Iraqi Lawmakers and US Presence

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
I’m not Israeli. In case you haven’t noticed Middle Eastern fools have brought their way of “war” outside the region. [/quote]

Yet, you talked about your daughter’s schoolbus. I never heard of a schoolbus being blown up by Middle Easterners outside of the M.E. Feel free to fill me in.

Crushed? I beg to differ. That word is way too soft to describe what would happen to them if they confront the Israeli war machine with nothing more than pebbles and Katyushas.

Israel could take up the whole African continent, let alone a people who’ve been refugees for half a century.

Get real!

We’re still talking about Palestine right? Those cowards, as you call them, sacrifice their lives by blowing themselves up. Which part of that did you miss? How can you say that it’s cowardice? Shit, a 60 years old grandma strapped on a bomb! That’s the anti-thesis of cowardice.

The Ottomans are responsible plenty for the plight of the Palestinians today. But can you blame the western Sahara conflict on them? Or was it the Spanish presence in Morocco that triggered it? Can you blame the first Gulf war on the Turks? Or on the Brits? How about the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Your argument is weird. It’s like saying that if a girl already got raped, it’s OK for you to do it again and that you shouldn’t be held accountable for your actions.

Also, what do you think is the occupier that leaves the heaviest scars? The one from centuries ago, or the one from 50 years ago?

Good point. Hats off for bringing it up.

The Soviets were never as involved with Syria and Libya as the West was involved with other countries. The Soviets had more pressing issues to deal with. Their economy’s been screwed since the 70s thanks to that arms race you dragged them into. The level of involvement is hard to quantify, but I hope we can agree that it was different. And by the way, it’s not 20 years. Libya’s been improving a lot but you probably won’t know.

Apart from that, Syria hasn’t made much progress. But please illuminate us on your theory. Is it somehow an inherent trait of their race, culture, or religion? I have a feeling it’ll be about laziness and cowardice, but give it a shot anyway. I’m genuinely curious.

162

[quote]lixy wrote:
ChuckyT wrote:
I’m not Israeli.

Lixy:
Yet, you talked about your daughter’s schoolbus. I never heard of a schoolbus being blown up by Middle Easterners outside of the M.E. Feel free to fill me in.

Gkhan says:
Maybe not school busses, but I can sure point to a lot of buildings, planes, hotels, night clubs, ect that have been attacked. How 'bout one in Morrocco?

Chuck T:
Maybe fight the occupiers?

Gkhan says:
Not a bad idea. The Palestinians are having too much trouble fighting amongst themselves instead of forming a government and a country. Perhaps if they spent their energies getting along and creating a STATE, they would be able to attack the Israelis conventially.

Lixy said:
Israel could take up the whole African continent, let alone a people who’ve been refugees for half a century.

Gkhan says: Not sure what the hell you are talking about here.

I believe it is the Muslims who are trying to take up the whole African continent.

http://www.asante.net/articles/sudan.html

ChuckyT said:
Actually their MO has been blowing up people in church, attacking people at the market, blowing up schools, and running and hiding behind women and children. This is the essence of cowardice.

Lixy said:
Those cowards, as you call them, sacrifice their lives by blowing themselves up. Which part of that did you miss? How can you say that it’s cowardice?

Gkhan says: wow, for a self proclaimed pasifist who condemns terrorism, you sure have been sounding like an al-qaeda recruiting video lately. Glamorizing terrorism, calling out threats to our embassies.

Lixy said:
The Ottomans are responsible plenty for the plight of the Palestinians today. But can you blame the western Sahara conflict on them? Or was it the Spanish presence in Morocco that triggered it? Can you blame the first Gulf war on the Turks? Or on the Brits? How about the Indo-Pakistani conflict.

Gkhan says:
Sure, the Turks left the middle east in such a sorry state, the West had to straighten it out.

The first gulf war was fought when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Should we have let him keep it? What are your thoughts? I am willing to bet that Bin Laden was right. We should have let his network “free Kuwait.” Then, after Saddam made mince meat out of them as dictators sometimes do of their enemies, we could have come in and cleaned house. Truely a sad, missed opportunity by our government. To be rid of 2 birds with one stone.

The Indo-Pakistan conflict, I lay on the shoulders of Mahmud of Ghazni, The Khilji Dynasty, and lastly Babur the Moghul. They after all introduced Islam to India causing all the tensions since.

Lixy said:
Your argument is weird. It’s like saying that if a girl already got raped, it’s OK for you to do it again and that you shouldn’t be held accountable for your actions.

Gkhan says:
Maybe so, then you can rape her again and blame me.

Also, what do you think is the occupier that leaves the heaviest scars? The one from centuries ago, or the one from 50 years ago?

Gkhan said:
Centuries ago. Why do you think the Shia and Sunni still fight, the Protestant and Catholic, the Orthodox and Catholic? The new wars are merely the opening of old wounds.

ChuckT (?):
If I buy your argument, then the reason that Syria and Libya couldn’t advance into the 17th century was because their dictators were being propped up by the USSR. It’s been 20 years… So now what’s the excuse?

Lixy said:
Good point. Hats off for bringing it up.

The Soviets were never as involved with Syria and Libya as the West was involved with other countries.

Gkhan says:
Yeah, the Soviets liked to keep to themselves. I wonder if the Hungarians, Yugoslavians, other Eastern Europeans, and Afghanis would agree with you. Got a book for you if you are so inclined:

You might not like it, doesn’t sit well with your propaganda.

Lixy then shows he knows nothing of US-USSR relations and has a real anti-US bias:

The Soviets had more pressing issues to deal with. Their economy’s been screwed since the 70s thanks to that arms race you dragged them into.

Gkhan says: we dragged them into? where’s your sources for this one? Read about the Treaty of Yalta and how the reds broke it, separated Germany, not to mention Europe. We started it? ot in a long shot.

Lixy said:
Libya’s been improving a lot but you probably won’t know.

Gkhan said:
Yeah, ever since Gadaffi gave up sponsoring terrorism and began to embrace the 21st century, seems he wanted his legacy to be more then just a sponsor of terrorists and has tried to become a more worldly leader.

Lixy asks:
Apart from that, Syria hasn’t made much progress. But please illuminate us on your theory. Is it somehow an inherent trait of their race, culture, or religion? I have a feeling it’ll be about laziness and cowardice, but give it a shot anyway. I’m genuinely curious.[/quote]

Gkhan says:
If I were as ignorant and anti-muslim as you are ignorant and anti-US, I would blame everything on their religion, culture and race.

But since I am not…

It has nothing to do with any thing you mentioned. Syria was an ally of the USSR, enemy of Israel. It has a dictator who holds his people down much like they used to do in the mythical worker’s paradice, so one would not think they would progress much.

163

[quote]kroby wrote:
Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way to ensure that they didn’t fall into Communism. Back then, it was a threat. Care to imagine what those countries would be like had they fallen into Communist regimes? Yes, yes. I’m sure you’d say “peachy.”
[/quote]

You do understand that having a “reason” for everything getting fucked up doesn’t make it okay to those that lived through it?

If I lived there and believed that the US was responsible for many of the ills that my family and I faced, I’d be pissed off.

Now, it’s all very fair to argue about who is at fault for what, but drawing a line in time at which to start tallying wrongs (thereby excusing items before that point) isn’t realistic.

Perception is everything… and until some folks around here can at least understand the perceptions of the populace of the region, it will be incredibly difficult to have reasonable conversations or come to some sort of peaceful conclusion.

You will of course notice that I’m not blaming the US for anything, which is a conclusion a lot of people jump to far too easily and far too often in these forums.

164

Yeah, but Vroom, you’re missing the boat. Here’s where the Anti-Americanism comes into play:

Iran, under the shah, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other pro-US gulf states are evil to the anti-US propagandists, al-qaeda members and the current rulers of Iran.

Yet you never hear any of them complain about Syria, or the current leaders of Iran, who committed their fair share of genocide, (see crimes against women in Iran, the city of Hama in Syria) support of terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas) and other crimes. (see Lebanon civil war and the recent killing of the Lebanonese President) Why? Because these nations are enemies of the US.

Dictators and Royals rule them all, but they are only “bad guys” if they are friends of the US.

165

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Iran, under the shah, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other pro-US gulf states are evil to the anti-US propagandists, al-qaeda members and the current rulers of Iran.

Yet you never hear any of them complain about Syria, or the current leaders of Iran, who committed their fair share of genocide, (see crimes against women in Iran, the city of Hama in Syria) support of terrorists (Hezbollah, Hamas) and other crimes. (see Lebanon civil war and the recent killing of the Lebanonese President) Why? Because these nations are enemies of the US.

Dictators and Royals rule them all, but they are only “bad guys” if they are friends of the US.
[/quote]

What you are saying and what I am saying are not exclusive to each other. People perceive that the US is a large influence in the region and that perception is regularly being pushed.

If you were to believe that the US was the cause of the evils in your life, then the viewpoint you are discussing above makes sense.

Of course, I don’t hold that viewpoint, but it sure as hell helps to understand that people on the ground, living in the region, have never been given our media interpretation of these issues.

Governments and other groups control the media… go figure.

While we like to talk about choices and justifications, assuming that makes everything okay, it simply falls on deaf ears to those that are focusing on things from a different, and perhaps propaganda controlled, perspective.

Worse, religion has been tightly bound into this entire situation, and religion has a way of being able to justify almost anything, especially if you are taught that doing God’s will is more important than anything else in life.

166

[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
…what happened was that a handful of dictators (and yes, the majority of them were backed by Western powers) took control, and drove the countries into the ground. So, while the Arabs are ultimately to blame for their plight, the West and Israel surely held them back.

Why? Because it was the quickest and easiest way to ensure that they didn’t fall into Communism. Back then, it was a threat. Care to imagine what those countries would be like had they fallen into Communist regimes? Yes, yes. I’m sure you’d say “peachy.”

[/quote]

Let me clarify this. Dictators were propped up by the west in order to stem the tide of communism. I’m not saying this was smart. Or justified. I’m saying it happened. Hand wringing today is just plain stupid.

And that’s what lixy’s doing. Wringing his hands, justifying his hatred for a system that made wrong choices. But at the time, it was the only choice for America’s best interests: that being halting communism. It wasn’t to keep a populace subject to dictatorship.

The indigenous people of each country is still responsible for their own circumstance. You cannot claim to be victim generation after generation.

But let’s go to pretend-land for just a minute.

Say we didn’t go into Korea. It falls to communism, and the whole country is as the North is right now.

Look at the North and South. Can anyone say that they’d prefer living in the North? Look at the living conditions.

That is exactly what we stopped by being there.

And I’ll say this right now: It was a good thing. There need be no apology. So it seems that in principle, our foreign policy tries to do good. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. At least we try.

We didn’t hold South Korea back. Those people decided to make their own future. And this comes full circle. The Arab world has ONLY themselves to blame for their current lives. Not Israel, not the USa. Them and only them.

lixy’s “victimization card” he plays is pathetic. Disingenuous. It belittles the very people he claims to give voice to.

167

[quote]kroby wrote:
We didn’t hold South Korea back. Those people decided to make their own future. And this comes full circle. The Arab world has ONLY themselves to blame for their current lives. Not Israel, not the USa. Them and only them.[/quote]

Personally, I think this is the subject of much propaganda in the region.

The US is blamed so often, for so much, that it has become easier to believe the propaganda than think everything through and accept responsibility for improving things.

However, I’d probably not stress “only themselves” quite so much. They can be to blame for decisions taken after, but they are not necessarily to blame for external parties meddling in their affairs.

It is certainly well past time to think towards the future, instead of looking to the past.

168

[quote]vroom wrote:

The US is blamed so often, for so much, that it has become easier to believe the propaganda than think everything through and accept responsibility for improving things.
[/quote]

Good quote. Something needs to be done to change the perception that feeds the propaganda. Difficult to do when you’ve got a whole generation brought up with an anti-western, defeatist mindset.

169

[quote]kroby wrote:
Let me clarify this. Dictators were propped up by the west in order to stem the tide of communism. I’m not saying this was smart. Or justified. I’m saying it happened. [/quote]

So, we agree that the US had no interest in what the people wanted, right? We’re supposed to believe that it was protecting them against themselves, and that you know what’s beneficial to them better than they do?

Given that history, don’t be surprised if people don’t buy the “spreading of democracy” line.

What? Shouldn’t one learn from his/her mistakes?

I don’t buy it for one second. If that was the case, you wouldn’t be supporting them after the collapse of the USSR. Need I remind you how much weapons to dictatorial regimes such as Moubarak’s.

170

Lixy, why should we give up on our allies just because the Soviet Union fell? The Ruskies still support Iran after all…

171

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, why should we give up on our allies just because the Soviet Union fell? [/quote]

Exactly!

I don’t see any reason why the guys in charge of your foreign policy would think they should.

Kroby made the case that the US supported the Arab dictators in an attempt to counter Soviet influence. Thanks for backing me up…inadvertently.

172

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Let me clarify this. Dictators were propped up by the west in order to stem the tide of communism. I’m not saying this was smart. Or justified. I’m saying it happened.

So, we agree that the US had no interest in what the people wanted, right? We’re supposed to believe that it was protecting them against themselves, and that you know what’s beneficial to them better than they do?[/quote]

No, we were protecting them from the ultimate failure of communism and the authoritarian regime that eventually crushes it’s own populace into the ground…

[quote]
Hand wringing today is just plain stupid.

What? Shouldn’t one learn from his/her mistakes? [/quote]

Learning and hand wringing are two completely different things.

[quote]

And that’s what lixy’s doing. Wringing his hands, justifying his hatred for a system that made wrong choices. But at the time, it was the only choice for America’s best interests: that being halting communism. It wasn’t to keep a populace subject to dictatorship.

I don’t buy it for one second. If that was the case, you wouldn’t be supporting them after the collapse of the USSR. Need I remind you how much weapons to dictatorial regimes such as Moubarak’s.[/quote]

If the USA wanted, on purpose, to install dictatorships, why wouldn’t they have been puppet dictators? Were they? oh, no.

As for foreign policy, it changes from president to president. They have their own idea on how things should be run, and they almost never have any semblance of continuity. Does it surprise you that there are inconsistencies? It shouldn’t.

Yet you gnash your teeth and wring your hands anyway. Is that learning from history? No.

You blame the USA. The 51% of the populace that didn’t vote for the current foreign policy maker. You’re blaming them, too. Congratulations on your blanket discrimination. And you call yourself a “progressist.” Elitist would be more appropriate.

173

[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Lixy, why should we give up on our allies just because the Soviet Union fell?

Exactly!

I don’t see any reason why the guys in charge of your foreign policy would think they should.

Kroby made the case that the US supported the Arab dictators in an attempt to counter Soviet influence. Thanks for backing me up…inadvertently.[/quote]

Yes. I made the case that the US supported dictators to counter communism.

NOT to hold them back, as you so eloquently put it.

Thank you for making MY point, lixy.

174

[quote]kroby wrote:
No, we were protecting them from the ultimate failure of communism and the authoritarian regime that eventually crushes it’s own populace into the ground… [/quote]

That doesn’t really answer my question, now does it? I’ll reiterate: Do you not think it’s up to the people of those countries to exercise their self-determination right and choose which ever system they want? Weren’t the regimes you supported authoritarian? Did you have any right to protect the populace against itself?

Ah, yeah? When was the last time one of them was even remotely critical of Israel?

Didn’t think so…

I don’t blame the Americans. They have little to no say in the matter. The Republicans and the Democrats are two faces of the same coin. As far as foreign policy is concerned, they’re pretty much in accord on the “global hegemony” principle. Whoever gets into the White house is of very little relevance.

You have the illusion of choice. No wonder turnout on presidential election days is so low.

175

[quote]kroby wrote:
Yes. I made the case that the US supported dictators to counter communism.

NOT to hold them back, as you so eloquently put it. [/quote]

If that was really the case, you would have withdrawn your support once the USSR fell. Matter of fact, you didn’t really like the idea of having the power to the people there because they might end up kicking your corporations out and nationalize the whole bazaar.

176

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Yes. I made the case that the US supported dictators to counter communism.

NOT to hold them back, as you so eloquently put it.

If that was really the case, you would have withdrawn your support once the USSR fell. Matter of fact, you didn’t really like the idea of having the power to the people there because they might end up kicking your corporations out and nationalize the whole bazaar.

[/quote]

How do you not get that those foreign policies were meant to stave off communism, not to hold any particular peoples back?

You’re floundering, lixy.

What happens after the fact is irrelevant in the discussion about WHY it was done. Bad results from good intentions are still bad. I don’t think anyones arguing that.

You are wrong in your assumption that it was the intent of the USA to hold Arabs back. Case closed.

As for not wanting power to the people… yeah, we sure were against Lebanon shaking off the Syrian occupation. And we sure don’t want anything to do with a Palestinian state. All the money that was just offered… hell, what is it? To keep the Arabs from realizing freedom. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Because Abbas is a dictator.

177

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
That doesn’t really answer my question, now does it? I’ll reiterate: Do you not think it’s up to the people of those countries to exercise their self-determination right and choose which ever system they want? Weren’t the regimes you supported authoritarian? Did you have any right to protect the populace against itself?[/quote]

That was never the question. You’re making that up right here and now. Surely, a debate evolves, but don’t make shit up.

[quote]As for foreign policy, it changes from president to president. They have their own idea on how things should be run, and they almost never have any semblance of continuity.

Ah, yeah? When was the last time one of them was even remotely critical of Israel?

Didn’t think so…[/quote]

Ah, now things are getting good. When were we talking of the relationship between Israel and the USA? Why, we never did. Why bring it up? To obfuscate the point. Bravo, lixy. What you said has nothing to do with the foreign policy the USA has or had with a dictatorial state propped up to stem the communist tide.

[quote]You blame the USA. The 51% of the populace that didn’t vote for the current foreign policy maker. You’re blaming them, too. Congratulations on your blanket discrimination. And you call yourself a “progressist.” Elitist would be more appropriate.

I don’t blame the Americans. They have little to no say in the matter. The Republicans and the Democrats are two faces of the same coin. As far as foreign policy is concerned, they’re pretty much in accord on the “global hegemony” principle. Whoever gets into the White house is of very little relevance.

You have the illusion of choice. No wonder turnout on presidential election days is so low. [/quote]

I see. So, now your stating that our representative republic does not work? That there is no will of the people? The local elections that make the most impact on our daily lives is an illusion? (those questions were rhetorical, just to show the Elitist that you are)

178

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
As for foreign policy, it changes from president to president. They have their own idea on how things should be run, and they almost never have any semblance of continuity.

Ah, yeah? When was the last time one of them was even remotely critical of Israel?

[/quote]

But I can name the shift in support from Marcos to Aquino… The Philippines. Shift from dictator to democracy. Such a beautiful thing.