King Nobby wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's why we supported the Mujahadeen back in the 80s. Heck. It's part of why we supported Saddam Hussein as well.
Err
Wan't that because Russia was getting too close to the Oil that Uncle Sam needed?
Sure. But the basic concept still stands. You're picking one form of leadership over another. The problem that the ME has had for the last half century or so is that most of the leaders who've stepped up have been powerhungry dictators. So while certainly a good portion of the blame lies on the Wests shoulders for putting them in power, some of that blame also has to lie with the people as well. As several people have pointed out in this thread and others, there seems to be a decided lack of the "good people" standing up and demanding good leaders.
Of course, at least part of that problem stems from the fact that for most of that last 50 years, their leaders have been chosen without their input and those leaders have been oppressive, meaning that standing up for something better has almost always resulted in imprisonment and/or death.
Which, just to toss a more current issue into the mix, is why whether you agree with the motives or method by which we got into the current Iraq situation or not, it's pretty important that we follow through with it. If we withdraw or fail, it'll be yet another in a long line of events where the West disrupts the region, replaces leaders, gets the people riled up and hopeful for something "better" only to abandon them to yet another oppressive regime.
Each time we do this, it gets harder. Certainly, if we fail this time, it wont be easier the next time it's tried...