(12-16-2024, 11:40 AM)727Sky Wrote: I think it was Kissinger who said something like, " To be and enemy of the U.S. is dangerous but to be a friend is fatal."
Vietnam comes to mind.
When it come to the Middle East, Kissinger may have understood what our current politicians seem not to grasp at all - when you destabilize an Arab country, you inevitably hand the "fundamentalists" reams of power, and the usual result is a terrorist-controlled state. Lets look at the track record: Iran. Lebanon. Afghanistan. Iraq. Libya. How many of those nations have benefited positively from outside interference and destabilization? How many of them have benefited US for having done them that way?
I just don't grasp our strategy here. We go in, wreck a place, and then leave a power vacuum in place that ultimately leads to a fertile ground for our enemies to thrive in.
Does that seem sane or beneficial to any one? Why do we keep doing it then?
Isn't that the very definition of "insanity"?
ETA: It strikes me that the Druzes, the subject of this thread, know what time it is in Syria. Living in that world, and understanding how it works there, they realize there is a wave of Islamic fundamentalism coming to Syria, and that they will be persecuted if left to their own devices - their men and boys killed, their women raped and enslaved.
They watched what ISIS did to the Yazidis in Sringar, and know the same thing is coming for them now... and this request to be annexed to Israel is an attempt at self-preservation, a plea for protection from the coming onslaught of terror.
Courtesy of America.
Is it really any wonder that no one in the Arab world trusts Americans? Our history there is to screw up their entire world, and then leave them for dead when they most need us... and we haul ass instead.
.