COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
Yes. We already do and we should continue to do so.
Voted : No
No. Why should we? Other allies of ours have conflict to some degree and we often try to remain impartial. The best route we should take is to be completely impartial and try, for once, to be true mediators. The reason why our efforts always fail and make the situation worse is because we show bias. We need to be more fair and even handed.
Voted : Yes
Absolutely. The current struggle in the Middle East is not just about a "godforsaken tiny strip of land in a worthless desert," it is the spiritual center of the universe for 4 billion human beings. As such, the control of this patch of desert is about as important as it gets in this world.
Voted : No
take sides? no. people forget that if you're talking biblically, jordan, egypt, iraq, etc., are as biblically significant as israel. we shouldn't take sides because that helps no one, including us.
As such, the control of this patch of desert is about as important as it gets in this world.
by margaret123 on Sun Jun 17, 07 12:14pm
^ and there you have it. the key word is control. why should we have control? why whould the jews? why should the muslims? see the problem with the concept of control? lcd is right. those areas should be fully international, since as you point out m123, some 4 billion people look to those lands as their spiritual center. so taking sides really mucks it up, doesn't it?
Voted : No
At one time, the U.S at least tried to maintain the appearance of an "honest broker" in the Middle East.
Now, the U.S. is totally on one side, supporting victory, by hook or by crook, for that side. With such a stance, there is little possibility of preventing a major war in the area eventually, which will probably involve nuclear weapons. After such a conflict, the U.S. and it's partisans will be able to proudly proclaim control of that godforsaken, tiny strip of land in a worthless desert that will glow orange in satellite photographs.
oil
|
