This is relatively trivial compared to what happened when the CIA radicalized farmers and peasants (the predominant background of a Taliban/Mujahideen fighter) to fight for Allah and their land. Not only radicalizing the mind of people; but, also providing the means to make the whole sick and evil project complete. For the matter, the architect (whom I admire to some extent of the whole endeavor died a couple of days ago, Zbigniew 'Zbig' Brzezinski, you have to fight fire with fire sometimes).

I guess the fad finally caught on.

Yes, that was the fight against the Commies, I know about that and how it led to Al kaida etc etc.

But what is going on now?
Why did the U.S go into Iraq, no commies, or strategic oil there?
Did this light the fuse in the Middle East and since then it's been a fire fighting exercise?

If so, or whatever else is going on, does the cozying up with Saudi leave us with egg on our face?

From what I've read, Iraq was paradoxically the safety valve in the region. Hussain did maintain order in the region through force and fear; but, it was effective. Iran, which borrowed from the West, what the West did in Afghanistan. The West only started something that was copied throughout the whole region, so they are at fault for starting the thing; but, are somewhat off the hook with how the concept took off.

Anyway, without Hussain, things just spiraled out of control.

EDIT: You don't hear in the media how ISIS is basically a new rogue state from within Iraq. Just goes to show how much we fucked the place up if we can't even bring the topic up in our great open/free speech news.

Yes, Al kaida bit back on 9:11, leading to a knee jerk reaction in invading Iraq. Then countries in the Middle East and Asia start falling like dominoes. Should we pull out now, or get sucked in further.

The Saudi issue is top news in the UK today, two days before the election. Particularly about what is going on in Yemen.

It occurred to me that the terrorist attacks in London are a result of Britain selling arms to countries in the Middle East. — Punshhh

Is causality that simple?

Is causality that simple?

Causality is sometimes simple and sometimes convoluted. However when it's convoluted, when it's happening it may as well be simple.
My comments are more about the irony, or hipocrisy of the UK government regarding the arms deal with Saudi as sacrosanct. So as to provide the revenue to pay for the rapid response police squads to deal with the terrorists inspired by wahhabism and the like.

Also it's interesting how the airwaves are crammed with news reports about the terro attacks and what is going on in Syria, on the assumption that we are not culpable. While there is literally no mention of the carnage going on in The Yemen, using the arms we sold to the Saudis.

Indeed. Politics has a way of degrading anything it touches. I don't like politics but I'm not saying this from a higher moral ground. There are good politicians around, genuinely interested in the welfare of citizens. Only they're few and outnumbered by others who have private agenda in ruling the masses. Surprisingly, in a democracy it's the people who ''choose'' their rulers. Ironic isn't it?

Why did the U.S go into Iraq, no commies, or strategic oil there?
Did this light the fuse in the Middle East and since then it's been a fire fighting exercise? — Punshhh

This story is at least 75% true:

The strategy part came from a guy named Wolfowitz. He had worked in SE Asia and witnessed a democracy-domino effect there. He thought the US would benefit if the MIddle East would go through a similar democratization.

Supposedly the people who blew up the world trade center were Saudis who were frustrated with their own government. They wanted reform, but it seemed impossible. So they lashed out at one of Saudi's most important allies: the US. Wolfowitz thought that if the whole Middle East could move toward democracy, then frustrated individuals could exhaust their energies in democratic wrangling instead of attacking the US and creating jolts to the US economy. He explained this publicly after the invasion.

This was a reversal in US foreign policy announced by GW Bush in a state of the union address where he identified and "axis of evil." During the Cold War, the US had a policy of "siding with the bad against the worse," IOW being indiscriminate about allies. On top of that, oil companies said it would be easier for them to deal with corrupt monarchies than with democratic countries, so there was impetus to maintain the status quo.

Another factor was the presence of a guy named Rumsfeld. He was the type of shithead who shows up to facilitate war because he knows how to profit from it. It wasn't too hard to facilitate it, though, because the US has a standing army waiting to be exercised, and 911 galvanized the American population.

There's another thing that I think happened. It was reported by a CIA agent on CNN. He said that after 911, the CIA received information that there was a suitcase bomb in NYC. The info had been received from two independent sources (Russia and Pakistan.) He said the thinking was that if there was a bomb in NY, there could be ones in Chicago and LA. As time went by and no radioactive bomb went off in NY, they decided that it had been a lie, but the need to find some action that would calm terrorists down became a high priority. I wasn't sure about this story until I heard Bill Clinton allude to that scenario. As he spoke, I became pretty confident that he believed it had happened.

The invasion of Iraq was intended to begin a process of replacing monarchies with democracies. It was a bold plan executed with a high degree of cluelessness. In order to work, the plan would require that Middle Easterners take up the cause themselves.

The outcome of the Arab-Spring and the devastation of Syria testify that Wolfowitz was wrong. The Middle East is not going to become democratic. Ironically, the belief (held by Bush) that we're all basically the same and want the same things turned out to be wrong. It was quasi-racist, anti-Islamic, in some cases Zionist fanatics, who said the MIddle East can't be democratized. Turns out they were right. :(

After 911, I struggled to understand the motives of the attackers. A friend told me I was over-thinking it. There are just some bloody-minded people in the world. They're going to do some damage if they can. My intuition is that my friend is right.