Obviously. I never said they were. They've got a huge chuck of the blame though. So too do the Saudis.


The good thing about history is that it teaches us how things work. It's able to do this because there's two things that stay constant throughout, more or less - human nature and the nature of states. On the nature of states for example, take a Rome, take a Prussia, take a US - the way they approach politics and diplomacy is all the same. You can call it power politics, realpolitik or 'national security', the concept it the same. To ensure the state's security and survival, the state will do anything to protect its vital interests, because, without protecting its vital interests, its existence is threatened (explains why they're called 'vital'). The reason the US is involved in the Middle East is because it's protecting two of its vital interests, economic security and the security of energy resources. Disruptions in the area cause regional instability, which messes with the oil trade. A messed up oil trade is both a threat to economic and energy security.

War does give incumbent politicians a popularity boost. It's not the main issue and it's not the reason why these things keep happening, though. The reason why the foreign policy never changes, whether you elect a republican or democrat, is because idealogical considerations get thrown right out the window when you're talking about the state's vital interests. When you're talking about vital interests, only physical and practical considerations matter.


It doesn't replace funding in education. It replaces some military funding. That money was never going towards education, so its not replacing funding in education.

I could go on a long tangent here about how excessive education spending doesn't even result in better education, but I won't.


It would help a lot. It would eliminate the reason why we get involved over there in the first place. Rather than dealing with the symptoms of war, like military spending does, it tackles the root cause.