The fall of post invasion Iraq

[Creed of Heresy]

As Raeven has shown and Minimalist has said, you two can try to tell a tale of historical fiction all you want but saying it doesn't make it so.

Chuck, you are undoubtedly correct. It was naivete on the west's part to think that the middle east is capable of holding to a democratic system. Democracy cannot exist in a world in which the religion of the land dictates everything from culture to society and even to laws (Sharia).

A large number of muslims in the middle east are going to have to become much more moderate, much more open to secularism, and much more aware of the world around them before they can hope to stand a chance of having democracies.

When your religion literally means "Submission" then your lifestyle is going to be that of submission, because you already lack the basic understanding of individuality and open-mindedness. When your religious leaders are creating, instigating, and/or supporting armed militant groups who commit atrocities on a scale and in a way that is so disgusting and devoid of any semblance of humanity, and you continue to call them your spiritual leaders, you are enabling violence. When your culture is incapable of providing anything to the world and instead just mimics and copies that which the rest of the world has innovated, created, and conceived, you are nothing more than a caveman with a computer.

The middle east is, as its pervasive majority religion has intended, exactly where it was in 1066; ignorant, self-centered, and completely stagnated.

Amusingly enough, it seems many muslims are converting to Christianity. And yet they're still exactly where they were before; ignorant, gullible, and providing nothing of value to the rest of the world. No scientific breakthroughs or advancements, no new useful technology (just reverse-engineered copies of Russian and Chinese weapons; go figure it's weapons that they focus so much of their technological hunger on, the warmongering primitives...), nothing culturally or socially beneficial to the world, nothing.

Until they fix those problems, they're never gonna be able to handle the responsibility of having rule by the people. As a society, they are like children, right down to all the guys screaming that the girls have cooties. Democracy is for the adults. When they grow up, then they can have it.

Until then, their allegorical parents, the mullahs and imams, are going to be calling all the shots, and are going to be the only ones those children will listen to.

---

---

If I was conspiratorially minded, I might almost say Obama and Clinton intentionally supported the wrong side in the Arab spring for the purpose of toppling stable regimes and introducing doubt, uncertainty, and instability into the North Africa - Middleeast region. Once America becomes energy independent thanks to Shale oil and gas, it is to America's benefit for other areas of energy export in the world to suffer chronic instability. In addition, instability in that region is also likely to fester and become intractable problems for Russia to the north and China to the East. Basically in the long run, the mess in the middle east strengthens American's hand and weakens every other big player on the global.

I don't say this approach is not oversimplify complexities of behaviors of global politics. But based on Obama's main geopolitical direction - pivot away from middle east to Asia, and how he goes about handling its fallouts, I do believe he is person who thinks like this in handling geopolitics.

He doesn't necessarily think of what is the most important problem in geopolitics to solve. He thinks in terms of what is the problem that, if left unsolved, would create the greatest difficulties for everyone else and as a result, puts the US in the most advantageous comparative position.

Bush's puppet masters think in terms of what they imagine they can accomplish by ignoring resource limits of the US and value of American life. Obama thinks in terms of what he can accomplish for this country by leavings things undone that other country took for granted that he would do. Which is all together a more economical and subtle approach to goepolitics.

---

The world's gotten a little too used to us trying to police them. Now suddenly we've stopped, quite abruptly, and everyone's going "wait...what are WE supposed to do??"

I don't see any other nations stepping up to try to provide and/or enforce stability in the middle east. I think you pretty much nailed it. They're expecting us to take care of the problems because they think we still have a vested interest in the oil economies.

Casts an interesting light on Obama's constant push for green policies regarding sustainable energy, like solar-cells and the like...replace the economy of the oil industry with the economy of the nascent green industry...which, no matter what conservatives and cynics say/think, is something that's actually growing and starting to gain influence. Phase one out, bring another in; no economic instability if the process is gradual. Meantime, feed the energy industry with local reserves.

It's a cold, calloused strategy...but ultimately, it's how the world works. Those who think fast and act fast succeed. Those who stagnate get left in the dust and become everybody else's punching bag.

The middle east made its choice long ago and has never made any real effort to change. They decked themselves out in jewelry and fine silks when they thought they had a trump card to hold on the rest of the world. But you don't get something for nothing, at least not for very long. Once the oil is gone, and soon it will be, or at least the infrastructure and economy for it will be, they'll be back to having nothing.