seems legit
You're now watching two strangers discuss your question!
Question to discuss:
Why do you think U.S. troops are still in the Middle East?
Stranger 2: Good question
Stranger 2: I'm generating an answer
Stranger 1: Me as well.
Stranger 2: For me, it's 1) money, 2) a fufillment on half-baked promises, and a hero complex.
Stranger 1: I'd almost go with the hero complex, though money seems more likely. War is good for an economy.
Stranger 2: We dont' want to look badly in front of our world peers, so we'll finish it up, even though this is so much like Vietnam it's not even funny
Stranger 2: Except with the way our economy is now...
Stranger 2: It's good for some. I live near a sub base and it's been bustling there (amid other sub base closures)...
Stranger 1: Yeah, agreed. The economy has been screwed over for some time, though.
Stranger 2: And the thing is, the only "other" opinion we get from the people IN the occupied Middle Eastern countries are the insurgents'...what about (forgive the terrible joke) Joe Schmoe's opinion?
Stranger 2: Clearly, if people are bombing us, they don't want us there...but what about the families there? The ordinary people?
Stranger 1: They probably appreciate the soldiers there. I mean, otherwise the radicals would run the place, and that'd be a nightmare.
Stranger 2: But at the same time their presence incites more violence
Stranger 1: It's an interesting tossup.
Stranger 1: Though I wouldn't be surprised if things began to go the way things have been going in Libya.
Stranger 2: Mmm...
Stranger 2: I think what's preventing that though is the lack of unity...
Stranger 2: In Iraq, for instance, the three groups of Muslims have such different ideals and ways of life that I wouldn't oppose three separate states/countries being "born"
Stranger 1: Yeah, but that might cause the whole "Israel/Palestine" thing.
Stranger 2: It might...but if that were to happen it might provide the foreground for offering solutions for that entire conflict too
Stranger 2: I'm skeptical, but an optimist at heart lol
Stranger 1: Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd like to think people can peacefully solve their differences, but the realist knows that it just can't happen.
Stranger 2: Yup
Stranger 2: But the thing (if my facts are straight), is that after WWII we just kind of said, "Okay, so we're giving all of our Jews and Middle Easterners their own country back! Have fun guys!"
Stranger 2: *in regards to Israel
Stranger 1: Yes, that much is true. Palestine did lose a lot of land to them.
Stranger 1: So it's kind of understandable.
Stranger 1: But it's also easy to imagine the radical Muslim groups wanting control of the entire area.
Stranger 2: (I am so thankful I'm having an intelligent and informed conversation right now)
Stranger 2: It is easy to imagine...water routes to the Mediterranean, trade, religious tourism...
Stranger 1: (Agreed entirely, don't find it too often on here)
Stranger 1: So really, there isn't much of a solution to the Middle East.
Stranger 2: There might be if we weren't the only ones making the decisions. Their respective governments and people need to have a chance to offer their own voices.
Stranger 2: Unilateral decisions always make us lose in the end
Stranger 1: Yes, however the radicals make government difficult.
Stranger 1: If it weren't for radicals, things would be much simpler.
Stranger 2: True...but then wouldn't it be boring if everyone had the same mentality?
Stranger 2: They are still fighting for what they believe in, but they do so differently and with a different commitment. I don't condemn their actions, but they feel it's the only way to get their voice heard
Stranger 1: I'm not saying that people should share the mentality. I'm just saying there are much more peaceful ways of communicating it.
Stranger 2: I know. By mentality I meant...well maybe it was a bad word choice
Stranger 1: Perhaps. But I get what you mean. Their message is being heard, for sure.
Stranger 2: Because think about it...
Stranger 2: those who are recruited into the terrorist groups are those who are often poor, illiterate, and/or addicted to some substance in some cases, so they join in droves because they want the glory, honor, and opportunity
Stranger 2: to them, they might die, but it's a noble sacrifice to better their lives, since sometimes the castes within a society or village might be so strict--or alternatively, they don't see an economic way out other than to join just to feed their family
Stranger 2: (today it seems to be more economically based)
Stranger 1: I'd have to agree with you there. So perhaps if there were a way to improve the economic factor of their society, less need for joining would happen.
Stranger 1: However, I wouldn't put it past people to intimidate others into joining.
Stranger 2: Of course that must happen too. I also think that in addition to economics (that doesn't screw them over in the end like it is elsewhere), education is key
Stranger 1: Yes. However that's difficult as well, as there have been attacks on schools and schoolchildren.
Stranger 2: Yes, and women can't go to school past a certain age in most cases
Stranger 1: Exactly. Their society inhibits them as well.
Stranger 2: But then if we go and introduce feminism, we'll be attacked for that as well (in addition to those who embrace it within their own society).
Stranger 1: Were it not for the suffering that would occur, I'd say to get the soldiers out and back to their own countries, and let them fight amongst themselves. They've been fighting pretty well forever. It's going to take a lot to change that.
Stranger 2: Agreed
You have disconnected.
