I’m just gonna comment here because most of my comments from my main aren’t getting federated in this thread. Not sure if I’m being censored or just janky federation, but its frustrating to be silenced in this situation. I’ll delete this if my actual comments ever show up.
history lessonWhy don’t you try answering his questions? He just demonstrated how the assertions you made in your original post don’t make any sense. And your response is a list of random historical generalities without any attempt to dispute the factual and logical inconsistencies of your argument. Oy vey You’re advancing a thesis that the US has been intentionally destabilizing the Middle East for the past 70 years, when the truth is the complete opposite. Destabilizing the region is what causes the price of oil to rise, the best interest of the US is for the region to be more stable so they can sell us more oil for cheaper prices. You’re so massively, incalculably confused and yet you believe yourself to be not only knowledgeable, but capable of explaining the situation to others. Remarkable. [Comment 2] >… I just realized you think my comments about Israel being a bully mean you think I mean the U.S. is destabilizing the Middle East. >And while that is true in limited contexts, I’m talking about Israel being a projection of U.S. power in the area, to prevent unity against the west. Obviously, the U.S. destabilizes countries that are opposed to the west, and fosters ones that aren’t. This sequence of words is utterly meaningless. “You think I meant the US is destabilizing the Middle East, but actually I meant that the US uses Israel in limited contexts in order to destabilize the Middle East”.
Huh? You’re saying the US destabilizes countries opposed to the west in the Middle East, using Israel as a projection of power. So, you’re saying that the US is destabilizing the Middle East. My reading comprehension is just fine, but you just have absolutely no clue what point you’re even trying to make. Your position is completely incoherent and paradoxical. >The U.S. has long needed a bully in the area to prevent the Middle East from being too unified, so the west can get relatively inexpensive access to its oil. No, it hasn’t. The Middle East has never been even remotely unified, why would the US be concerned about that? If anything, the existence of Israel is the most unifying force for many Middle Eastern countries who can barely agree on anything except hating Israel. >pay attention to what it says about the FOH with this bullshit, quote the relevant passage that you claim contradicts me. You constantly dodge and run away from any points made against you and try to move the goalposts to distract from your glaring ignorance and wrongness. [Comment 3 (this one went through on at least one server)] >And of course all the plans of the US that specifically talked about destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and the invasion of Iraq to do exactly that… All coincidences! Who would be so mean to assume this to be part of larger strategies? You need to cite sources. This means nothing without a specific source. The US previously had war plans to invade Canada in the event of war with the British Empire. Does that indicate the US is currently trying to destabilize Canada? Such is the nature of geopolitics. >Ahh yes. The Middle Easts own history. Clearly has nothing to do with French, British or US being the colonizing entities… And after all why would the US be interested in dividing a region that is connecting 3 continents and has the mos accessible of the main strategic ressources of the past two centuries. First of all, the French, British and US never colonized the middle east. They did engage in imperialism in order to control the geopolitical situation from distance after the demise of a previous colonial empire (the Ottomans), but there wasn’t any concerted effort to permanently settle or develop colonies in the region. The Middle East has historically been a colonizing region, not a colonized region. Seriously try to answer your own question. Why would the US be interested in destabilizing the region? So they can deal with more terrorist attacks until the end of time? The success of Middle Eastern countries is not a threat to US hegemony. They are on the payroll just like everyone else, they take US money for their oil and then they turn around and spend that money on manufactured goods and advanced services provided by US corporations. The US always wins as long as there is peace and economic activity is maximized. The US loses when economic activity is reduced, which is why you have the constant interventions in response to political and religious violence and extremism. The US military is a generally a peacekeeping force, because the US economy is a much more powerful tool for dominating other countries. A military victory only lasts as long as you have troops on the ground, but an economic victory can effectively assimilate an entire society, leaving no trace. The more money that Middle Eastern countries make, the more dependent they become on American goods and services. That’s the larger trajectory of the American geopolitical aim, not some childish strategy of “destabilizing” foreign regimes just to get embroiled in hugely expensive wars.