Mideast Violence - analysis

[Kryzbyn]

Nicos, that is why I was talking about Egypt, not all of the Muslim world.

[Nicos]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Nicos, that is why I was talking about Egypt, not all of the Muslim world.

well then i do not undesrtat your statement.

[Kryzbyn]

Nicos wrote:

Fenzl wrote:

What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Muhammad?

People die.

What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Jesus or Christianity?
Blogging.

I suposse in history there i no a single case of violence due to christian fundamentalism.

Because of a cartoon? No.

Look at what people are actually typing, and leave the big broad brush alone.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Maybe.

But I think the West's past influnces stop once a ballot box comes out, and the people get to decide who will govern them. If it's a real and free election, it's their first step at self governance, and making their own destiny as a country.
If the Muslim Brotherhood got the votes, then it isn't unreasonable to assume their rhetoric was acceptable to enough people to get them elected.

I'm not saying this absolves the West of any involvement. But it's in their hands now.

That's how people are supposed to work?

"Yeah, we've been backing your oppressor for decades, supplying him with money and weapons to keep you down, but now you're free, so let's let bygones be bygones and start fresh. We're your friends now. Trust us."

[Nicos]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Fenzl wrote:

What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Muhammad?

People die.

What happens when cartoons are drawn mocking Jesus or Christianity?
Blogging.

I suposse in history there i no a single case of violence due to christian fundamentalism.

Because of a cartoon? No.

Look at what people are actually typing, and leave the big broad brush alone.

Cartoon or not cartoon Violence in the name of any religion is unaceptable for me.

I do not see violence in the name of jesus more acceptable that violence in the name of Muhammad. whatever reason a crhistian fundamentalist have to commit an act of (religious realated) violence is not more valid or reasonable taht the muslim violence for a cartoon.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Maybe.

But I think the West's past influnces stop once a ballot box comes out, and the people get to decide who will govern them. If it's a real and free election, it's their first step at self governance, and making their own destiny as a country.
If the Muslim Brotherhood got the votes, then it isn't unreasonable to assume their rhetoric was acceptable to enough people to get them elected.

I'm not saying this absolves the West of any involvement. But it's in their hands now.

I may be telescoping, but I thought there were pretty much only two candidates that were allowed to compete by the military--the military's puppet and the moderate Muslim Brotherhood candidate who won.

[Kryzbyn]

I suppose that's one way, but it doesn't seem very realistic.
I think maybe more of a "Hey, grats on the election, good show. We won't bother you anymore, see you at the UN parties."
I dunno that friendship is even possible. Mutual respect is, though, going forward.
You can have honest diplomatic relations with people who aren't your firends.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Despite the commotion, and the MB president, I hadn't noticed any signs that the US was abandoning one of its three staunchest allies in the Middle East. (How come you don't hear anything about protests in Turkey?)

The Egyptians elected a Parliament--the military dismissed it. The Egyptians elected a President--the military dictated who was on his cabinet. The military is in the pocket of the US government and has been since '78.

I've seen, but haven't yet read, a couple of more recent articles about how the MB president has come to terms with the military, but I doubt severing relations--and the juicy military aid gravy train--with the United States is part of the program.

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Why is it that so many people feel it is perfectly natural for other countries and religions to act in their own best interests but find it objectionable when the United States does the same???

What is better? A dictator that brings stability and suppresses religious violence or a democracy that allows fanatics to burn buildings and kill "non-believers".

It is not a trick question but it is a difficult one that the United States has had to historically deal with. Sometimes option A has been better for the U.S. Sometimes the U.S. has tried option B. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not. It depends, is there a cold war going on? Is the U.S. is a position of power? Are liberals or Conservatives in charge?

It shows a real lack of understanding to just start throwing things around like "the US supported Sadam" as if that proves anything without an understanding of why?

The U.S. does what it does because it's government believes that is what is best for it at the time. That is the same standard that every country in the world applies to all of their actions. The only difference is that the US is powerful while most other nations are not. So US policy can and does affect other countries while most other countries can not.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

I suppose that's one way, but it doesn't seem very realistic.

I think maybe more of a "Hey, grats on the election, good show. We won't bother you anymore, see you at the UN parties."
I dunno that friendship is even possible. Mutual respect is, though, going forward.
You can have honest diplomatic relations with people who aren't your firends.

Not when you've been kicking them.

No one's going to buy "Grats on kicking our puppet out, good show."

[Kryzbyn]

Nicos wrote:

Cartoon or not cartoon Violence in the name of any religion is unaceptable for me.

Understood.

Nicos wrote:

I do not see violence in the name of jesus more acceptable that violence in the name of Muhammad. whatever reason a crhistian fundamentalist have to commit an act of (religious realated) violence is not more valid or reasonable taht the muslim violence for a cartoon.

I don't see anyone taking up that position, or arguing for it.

Any violence done for bad reasons is wrong, religion or otherwise. I think we can all accept this fact.

In the world we all live in though, modern fundamentalist Muslims tend to commit violence for the dumbest reasons in way more frequency and in larger numbers than modern Christians do. This is fact.
This does not make it acceptable when Christians do it. Killing abortion doctors isn't any less reprehensible than killing a person over a drawn cartoon.

The comment wasn't saying Muslim violence is wrong, Christian violence is good. Nor was it a commentary on religious violence throughout history.

It was pointing out overreaction.

That's all, nothing more.

[Kryzbyn]

thejeff wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

I suppose that's one way, but it doesn't seem very realistic.

I think maybe more of a "Hey, grats on the election, good show. We won't bother you anymore, see you at the UN parties."
I dunno that friendship is even possible. Mutual respect is, though, going forward.
You can have honest diplomatic relations with people who aren't your firends.

Not when you've been kicking them.

No one's going to buy "Grats on kicking our puppet out, good show."

Again, I suppose it could be taken that way.

So what do you envision middle east relations going forward to look like?

[thejeff]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Why is it that so many people feel it is perfectly natural for other countries and religions to act in their own best interests but find it objectionable when the United States does the same???

What is better? A dictator that brings stability and suppresses religious violence or a democracy that allows fanatics to burn buildings and kill "non-believers".

It is not a trick question but it is a difficult one that the United States has had to historically deal with. Sometimes option A has been better for the U.S. Sometimes the U.S. has tried option B. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not. It depends, is there a cold war going on? Is the U.S. is a position of power? Are liberals or Conservatives in charge?

It shows a real lack of understanding to just start throwing things around like "the US supported Sadam" as if that proves anything without an understanding of why?

The U.S. does what it does because it's government believes that is what is best for it at the time. That is the same standard that every country in the world applies to all of their actions. The only difference is that the US is powerful while most other nations are not. So US policy can and does affect other countries while most other countries can not.

The difference is

a) I'm a US citizen, so I feel more responsible for pointing out its bad behavior.
b) Many Americans seem to believe that the US only acts out of altruistic motives abroad.
c) It's so damn stupid and short-sighted. Half of our problems today are blowback for the crap we did in the past. For what seemed like good reasons then, I'm sure. But we're doing the same kind of thing now, for what seem likely equally good and pragmatic reasons. It's going to come back and bite us too. Maybe we can stop causing future problems for ourselves?

I don't say these kinds of things to show my hatred for America or to prove that we're the worst country every. I want people to understand what we've done, what we are doing and what the consequences have been and will be.

[Nicos]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Why is it that so many people feel it is perfectly natural for other countries and religions to act in their own best interests but find it objectionable when the United States does the same???

What is better? A dictator that brings stability and suppresses religious violence or a democracy that allows fanatics to burn buildings and kill "non-believers".

It is not a trick question but it is a difficult one that the United States has had to historically deal with. Sometimes option A has been better for the U.S. Sometimes the U.S. has tried option B. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not. It depends, is there a cold war going on? Is the U.S. is a position of power? Are liberals or Conservatives in charge?

It shows a real lack of understanding to just start throwing things around like "the US supported Sadam" as if that proves anything without an understanding of why?

The U.S. does what it does because it's government believes that is what is best for it at the time. That is the same standard that every country in the world applies to all of their actions. The only difference is that the US is powerful while most other nations are not. So US policy can and does affect other countries while most other countries can not.

to be clear

1) do you think supporting dictator is good and acceptable?
2) what kind of dictators are good?
3) what kind of dictators are bad?
4) if the US is the beacon of democracy of the world how is destroying anther deomcracies a good thing?
5) if the US destroy another democracy in the name of their own interest, do you think people form that country should thank you?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

The U.S. does what it does because it's government believes that is what is best for it at the time. That is the same standard that every country in the world applies to all of their actions. The only difference is that the US is powerful while most other nations are not. So US policy can and does affect other countries while most other countries can not.

The US imperialists do what they do because it is best for them to control the world and the oil markets and have more guns than anyone else.

It isn't actually what's best for the US's working classes, and it's not much good for the world, either.

[Nicos]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Cartoon or not cartoon Violence in the name of any religion is unaceptable for me.

Understood.

Nicos wrote:

I do not see violence in the name of jesus more acceptable that violence in the name of Muhammad. whatever reason a crhistian fundamentalist have to commit an act of (religious realated) violence is not more valid or reasonable taht the muslim violence for a cartoon.

I don't see anyone taking up that position, or arguing for it.

Any violence done for bad reasons is wrong, religion or otherwise. I think we can all accept this fact.

In the world we all live in though, modern fundamentalist Muslims tend to commit violence for the dumbest reasons in way more frequency and in larger numbers than modern Christians do. This is fact.
This does not make it acceptable when Christians do it. Killing abortion doctors isn't any less reprehensible than killing a person over a drawn cartoon.

The comment wasn't saying Muslim violence is wrong, Christian violence is good. Nor was it a commentary on religious violence throughout history.

It was pointing out overreaction.

That's all, nothing more.

of course is an overeaction. THE responsables of the death of the US embassador in libya should be put to trial.

but the tone of that commentary is what i do not liked.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Cartoon or not cartoon Violence in the name of any religion is unaceptable for me.

Understood.

Nicos wrote:

I do not see violence in the name of jesus more acceptable that violence in the name of Muhammad. whatever reason a crhistian fundamentalist have to commit an act of (religious realated) violence is not more valid or reasonable taht the muslim violence for a cartoon.

I don't see anyone taking up that position, or arguing for it.

Any violence done for bad reasons is wrong, religion or otherwise. I think we can all accept this fact.

In the world we all live in though, modern fundamentalist Muslims tend to commit violence for the dumbest reasons in way more frequency and in larger numbers than modern Christians do. This is fact.
This does not make it acceptable when Christians do it. Killing abortion doctors isn't any less reprehensible than killing a person over a drawn cartoon.

The comment wasn't saying Muslim violence is wrong, Christian violence is good. Nor was it a commentary on religious violence throughout history.

It was pointing out overreaction.

That's all, nothing more.

I suspect the reasons have more to do with (Western) Christians living in more secular countries and having less influence over their governments. They can get away with less and have less to gain from inflaming their followers. Better education also plays a strong role.

[LazarX]

An important thing to understand that in all of these Islamic countries in the region, even the most liberal, operate on the assumption that their governments have the last word in any publication or production. They literally can not accept the otherwise to be true in any other country.

The conclusion they inevitably reach is that the Anti-Muslim film that was released was done so with the blessing and consent of the American government. And thus constitutes a propaganda war enacted on Islam by the United States. This conclusion is doubly reinforced when provactive actions such as Koran burning are not addressed by our government.

[Kryzbyn]

Or it could be that killing someone over a cartoon is a silly idea.

[Kryzbyn]

LazarX wrote:

An important thing to understand that in all of these Islamic countries in the region, even the most liberal, operate on the assumption that their governments have the last word in any publication or production. They literally can not accept the otherwise to be true in any other country.

The conclusion they inevitably reach is that the Anti-Muslim film that was released was done so with the blessing and consent of the American government. And thus constitutes a propaganda war enacted on Islam by the United States. This conclusion is doubly reinforced when provactive actions such as Koran burning are not addressed by our government.

What do they think of us burning our own flag? Or making fun of our own religions? Do they believe that is gov't sanctioned?

Or just a by product of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

So, why did the US support Saddam Hussein?

Well, when our regional puppet the Shah of Iran was overthrown...

Oh, wait a minute, why was the Shah of Iran our puppet?

Well, there used to be this semi-democratically elected guy named Mossadegh who wanted to nationalize what became British Petroleum. I think el-Elbe wrote a well articulated post above about what happened to him.

It's all about money and power.

It's also funny to go back and look at how, time and time again, the Western imperialists funded and nurtured Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against the commies and the leftist nationalists. I think this goes all the way back to the Brits funding the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of this century, but it also includes such awesomeness as the US funding the Taliban-to-be and the Mossad funding Hamas (or Hezbollah, I always get the two confused) as a counterweight to the PLO.

Woops.

[Kryzbyn]

Whoops indeed.
Can we simply stop doing these things? Is there a way forward?

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

LazarX wrote:

An important thing to understand that in all of these Islamic countries in the region, even the most liberal, operate on the assumption that their governments have the last word in any publication or production. They literally can not accept the otherwise to be true in any other country.

The conclusion they inevitably reach is that the Anti-Muslim film that was released was done so with the blessing and consent of the American government. And thus constitutes a propaganda war enacted on Islam by the United States. This conclusion is doubly reinforced when provactive actions such as Koran burning are not addressed by our government.

What do they think of us burning our own flag? Or making fun of our own religions? Do they believe that is gov't sanctioned?

Or just a by product of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Probably most of the protestors know little to nothing about it.

[A Man In Black]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Because of a cartoon? No.

Are you seriously going to do this?

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

What is better? A dictator that brings stability and suppresses religious violence or a democracy that allows fanatics to burn buildings and kill "non-believers".

People aren't allowed to hate the US because it was working in its own best self-interest. Why aren't they allowed to act in their own best self-interest and purge the influence of their foreign oppressor?

The answer is the same in both cases. It's self-destructive, short-sighted thinking. Most Muslims are not Salafists and would not be happy under a hardline conservative regime, but support hardliners because of promises of stability and protection. Likewise, the US wants allies in the Middle East, but shouldn't (and luckily, currently isn't) drop them like a rock because they're not stable six months out from a civil war.

Every single country that had a protest at a US embassy overthrew its government last year. You didn't see protests in Jordan or Turkey, or even countries where hardline conservatives have a role in government, like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Whoops indeed.

Can we simply stop doing these things? Is there a way forward?

The first step is to acknowledge that we do them.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Whoops indeed.

Can we simply stop doing these things? Is there a way forward?

International proletarian socialist revolution?

[Kryzbyn]

Not a single one of those was cartoon related. Very good research MiB!

[Pyrrhic Victory]

Nicos wrote:

to be clear

1) do you think supporting dictator is good and acceptable?
2) what kind of dictators are good?
3) what kind of dictators are bad?
4) if the US is the beacon of democracy of the world how is destroying anther deomcracies a good thing?
5) if the US destroy another democracy in the name of their own interest, do you think people form that country should thank you?

You are not asking the correct questions? The real question is why support a dictatorship or a democracy?

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

The US supported Iraq in the 1980's not because it loved Sadam but because Iraq is the counter balance to Iran in the middle east. The US supports a king in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is one of the few stable countries in a resource rich region full of instability.

Does the US therefore approve of dictatorship and monarchy as its prefered methods of government? Obviously not, but that is not the important issue.

Twenty years later, things change. Iraq as a counter weight to Iran is no longer as important to the US as removing Sadam. Does this mean that the new democracy in Iraq will be friendly towards the US. No it does not. Just like the Democracy in Egypt will not necessarily be friendly with the US. Just like the democracy in France often finds itself politically at odds with the US.

I know these are complicated ideas not really suited to a message board but the basic idea is, don't expect the US to act any differently than any other country. The US is in it for itself and in it to win, just like everyone else. People and or countries that complain about this are being hypocrites. Their countries behave the exact same way.

[A Man In Black]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Not a single one of those was cartoon related. Very good research MiB!

Yup. Because the only form of hardliner religious violence and oppression is protesting cartoons.

Don't be willfully obtuse. It's not about the freedom to make whatever damn fool cartoons you want. It's about how hardliner sectarians use religion as a tool to serve their politics.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

International proletarian socialist revolution?

I know this is your posting gimmick and all, but revolutions tend to get co-opted or used as cover by people who just and to line up people of a different religion/race/language/tribe against a wall.

[Kryzbyn]

I'm not being willfully obtuse. I already outlined what my point was. If you'd have bothered to read what was typed instead of assuming what that part of the discussion was or wasn't about... but I suppose it's fun to piece all of those links together, for no apparent reason.

[LazarX]

Kryzbyn wrote:

LazarX wrote:

An important thing to understand that in all of these Islamic countries in the region, even the most liberal, operate on the assumption that their governments have the last word in any publication or production. They literally can not accept the otherwise to be true in any other country.

The conclusion they inevitably reach is that the Anti-Muslim film that was released was done so with the blessing and consent of the American government. And thus constitutes a propaganda war enacted on Islam by the United States. This conclusion is doubly reinforced when provactive actions such as Koran burning are not addressed by our government.

What do they think of us burning our own flag? Or making fun of our own religions? Do they believe that is gov't sanctioned?

Or just a by product of religious freedom and freedom of speech.

They don't really give a damm about what we do to ourselves. Did you give a damm about how the Taliban treated their countrymen after they slammed three airplanes into our country and almost succeeded with a fourth? And you also don't understand they can not conceive of freedom of speech that does not have an ultimate government veto that can override it. In Western Europe for instance, there are governments that have free speech. But denying the Holocaust is still a crime in Germany and I think France as well.

We've arrested people for flag burning. That's a globally known fact, we've even talked about amendments to restrict that activity. They know that we're not even thinking about censoring that film.

[Nicos]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Nicos wrote:

to be clear

1) do you think supporting dictator is good and acceptable?
2) what kind of dictators are good?
3) what kind of dictators are bad?
4) if the US is the beacon of democracy of the world how is destroying anther deomcracies a good thing?
5) if the US destroy another democracy in the name of their own interest, do you think people form that country should thank you?

You are not asking the correct questions? The real question is why support a dictatorship or a democracy?

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

The US supported Iraq in the 1980's not because it loved Sadam but because Iraq is the counter balance to Iran in the middle east. The US supports a king in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is one of the few stable countries in a resource rich region full of instability.

Does the US therefore approve of dictatorship and monarchy as its prefered methods of government? Obviously not, but that is not the important issue.

Twenty years later, things change. Iraq as a counter weight to Iran is no longer as important to the US as removing Sadam. Does this mean that the new democracy in Iraq will be friendly towards the US. No it does not. Just like the Democracy in Egypt will not necessarily be friendly with the US. Just like the democracy in France often finds itself politically at odds with the US.

I know these are complicated ideas not really suited to a message board but the basic idea is, don't expect the US to act any differently than any other country. The US is in it for itself and in it to win, just like everyone else. People and or countries that complain about this are being hypocrites. Their countries behave the exact same way.

it is good to see an honest person. I of course find your way of thinking very abhorrent but at least you seems to be honest.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

A Man In Black wrote:

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

International proletarian socialist revolution?

I know this is your posting gimmick and all, but revolutions tend to get co-opted or used as cover by people who just and to line up people of a different religion/race/language/tribe against a wall.

Blah blah blah.

Down with the mullahs, colonels, sheikhs and Zionists!

Workers to power!

For a socialist federation of the Near East!

Vive le Galt!

[NPC Dave]

LazarX wrote:

They don't really give a damm about what we do to ourselves. Did you give a damm about how the Taliban treated their countrymen after they slammed three airplanes into our country and almost succeeded with a fourth?

???

Al Qaeda done not equal Taliban.

The Taliban flew zero planes into zero buildings.

The people who actually did fly planes into buildings were from...
Egypt,
Saudi Arabia,
and
United Arab Emirates.

If you throw in flight 93 you also get one guy from Lebanon.

Nobody from Afghanistan.

[thejeff]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Nicos wrote:

to be clear

1) do you think supporting dictator is good and acceptable?
2) what kind of dictators are good?
3) what kind of dictators are bad?
4) if the US is the beacon of democracy of the world how is destroying anther deomcracies a good thing?
5) if the US destroy another democracy in the name of their own interest, do you think people form that country should thank you?

You are not asking the correct questions? The real question is why support a dictatorship or a democracy?

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

The US supported Iraq in the 1980's not because it loved Sadam but because Iraq is the counter balance to Iran in the middle east. The US supports a king in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is one of the few stable countries in a resource rich region full of instability.

Does the US therefore approve of dictatorship and monarchy as its prefered methods of government? Obviously not, but that is not the important issue.

Twenty years later, things change. Iraq as a counter weight to Iran is no longer as important to the US as removing Sadam. Does this mean that the new democracy in Iraq will be friendly towards the US. No it does not. Just like the Democracy in Egypt will not necessarily be friendly with the US. Just like the democracy in France often finds itself politically at odds with the US.

I know these are complicated ideas not really suited to a message board but the basic idea is, don't expect the US to act any differently than any other country. The US is in it for itself and in it to win, just like everyone else. People and or countries that complain about this are being hypocrites. Their countries behave the exact same way.

So that's it. The highest we can aim for is "in the interests of the United States"? Support the worst, bloodiest monsters, as long as they'll do our bidding. Nothing else matters.

Even then it might be worth it, if it was done with due consideration of the long-term consequences. And in the interests of the people of the United States, not the politicians and their big money supporters.
How many times will these things have to blow up in our faces before we learn? Overthrowing Mossadegh and backing the Shah leads directly to the Islamic Revolution and the current problems with Iran and indirectly to Saddam Hussein, since we used him as a balance to Iran. Supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight the USSR leads directly to the Taliban and 911.

Sure, in cases where there is an actual existential threat to the US, it's more acceptable, but much of our abuse has been for short term political or economic gain. Destabilizing countries to get access for US corporations, for example.

[thejeff]

NPC Dave wrote:

LazarX wrote:

They don't really give a damm about what we do to ourselves. Did you give a damm about how the Taliban treated their countrymen after they slammed three airplanes into our country and almost succeeded with a fourth?

???

Al Qaeda done not equal Taliban.

The Taliban flew zero planes into zero buildings.

The people who actually did fly planes into buildings were from...
Egypt,
Saudi Arabia,
and
United Arab Emirates.

If you throw in flight 93 you also get one guy from Lebanon.

Nobody from Afghanistan.

Truth in that of course, but Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and its leadership and training was there, with the Taliban's approval.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I think this goes all the way back to the Brits funding the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of this century,

Woops. Sometimes I forget it's no longer the 20th.

[BigNorseWolf]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

You are not asking the correct questions? The real question is why support a dictatorship or a democracy?

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

No dammit.

The question should be "Whats the RIGHT thing to do." Deciding for an aggregate of people is no different than deciding as an individual. Deciding for a group is no excuse for sociopathic thinking that eschews morality, reason, and fairness in place of your own self interest.

Quote:

Does the US therefore approve of dictatorship and monarchy as its prefered methods of government? Obviously not, but that is not the important issue.

No, the important issue is who keeps the oil flowing and who keeps oil trading on the american dollar.

Quote:

Twenty years later, things change. Iraq as a counter weight to Iran is no longer as important to the US as removing Sadam.

The neocons have wanted to invade iraq and cut up its oil reserves since kissinger. The only thing that changed was that americans can't tell one group of muslim fer'ners from another so 9 11 gave them an excuse to invade.

Quote:

Does this mean that the new democracy in Iraq will be friendly towards the US. No it does not. Just like the Democracy in Egypt will not necessarily be friendly with the US. Just like the democracy in France often finds itself politically at odds with the US.

Note that the democracy in egypt is having a hard time getting any actual power from the egyptian military (which we back)

Quote:

I know these are complicated ideas not really suited to a message board but the basic idea is, don't expect the US to act any differently than any other country. The US is in it for itself and in it to win, just like everyone else. People and or countries that complain about this are being hypocrites. Their countries behave the exact same way.

Then it needs to stop the rhetorical malarky it spews about democracy, freedom, the inherent rights of human beings, truth justice and the american way. I realize all countries do this but the US has an extra helping that makes our actual behavior abroad all the more glaringly deficient.

[Fergie]

thejeff wrote:

Truth in that of course, but Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and its leadership and training was there, with the Taliban's approval.

I recall that Afghanistan asked for proof that the people we were after were involved in the attacks before turning them over, and we wouldn't provide any. Honestly, the Afghan government isn't to blame for the war we brought to them, we are.

someone wrote:

In the world we all live in though, modern fundamentalist Muslims tend to commit violence for the dumbest reasons in way more frequency and in larger numbers than modern Christians do. This is fact.

No, it really isn't a fact. Not that you could really have a factual statement about the dumbest reasons for violence, but it's still WAY off. Add up the number of civilians killed in the first gulf war, the sanctions that followed, the war in Afghanistan, and the second Iraq war. Yeah, there are some real scumbag rulers in the region, but I think you are comparing thousands to millions. A few riots deaths and beheadings of disobedient women? Not even a drop in the bucket compared to what we have done in the region!

EDIT:

someone wrote:

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

Our foreign (and much of our domestic) policy is decided by the industrial military complex that that radical hippy Eisenhower warned us about. The masses of people see very little benefit from war, while the arms, oil, and aviation and security industries get to have Christmas every day of the year, with no end in sight!

[The 8th Dwarf]

17th Century on European nations carve up the world and start colonising and exploiting the locals.

Where the west cant colonise or control directly it props up the governments that tortures and murders its own citizens in return for what will benefit the money making classes.

See the Opium wars as a shining example of the British as a nation dealing drugs and forcing countries to take them... (The US was in on it, just not to the scale of the world superpower that the British Empire was). You have to wait until Vietnam before your government corners the Heroin trade.

The only thing that has changed since the 17thC is which of the Western nations is predominant in supporting the tyrants.

The only thing that those oppressive governments hesitated to mess with is religion. As that can turn a whole country against you.

Smart Tyrants use funnel the hate - they allow religious unrest as long as it is aimed at the Western tyrants supporting them.... So they can say look we have religious nutters that want to attack you we need more guns to kill them, so the west gives them more guns they use them to oppress them just enough to get more money from the west to get more power and weapons.

When the religious nutters overthrow the tyrants are they going to say thank you to the west. No they are going to send a message - We have had enough of you backing those that have tortured us, we have had enough of you disrespecting us and we hate you for being responsible for 300 years of colonialism, exploitation and repression and for the millions of our people died sou you could live like kings while our children starved in the streets.

So no after overthrowing the dictatorships and giving democracy a try the people are not want to be friends just because you are a democracy as well.

[thejeff]

Fergie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Truth in that of course, but Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and its leadership and training was there, with the Taliban's approval.

I recall that Afghanistan asked for proof that the people we were after were involved in the attacks before turning them over, and we wouldn't provide any. Honestly, the Afghan government isn't to blame for the war we brought to them, we are.

Can't argue with that. They might have refused even if they'd been given evidence or they might have just been looking for a way to save face.

A more competent diplomatic approach might have gotten Bin Laden with a war. Not that the Bush administration was competent or looking to avoid war.

[The 8th Dwarf]

thejeff wrote:

Fergie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Truth in that of course, but Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and its leadership and training was there, with the Taliban's approval.

I recall that Afghanistan asked for proof that the people we were after were involved in the attacks before turning them over, and we wouldn't provide any. Honestly, the Afghan government isn't to blame for the war we brought to them, we are.

Can't argue with that. They might have refused even if they'd been given evidence or they might have just been looking for a way to save face.

A more competent diplomatic approach might have gotten Bin Laden with a war. Not that the Bush administration was competent or looking to avoid war.

The Bush admin were looking to start s~%~ up with China at the time. The Neo Con philosophy was that the US needed a BBEG to focus and compete against, as the former USSR was not available for Cold War II, China offered a cool alternative.

That is why the Bush admin were so inept at dealing with 9/11. It was not the BBEG that they wanted, they were taken by surprise. The only cover up the Bush admin participated in was covering up the fact they ignored the warnings about how serious the threat from AL Q was.

[meatrace]

Fergie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Truth in that of course, but Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and its leadership and training was there, with the Taliban's approval.

I recall that Afghanistan asked for proof that the people we were after were involved in the attacks before turning them over, and we wouldn't provide any. Honestly, the Afghan government isn't to blame for the war we brought to them, we are.

To be fair, it was the equivalent of a man who has a woman tied up in his basement and a knife behind his back answering the door and saying "um...do you have a warrant, officer?"

Not that I am, or would ever want to be viewed as a Bush apologist *shudder* but it seemed clear the Taliban government was just stalling for time.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Up to the day that bin Laden was assassinated, his FBI's most wanted page didn't include the 9/11 bombings as one of his crimes.

My hazy recollection of the lead-up to the Afghan invasion was that the Taliban asked for proof and the USA said "Bombs away!" "Wait a minute," the Taliban screamed, "Maybe we don't have to use agreed upon international extradition procedures after all..." "Too late, scumbags!" the Bush administration replied as they proceeded to start bombing tribal weddings from Kabul to Jalalabad.

And then they installed the Northern Alliance, who, of course, the Taliban had replaced due to popular support for their "we don't gang rape villagers" policy.

[Elbe-el]

Don't forget, Comrade, that the Taliban only came to power with American support. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the entire country broke down into brutal civil war for several years until we decided to back the Taliban, ensuring that they would come to power.

We did this for two reasons, primarily: The Taliban promised to secure the country and make it safe for Unocal natural gas pipelines, and because they promised to eliminate the opium production in Afghanistan (which at the time was producing at least 80% of the world's opium...most of which was going into the production of heroin).

We removed the Taliban because while they were able to deliver (for the most part) on the opium part of the deal, they were never able to make good on the "security for the pipelines" bit (which is why if you overlay a map of the proposed pipelines in northern Afghanistan with a map of current American military bases in northern Afghanistan, the two are identical...those bases aren't there for the defense of people or liberty, they are there for the defense of natural gas pipeline...period.)

Of course, one immediate effect of removing the Taliban has been a flood of opium (and subsequently, heroin) back onto the world market. I can't talk about heroin use in the places where all of you live, but I know for a fact that in the area where I live, high grade, extremely pure (as in, "killing kids the first time they shoot or smoke it in many cases" pure) heroin is now cheaper and easier to find than bathtub crank...or even weed. (That's right, kids...heroin is now cheaper than weed where I live...welcome to the world you live in!)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, and I have never been privy to the discussions that went on behind closed doors, so I won't venture an opinion as to whether or not that was an intended side-effect, but it is a very real side-effect, just the same.

[Elbe-el]

...and as far as the lead-up to the war in Afghanistan is concerned...well, it is an incontrovertible fact that plans for the invasion of Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban were sitting on Dubya's desk...on September 10th, 2001.

(The same day, incidentally, that Donald Rumsfeld admitted ,on national television, that the Pentagon could not account for more than 2 trillion dollars in transactions. That is to say, he admitted that our Defense Department had lost ONE DOLLAR OUT OF EVERY SEVEN of America's GDP at the time, give or take.)

[Smarnil le couard]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

So, why did the US support Saddam Hussein?

Well, when our regional puppet the Shah of Iran was overthrown...

Oh, wait a minute, why was the Shah of Iran our puppet?

Well, there used to be this semi-democratically elected guy named Mossadegh who wanted to nationalize what became British Petroleum. I think el-Elbe wrote a well articulated post above about what happened to him.

It's all about money and power.

It's also funny to go back and look at how, time and time again, the Western imperialists funded and nurtured Islamic fundamentalism as a bulwark against the commies and the leftist nationalists. I think this goes all the way back to the Brits funding the Muslim Brotherhood at the beginning of this century, but it also includes such awesomeness as the US funding the Taliban-to-be and the Mossad funding Hamas (or Hezbollah, I always get the two confused) as a counterweight to the PLO.

Woops.

T'was the Hamas. As a way of undermining PLO credibility ("see, they don't represent ALL of the palestinians") and make sure the peace talks went nowhere.

Again something that sounded as a good idea at the time (from their POV), and devolved into a major pain in their collective ass.

[Smarnil le couard]

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:

Nicos wrote:

to be clear

1) do you think supporting dictator is good and acceptable?
2) what kind of dictators are good?
3) what kind of dictators are bad?
4) if the US is the beacon of democracy of the world how is destroying anther deomcracies a good thing?
5) if the US destroy another democracy in the name of their own interest, do you think people form that country should thank you?

You are not asking the correct questions? The real question is why support a dictatorship or a democracy?

The real answer is and should always be, because it is in the interests of the United States.

The US supported Iraq in the 1980's not because it loved Sadam but because Iraq is the counter balance to Iran in the middle east. The US supports a king in Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia is one of the few stable countries in a resource rich region full of instability.

Does the US therefore approve of dictatorship and monarchy as its prefered methods of government? Obviously not, but that is not the important issue.

Twenty years later, things change. Iraq as a counter weight to Iran is no longer as important to the US as removing Sadam. Does this mean that the new democracy in Iraq will be friendly towards the US. No it does not. Just like the Democracy in Egypt will not necessarily be friendly with the US. Just like the democracy in France often finds itself politically at odds with the US.

I know these are complicated ideas not really suited to a message board but the basic idea is, don't expect the US to act any differently than any other country. The US is in it for itself and in it to win, just like everyone else. People and or countries that complain about this are being hypocrites. Their countries behave the exact same way.

So be it. But in this case, stop acting surprised when entire populations hate your guts because of things you did to them in the past to futher US interests, other consideration be damned.

THAT would be hypocritical.

EDIT : especially since you are carrying and waving like mad with the other hand the flag of freedom, truth, democracy, apple pie, etc.

EDIT2: yes, you are not alone in the little game of real politik. Since when does having a murderer as a neighbour is sure absolution for murder ? Will you argue with a policeman that you were not the only one speeding over the limit ? Your vision of morality seems to be relative, not absolute.

[Aretas]

A Man In Black wrote:

Something to keep in mind: more Muslims live in each of India and Indonesia than the entirety of the Middle East, and both of those countries are moderate, religiously tolerant democracies. When people talk about Muslims and just mean the Middle East (and aren't talking about Iran), they probably mean Arabs, not Muslims.

Of course, the problem with that is that if you replace Muslim/religion with Arab when you post silly things like Aretas (and others) have been posting, you come off sounding like a racist.

I find it offensive that you keep calling me a racist, cease your baseless slanders.

[meatrace]

Aretas wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Something to keep in mind: more Muslims live in each of India and Indonesia than the entirety of the Middle East, and both of those countries are moderate, religiously tolerant democracies. When people talk about Muslims and just mean the Middle East (and aren't talking about Iran), they probably mean Arabs, not Muslims.

Of course, the problem with that is that if you replace Muslim/religion with Arab when you post silly things like Aretas (and others) have been posting, you come off sounding like a racist.

I find it offensive that you keep calling me a racist, cease your baseless slanders.

LULZ

1)He didn't say you were racist, he said you come off sounding racist. Big difference.
2)It's not baseless.