[Masthead] Fair ~ 40°F  
High: 57°F ~ Low: 33°F
Saturday, Nov. 29, 2014

Stay Or Get Out of Middle East?

Posted Tuesday, September 18, 2012, at 2:19 PM

Should the United States stay or get out of the Middle East?

Is it time to stop spending billions in an attempt to get those people to live as we would like to see them live when it appears too often we are only teaching them to hate us?

Have American taxpayers seen enough of their tax dollars squandered and far too many of our service men and women and civilians killed while our politicians try to buy friendship?

Should America keep sinking lower and lower economically while we spend billions on people rant and rave, raise fists in the air and yell, fire weapons in the air or worse still turn them on our people?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I think that we should pull out of the Middle East. With our presence there, it does not seem to do any difference in the way the people are acting. They see us as an enemy and unfortunately, there is no way of changing people's mind sets. In order to protect our men and women who are bravely serving our country, we need to bring them back home and let the people in the Middle East continue to kill and blow themselves up. No more innocent American lives should be taken due to the hostility of the people that we are suppose to be protecting and helping.

-- Posted by -Beth- on Tue, Sep 18, 2012, at 2:42 PM

I agree with Beth . . . the people in that region have acted like savages for centuries and have no desire to change. Why should we spend countless billions and waste the lives of our military when those resources could be better used at home? Those servicemen can be used to protect our own borders or used to help rebuild communities that have fallen in decay or been devastated by natural disasters. Considering the growth of our deficit, we could definitely benefit from not throwing away money in the Middle East.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Tue, Sep 18, 2012, at 5:27 PM

Leave. No questions asked.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Tue, Sep 18, 2012, at 8:35 PM

I don't pretend to know all the intricacies of Middle East activities but it is probably not beneficial to us to pull out of all promises made there.

If we learn from history, part of Osama bin Laden's hatred for the U.S. stems from our pull-out of support during their struggle against the Russians.

There are MANY good people over there and the ones we see demonstrating and filled with hatred are probably a small percentage assembled for the benefit of the cameras and different political groups.

While I agree we need to reduce our involvement, a flat-out removal of our presence would probably not be the best action.

Maybe someone who has been there can tell us the reaction of the people when the cameras are not present?

-- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 5:52 AM

They have been killing each other long before we were a country.

Build nuclear reactors to provide an independent energy source, and leave them to their own devices.

-- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Sep 19, 2012, at 5:22 PM

Having lived in a Middle Eastern country for a number of years, I can tell you -- THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE!!!! I learned the language and had many friends there who said that the U.S. should not be there. They said that our values and beliefs are too different from theirs. I think they are pretty ahead of us on that idea. Every part of their lives are run by their religion. It is very hard for us to understand that, but the sooner we learn it, the better off we all will be.

P.S. Glad to see you back!

-- Posted by caligal on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 2:06 PM

We have been lying about our reasons for going into the Middle East for 40 years. Let's tell the truth and get out of there. We have killed thousands of Muslim men, women, children and innocent bystanders for years. The factual history of the Palestine situation is reflected below. This was before the lying propaganda began.


The Winston Simplified Dictionary (Persons and Places) 1923

Palestine (Bib. Canaan), A place; country, S.W. Syria: British mandate; 9,900 sq. mi. Population 755,858; capitol., Jerusalem.

Israel: noun; In the bible. 1. Hebrew patriarch Jacob; 2. The descendants of Jacob; the Jews; as, the children of Israel. 3. The northern kingdom after the division of the Jews; 4. those who returned from the Babylonian captivity.

Babylon, ancient city, Babylonia, in modern Iraq, on Euphrates river

In 1923 Palestine was considered a country and Israel was considered a biblical reference or noun.

-- Posted by Grits on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 5:50 PM

"When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance."

Winston Churchill

British Secretary of State for the Colonies

June 1922

-- Posted by jaxspike on Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 9:19 PM

"is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole". Having your homes bulldozed, Hundreds of thousands of settlement settlers in your country, and the declaration by the UN 25 years later establishing a new nation within your nation sounds like an unbearable imposition. Having your 14 year old daughter crushed by a bulldozer is not easily overlooked. I am not siding with the explosion going on in the Middle East by Muslims or the creation of a "Jewish State". I am pointing out only a few of the horrible actions and destruction by the US and alies that created a burning hatred, throughout the Muslim world, for the US and others that caused it. Today they hate and riot with rocks, US flag burning, and overrunning our embassy to kill the ambassador. My fear is that tomorrow they will fight with the same kind of nuclear weapons we have, and our President's whining and apology will be ignored.

-- Posted by Grits on Fri, Sep 21, 2012, at 5:55 PM

Bring Everyone home. Regroup and dispatch them to places that want our help. Let them kill each other without our people in the middle.

-- Posted by Tdstoni on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 6:46 PM

If it makes anyone feel better, we are not there on a humanitarian mission. We are in the middle east because there are powerful financial interests involved. Dont expect to see us "out" of the middle east as long as there is a drop of oil to be pumped from under the sand, and the Suez remains one of the most important transportation conduits in the world.

Western involvement in the region has a long, and not particularly impressive, history. We (and by we i mean the west, not only the US) bungled the original partitioning of the region, failing to recognize the existing cultural and poilitical divisions. Israel was created from whole cloth. The Palestinians and Kurds found themselves displaced. Rather than working themselves out, these sort of issues have only smoldered while we have maintained an uneasy peace.

As far as the perceived failure of the population to "appreciate" our humanitarian presence, we have supported a variety of repressive military and civilian dictatorships over the years. From the Shah of Iran to Sadaam Hussein to Assad, Mubarak (and Nasser before him) and the Saud family. Whichever government has been currently in place in the various nations of the middle east, they have played off the West against the Soviet Union (and now Russia) for decades. Aligning on one side or the other, but willing and able to be courted into the other sphere if it seemed convenient at the time. I would assume that the emerging power of China has entered the picture in recent years. It shouldnt be a surprise that the local political leadership is really not any of our "buddies", interested in only their own personal issues.

As far as our current status in the region, wew are reviled in places where populist movements overthrew repressive dictatorships... which we supported. What would you expect? We are reviled in places where we still support dictatorships (the Sauds). Believe it or not, we are not reviled in Libya. Unfortunately Libya now has no effective government. It was sadly under-reported that average Libyans staged counter-protests after 9-11-12, decrying the assassination of ambassador stephens. Ordinary people risked their lives to hold up crude, hand-lettered signs thanking the US for helping oust Khadafi and expressing sorrow over Stephens' killing.

As far as the "protests" and the assasination are concerned, all they show is just how weak many of the middle eastern governments are right now. By the time it reaches our TV screens, the only voices and pictures we see are of the extremists. The Stephens assasination was clearly a serious political act, and not some random violence. A well planned military assault does not spontaneously form in the middle of a riot, and the target could be no accident. Stephens was one of our best diplomatic representatives, and a good friend to the moderate and reasonable voices in the middle east.

I feel sorry for the people of the middle east. They are not all raving lunatics, any more than we are, altho we have plenty. We are fortunate enough to have a strong government that affords us the luxury of living in peace and stability. As I said at the beginning, we are not fixing to disengage in the middle east because powerful financial interests are involved. Humanitarian concerns come second, and our hands are not clean.

-- Posted by lazarus on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 6:14 AM

As our resources dwindle, we can ill afford sending them to ungrateful third world countries. Therefore I say bring our people, our supplies and our men home. We probably are gonna need our soldiers here to protect us from our government.

-- Posted by cherokee2 on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 1:52 PM

Bo, my husband and I are reading the U.S. Constitution to be better informed. It has been a long time since we actually read it! Amendment I (added in 1791) states the following:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

How can people be banned from saying a prayer in schools, at a football game, have a cross on their front porch, graduation ceremonies, etc?

Congress opens their sessions with a prayer and other official functions of the government hold a prayer before ceremonies? Isn't this all that needs to be said about freedom of religion? A couple of years ago, the University of Maryland banned prayer at graduation ceremonies. They devised this plan: One person went up on the stage and sneezed; everyone said "God Bless You!"

That is a very sad state of affairs for this country when the Constitution clearly states that we have freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right of the people to assemble....Maybe we should all re-read the Constitution. Thank you for the soapbox....

-- Posted by caligal on Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 7:22 PM

I find it interesting that Romney's stated intentions for the middle east diverge so far from the opinions on here. He criticizes Obama for disengaging in Iraq and Afghanistan and promises to be more "assertive" in our foreign policy, and specifically to become more involved in the middle east.

**** Governor Romney called for a more assertive American role around the world, saying "It is the responsibility of the president to use America's great power to shape history."

* In a speech hailed by former members of the George W. Bush administration, Romney called on the US to arm the Syrian rebels and take new leadership roles in Iran, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. "I believe that if America does not lead, others will--others who do not share our interests and our values--and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us," he said.***

-- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Oct 10, 2012, at 8:34 PM

If we get out of the middle east, we will have to get out of all the countries.

I have heard all my life that America is the world policemen. We keep the peace in foreign counties and try to induce Democracy on them.

We are a Free Nation, or at least that is what we are taught, but the government has oppress us and taken our freedoms away unknowingly to us.

Foreigners want to be free like Americans and look to come to America to be free. Little do they know they become slaves to the US Government.

So, How do we pull out when the United Nations is suppose to be the future world Policemen, and they are right here in America run and financed by America? Either way America is involved in foreign affairs.

If we pull out of foreign countries, so will the American Tourists. They won't be safe traveling to a foreign country. This would also hurt their economy by not spending US Dollars in their countries.

It would hurt the world trade and defeat the purpose of NAFTA, World Import/Export, destroy the reason for the Super Highway from Mexico to Canada, and prevent the One World Order from happening because we would not be included in the one world order. This would also lead to no International shopping on the Internet that would shut down ebay, amazon, Worldwide Dating Sites, etc.. I think you get the picture!

Romney has the right idea. Get in there and lead. Show force and stability and prevent other countries from trying to be the world leader like Hitler!

The majority of the people like America and our financial help. It's the radical muslims who are the trouble makers.

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 12:58 PM


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."? The constitution is speaking about an "Establishment of Religion", not a religious person, although a "person" could be an establishment.

Your religious beliefs are denied to you because you don't know they are using the color of law against you. You MUST not only KNOW your Rights, but HOW to claim them.

The Law itself says, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"! That doesn't mean what you think it does. It was enacted to warn government employees from violating your inalienable rights secured by the US Constitution. When a government employee violates your rights under the color of law, (any law that goes against the constitution) they can be sued or prosecuted.

The Supreme Court has already interpreted the U S Constitution. You need to learn what these interpretations are.

The Government just proves to the people that it is Anti-christ by forcing these anti-christ laws on the people.

A good site to start when learning your rights would be:


The government uses the Uniform Commercial Code to try you in court. This is an international law of contracts. The constitution says you must keep all your contracts faithfully that you enter into knowingly, willingly and intelligently, knowing full well what the circumstances and consequences are when you signed it. Without a contract, the government can not try you. You can then prosecute any government employee that violated any of your rights, because "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

-- Posted by Unique-Lies on Tue, Oct 30, 2012, at 1:24 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette. He passed away November 15, 2014, at age 81.
Hot topics
Your Dreams
(16 ~ 8:53 AM, Nov 25)

Shelbyville Mills School
(779 ~ 11:40 PM, Nov 17)

Hope I'm Wrong, But-
(6 ~ 9:51 PM, Nov 8)

More Annoying Television Ads
(11 ~ 2:23 PM, Oct 31)

Just Some Thoughts
(93 ~ 2:43 PM, Aug 26)