You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] mcwilshire 11 points -8 points (+3|-11) ago  (edited ago)

Sorry, but I don't buy that explanation. The US benefits far more from stability and friendly governments in the Middle East than it does by chaos. Justification for military spending may exist as a competing motive but it's simply not as strong as our other interests there.

If our President was a shrewd defender of American interests rather than a naive and gullible "world citizen", this mess wouldn't exist.


[–] Loumedia 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

That's because your watch CNN.


[–] lord_nougat 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Or he's paid by the pentagon to leave comments like that.


[–] Somali 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

And I'm sure the fact that the CIA/Pentagon more or less created and nurtured ISIS along goes along nicely with your assertion.


[–] mcwilshire 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago  (edited ago)

It does, actually. Faced with a tough choice in an imperfect world (authoritarian regime or radical Muslims) the administration (and much of the equally oblivious West) chose to see the world how they wanted to see it rather than how it actually is, invent a third option which didn't exist (moderate, secular opposition) and throw their support against Assad. Here in reality, the only other option is batshit extremists, so that's who's running roughshod over the region. Now the befuddled Obama administration doesn't have any moves, the Russians and Chinese sense their opening, and they're getting their piece of influence in the Middle East, ceded to them by Obama through his naive and inept foreign policy.