the fuck to do with their buttload of money, with some of them ending up financing -directly or undirectly- insurgents fighting the western occupation in the neighbouring areas, creating more conflicts in the region.

All the tension in the area revolves directly and undirectly around oil/ressources, business, western occupation, and its ultra-violent response/opposition. I don't think that will ever stop until there's no oil to pump anymore, and the oil dependent economy is the West's baby. So yes, I don't think that's far fetched to say western countries plays a pretty big part in the present situation of those regions.

That's a very simplified summary, the matter being much more complicated and involving many insurgent groups and many different interests from each country. It's not just "good guys vs terrorism" as Divine seems to think, and it's not just "lets loot ressources". It's a mix inbetween many factors, and strongly involving the occident's economical interests.

ô boï... I don't think I can...

Did you actually read at least one post from the thread before you started ..... (intense fight against myself to refrain condescending sarcasm) .... posting ?

If not, I just invite you to do so. That will prevent a lot of people to repeat things that have been said many times already.

But for a starter, USA's job and primary concern is to protect USA's interests, mainly economical, and not to "keep peace around the world" as you claim. And even the statement I just made is pretty naïve ; the immediat interests of banks, multinationals, and the few people financing politics and parties sadly come first too often, before the long term interests of the country and its inhabitants.