(10-09-2019, 01:06 PM)rollerjag Wrote:

(10-09-2019, 01:04 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: Sure, because we need a permanent presence or the Middle East could become tribal and violent.

Not my monkey, not my circus.

We broke it, we own it.

Not really. Winston Churchill played a bigger role during his time shaping their landscape out in the Middle East for the years to come during modern times and those moves then are still unfolding today long after his death. There's always been a trickle down effect post any major War or Wars involving our Country and the E.U. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017...ast-legacy

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7526

It's not to say that our Government doesn't deserve some of the heat for it. But it's always been a mess over there. Europe, Asia, Africa & the Middle East have always had their up's and down's and periods of imperialism. People here give us so much [BLEEP] about our push to tighten up the Southern border but the borders across the Atlantic are just as equally tightened up on and they're just as hard to get into. 

I would like to see less involvement with foreign aid and policies in general. So we don't have to worry about what you just said. "We broke it, we own it". I understand that you want to have a relationship with every nation to ensure nobody is getting too wild and crazy or trying to hold the world hostage with military power, etc. But it shouldn't be at the expense of $50B from us tax payers, even if it's 1% of the budget. 

But this "We broke it, we own it" mantra is pretty silly when it's really a matter of "A collective group of elites in various branches across the US and several other Nations broke it for financial gain, they own it."

---