Middle East a hopeless case
Syria's dictator used chemical agents on his own people, killing 1,400, of which 400 were small children. Looking at this Syrian crisis just in terms of killing of 400 kids, I can understand President Obama's desire to teach Syria's dictator a lesson.
But lobbing missiles into Syria will not teach Bashar Assad a lesson. Obama is incredibly naive. Such action will result only in blowback from the Muslim world as well as terrorist cells here in America.
If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is for the United States of America. And that lesson is quite simple: The Muslim Middle East is a hopeless case.
These people cannot effectively govern themselves. They have been fighting other people and among themselves since biblical times. The only person who thinks peace is possible in that part of the world is Jimmy Carter, who is as delusional and naive as our current president.
Given this correct assessment of the Middle East and its people, what should the U.S. do?
We should totally pull out of the Middle East. We should close every embassy we have in every Muslim country and close every American business in those countries too. We should cease all foreign aid to any Muslim country.
Unfortunately, we can't do this tomorrow because we need the Mideast's oil because we've failed to drill sufficiently for oil in our own country. If we start drilling tomorrow in our own country like our future security depends upon it — and it does — then in eight years at the most we can be totally and finally independent from the Middle East.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Not man for job
- Working hard in fast food
- Corbett, not Wolf
- Justices behaving badly
- ‘Badges’ before Brooks
- Workers must earn higher pay
- He’ll tax, we’ll pay
- Re-elect Evankovich
- Failing to lead
- Miss Penney’s catalog
- Corbett, the reformer