It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should we impose Oppressive Socialism in the Middle East as a solution to ISIS?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Now I oppose all kinds of oppressive systems of government. However, due to the rise of ISIS and other Radical Islamist groups after the fall of Secular Socialist Dictators like Saddam Hussein and Qaddafi I feel like we need a strong ruler to control the Middle East with an Iron Fist.

The Middle East is divided between various tribes, Sunnis, Shiites, and many other groups. Many of these groups are only loyal to themselves. Look at Iraq when we impose democracy, there was sectarian violence everywhere. Under Saddam he would have kept things under control.

During the Cold War, some Mid East Countries such Saddam's Iraq, Nasser's Egypt and many other Arab nations are run with an Iron Fist. Human Rights have been violated and opposition has been suppressed. However, in the process they were able to contain Radical Islam.

For example Nasser was able to violently suppress the Muslim Brotherhood. While it was bad it was a necessity since the Muslim Brotherhood went underground and hadn't become a threat until Mubarak was overthrown. Here is a speech from Dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser insulting radical Islam.



edit on 26-9-2014 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Imposing our will on the middle east is why there are so many problems in the middle east.
Maybe we should just leave them alone.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
It would be better to just dissolve the Western made and existing borders, of which do not adequately represent the populations of some Middle-Eastern countries.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Well if we left ISIS alone eventually they'll start threatening others. For example, just recently ISIS is calling for Chechens to rise up against Putin. Not to mention ISIS wants to add Spain as part of it's empire.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

That is another solution as well. However, what if one group become so powerful they ended up conquering other groups like the House of Saud when they subjugated the other tribes of Arabia and establish a caliphate like ISIS? What then?
edit on 26-9-2014 by starwarsisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: starwarsisreal

Until they invade sovereign territory in the west, just let them be.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Remember, the Middle East was once one giant piece were there was law and order( Ottoman Empire) until the West got involved, divided them into several different countries and put in puppet dictatorships. We need to look at ourselves and not base our views on what mainstream media potrays.
Divide and conquer.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
Remember, the Middle East was once one giant piece were there was law and order( Ottoman Empire) until the West got involved, divided them into several different countries and put in puppet dictatorships. We need to look at ourselves and not base our views on what mainstream media potrays.
Divide and conquer.


I am no history major but are you suggesting the Crusades was western involvement?

I honestly would like to research the history and reasons behind the crusades. My impression is that the 1st crusade was to retake the city of Jerusalem from the muslims.

I mean that was way before any "western" involvement.

Honestly I suggest we suck their oil out of the ground as fast as we can and then the whole ME will become irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

This isn't just about oil. It is a big idea. It's about destabilizing the entire Middle East and creating one mega state for Israel. That's the bit most people struggle to digest.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: tinner07

no he's referring to post-ww1 western involvement.

Syria was French, Iraq and Palestine/Israel were british, US overthrew the democratic government of iran in 1953.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If I was a ruler of a country in the middle east who wanted the people to be educated and peaceful I would implement the Sufi way of teaching Islam first as a way to transform the people to become more united.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is part of the problem spreading fundamentalism.



If I was Obama then I would have 2 choices that both are bad.

1 Sacrifce the petrodollar and stop following the orders of Saudi Arabia and see the economy crash creating internal tension inside US. One of the reasons they are building Fema camps.

2 Do the bidding of the banks/big buisness/House of Saud/Quatar and make sure the get the gas line thru Syria connected to the Turkeys so that EU buys all their gas and oil Western interest while Iran and Russia go eastern. This will risk a nuclear war with Russia and China but money is of course more important than lives.
edit on 26-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Imposing our will on the middle east is why there are so many problems in the middle east.
Maybe we should just leave them alone.


US is not allowed to leave Middle East alone. If you do not follow your commitments to House of Saud your economy will hyper inflate when the petrodollar scam implodes. It is not US who have the strong hand in this poker game even if people think US is holding a Royal Straight Flush. US is bluffing all the way. Well played but I see all other players in the game calling the bluff.
edit on 26-9-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Imposing our will on the middle east is why there are so many problems in the middle east.
Maybe we should just leave them alone.


Exactly. Let's isolate them and let them fight it out amongst themselves. If they try to cross borders or bring the fight to those borders, the affected country(ies) have the right to pulverize them back in to their lands.

I don't see another solution that will produce results.
edit on 9/26/2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Isn't that (oppressive socialism) a pretty good term for what we destroyed in Gaddafi's country, Libya? For the record, I always opposed participating in Libya.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

With respect, the US is allowed to leave the middle east alone. What you say about the power of the Saudis is true, they influence a lot. If the US let things work out in the middle east, they would be a big power, maybe even expand. They could certainly kick the butts of these terror groups if they wanted to. But who cares if they became a direct regional power? That doesn't effect the core trade relations. Something else is at play with the western desire to always project itself as the controller of the middle east, I just don't know what it is.



posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Who are we to impose any government system upon other countries????

The question is ridiculous.... and kinda gives me the creeps



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join