[quote]Chushin wrote:
No, I just know how to accept reality and move on in an attempt to deal with what is. [/quote]
Exactly! And it is that “people died and Iraq is ruined, so what?” attitude that should not be tolerated. Otherwise, Americans may not learn from their mistakes and this whole thing could happen again somewhere else.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Chushin wrote:
No, I just know how to accept reality and move on in an attempt to deal with what is.
Exactly! And it is that “people died and Iraq is ruined, so what?” attitude that should not be tolerated. Otherwise, Americans may not learn from their mistakes and this whole thing could happen again somewhere else.[/quote]
It will happen again somewhere else…its inevitable…and because of people…other than Americans…not learning from their mistakes.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade. [/quote]
Please read my previous posts in this thread. You seem to keep missing the point that what we do in the ME is pretty much all about the oil, and the safe, reliable distribution of the oil to the rest of the world. We do the dirty work that the rest of the world hasn’t the guts, money, or ability to do.
We also take ll the blame, and get none of the credit. We support the lesser of evils in an almost exclusively evil theater.
Are you willing to wager the world economy on that? Because that is pretty much the stake you are so glibly taking for granted.
If you can’t see the simple fact that a stable ME is a stable oil supply - not just bringing it out of the ground, but getting it in the pipeline, and onto ships - you are missing the reason we give a crap about the region.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
If you can’t see the simple fact that a stable ME is a stable oil supply - not just bringing it out of the ground, but getting it in the pipeline, and onto ships - you are missing the reason we give a crap about the region. [/quote]
Hmmm…I was under the impression that Iraq was pretty stable before you decided to mess it up.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I answered that already. If Benazir was alive today and had 51% of Pakistanis supporting her, she still wouldn’t have a chance at the presidency. That position is under Pervez’s control and he’s not giving it up while there’s breath in his lungs.
Given that Musharraf’s rule is supported by the US, I don’t think I understand the question.[/quote]
Who doesn’t understand the question?
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
If you can’t see the simple fact that a stable ME is a stable oil supply - not just bringing it out of the ground, but getting it in the pipeline, and onto ships - you are missing the reason we give a crap about the region.
Hmmm…I was under the impression that Iraq was pretty stable before you decided to mess it up.[/quote]
I am sure the Kuwaitis, Kurds, marsh Arabs and Iranians thought the same thing.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
The US has no business exerting control over the world, period. Europeans learned that the hard way.
Did you ever stop to think it is the Muslims who should stop doing this. Stop exporting Jihad. Then you would have no problems with The US and many other countries.[/quote]
The Jihads are in response to US meddling in the Middle East. If you were doing it before, when there was no Jihad, why should anyone imagine you would stop if the Jihads stop?
In another thread I suggested that if Iran passes laws to execute Christians and Christians started blowing up civilians as a response, even though the bombings would be wrong that wouldn’t make repealing the laws (ie giving into the terrorists) wrong. Everyone seemed to agree with me there, so why is it different when we’re talking about Arabs being oppressed?
Iran was never heading towards a Stalinist dictatorship. They weren’t even allying with Russia, that was a CIA mistake. They were a democratic socialism, and they were particularly big on the democratic part at the time after getting out from under dictatorships finally. Until the US put them back under one.
So the US wanted to install Bhutto to legitamise what is essentially a dictator taking control of Pakistans democracy? That’s what I got from the article.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade.
Please read my previous posts in this thread. You seem to keep missing the point that what we do in the ME is pretty much all about the oil, and the safe, reliable distribution of the oil to the rest of the world. We do the dirty work that the rest of the world hasn’t the guts, money, or ability to do.
[/quote]
You’re not doing this for the rest of the world. There would be an oil supply anyway. You’re doing it to make sure that US interests are served first, and that you get the lions share.
Bullshit. I don’t know if you’re intentionally talking crap here or whether your percpective on Palestians extends to all Arabs, but the evil are in the minority, just like everywhere else in the world. They are just armed to the teeth and backed solidly enough to control their people.
Yes.
American intervention in the Middle East has not produced long term stability. Organisations like AQ will continue to pop up so long as you continue on this path of foriegn policy, and they will continue to greater distabilise the region.
[quote]will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade.
Please read my previous posts in this thread. You seem to keep missing the point that what we do in the ME is pretty much all about the oil, and the safe, reliable distribution of the oil to the rest of the world. We do the dirty work that the rest of the world hasn’t the guts, money, or ability to do.
You’re not doing this for the rest of the world. There would be an oil supply anyway. You’re doing it to make sure that US interests are served first, and that you get the lions share.[/quote]
Oh - we are doing it for our benefit to be sure, but even you benefit from our actions over there.
Take off your “America Sucks” T-shirt for just a second and realize that even you are taking advantage of our selfishness.
And exactly how does the US get the “lions share”? The oil is sold on the open market. You do know this, right?
[quote]We also take ll the blame, and get none of the credit. We support the lesser of evils in an almost exclusively evil theater.
Bullshit. I don’t know if you’re intentionally talking crap here or whether your percpective on Palestians extends to all Arabs, but the evil are in the minority, just like everywhere else in the world. They are just armed to the teeth and backed solidly enough to control their people.[/quote]
Then they are in control, and make my statement true. Sorry if it offends, but I am not here to hold your hand and give you the impression that we all just want to and get along. Until this silent majority you think exists gets off their collective ass and takes control of their situation, nothing will change.
[quote]And it’s not like you leaving the Middle East militarily would mean oil production would somehow stop.
Are you willing to wager the world economy on that?
Yes.[/quote]
And you would lose.
[quote]Because that is pretty much the stake you are so glibly taking for granted.
If you can’t see the simple fact that a stable ME is a stable oil supply - not just bringing it out of the ground, but getting it in the pipeline, and onto ships - you are missing the reason we give a crap about the region.
American intervention in the Middle East has not produced long term stability. Organisations like AQ will continue to pop up so long as you continue on this path of foriegn policy, and they will continue to greater distabilise the region. [/quote]
Don’t really give a shit about long term stbility. That should be your responsibility, but too many people like you cede their rights and future over to cowardly, murderous thugs - like those supported by lixy. If Iraq has proved nothing, it has proven that the general public has no clue of freedom, or how to fight for it. The instability is on your shoulders - not the US.
We want a stable oil source and we do what needs to be done to protect that interest. It benefits you as well, were you intellectually honest enough to admit it. But you would rather blame America and continue filling your car with gas from the ME.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
rainjack wrote:
will to power wrote:
Trading for oil is not what I’m talking about here. It’s using your military to guarantee the regimes of despots. It’s a condition that doesn’t have to be there for continued trade.
Please read my previous posts in this thread. You seem to keep missing the point that what we do in the ME is pretty much all about the oil, and the safe, reliable distribution of the oil to the rest of the world. We do the dirty work that the rest of the world hasn’t the guts, money, or ability to do.
You’re not doing this for the rest of the world. There would be an oil supply anyway. You’re doing it to make sure that US interests are served first, and that you get the lions share.
Oh - we are doing it for our benefit to be sure, but even you benefit from our actions over there.
Take off your “America Sucks” T-shirt for just a second and realize that even you are taking advantage of our selfishness.
[/quote]
I’ve said this before: I don’t hate America. I hate a lot of what they are doing in the Middle East.
And I don’t care for the advantages gotten. I would rather a Middle East free from US meddling. Not that the lack of US meddling would have a negative impact on oil supplies.
Pricing, control, etc. One of the major reasons you continue to prop up the Sauds is that they usually increase oil production when OPEC decides not to. I realise this hasn’t been as true recently as in the past.
How does it make your statements true? A large part of them being in control is that you are backing them, and so long as you do the local polulation chances are poor. At any rate, I have no said the dictators have to be removed, only that you should stop supporting them such that the population cannot revolt against them. If a ‘greater evil’ (say, AQ) tries to take over and the US steps in during that period, it would be a different story. That isn’t what’s happenening.
No, I would win, because the US would be out of the Middle East.
You don’t care about long term stability? You realise the lack there of is exactly what’s pushing up prices now. We’re feeling the long term effects of the past half century of US policy in the Middle East. The lack of long term stability destabilises your precious oil supply.
As for my responsibility, it’s to my countries, and if there’s anything I can do to ensure their long term stability I would.
America’s actions in the Middle East right now are pushing up oil prices. How does this benefit me?
At any rate, I would feel a greater benefit from a freer Middle East than from cheaper oil and plastics.
[quote]will to power wrote:
If a ‘greater evil’ (say, AQ) tries to take over and the US steps in during that period, it would be a different story. [/quote]
They wouldn’t stand a chance of being supported by the population.
Man, you guys talk as if the US is the only country in the Middle East. Give me a break. If we left, would all the other countries leave also? Other countries, with their own interests in mind would take our place in a second.
After all, who was Saddam trading with? Who didn’t back us in the war because of this? Who is funding Iran’s nuclear weapons program? These countries are blameless?
Is it also a problem that the Russian and Europeans are in the Middle East, or is only a US problem?
[quote]lixy wrote:
will to power wrote:
If a ‘greater evil’ (say, AQ) tries to take over and the US steps in during that period, it would be a different story.
They wouldn’t stand a chance of being supported by the population.[/quote]
They are in Pakistan, why not SA?
After all these guys represent the “real” muslims. It would be easy to gather followers, just rattle your sabre at Israel, the US and the West, talk about starting a new Caliphate, and say that people who do not agree with how you practice your religion should all be killed (both muslims and infidels).
How come you haven’t figured this out already?
[quote]will to power wrote:
So the US wanted to install Bhutto to legitamise what is essentially a dictator taking control of Pakistans democracy? That’s what I got from the article.[/quote]
Not necessarily. Bhutto came through Pakistan and was campaigning all over the country until she was assassinated. Maybe the US thought Musharraf failed in his war with AQ and the Taliban. Maybe the US was supporting Bhutto because she had the support of much of Pakistan. The US supported Bhutto before, why not now, after she stated she wanted to wipe out the radicals?
I believe the US would back a moderate leader in Pakistan or SA if they did not deal with the radicals.
And everyone thinks that if they did, it would be a bad thing, right? I mean we are all on the same page as regards to AQ goes? If they took over, it would be a bad thing?
I would tend to agree, though I see that every action we have taken to stop AQ since 9-11 has been frowned upon here in these threads, even by people who allegedly say they supported the invasion in Afghanistan.
So, Will to power, what is your take?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Man, you guys talk as if the US is the only country in the Middle East. Give me a break. If we left, would all the other countries leave also? Other countries, with their own interests in mind would take our place in a second.
After all, who was Saddam trading with? Who didn’t back us in the war because of this? Who is funding Iran’s nuclear weapons program? These countries are blameless?
Is it also a problem that the Russian and Europeans are in the Middle East, or is only a US problem?[/quote]
Just because the current discourse is limited the US doesn’t mean there aren’t issues. Since this is mostly a conversation between Arabs and Americans though, it makes sense that we’re talking about the interactions between the two.
Remember that I’ve accepted blame for plenty of what Arabs do wrong. As well as this, America is the dominant power and plays the most significant role of all the foreign powers.
Difference demographics.
Not every action is frowned upon. Afghanistan was good work, spoiled only by moving onto Iraq and therefore allowing the current resurgence of the Taliban. Not to put words in his mouth, but I’m sure lixy would agree with this as well.
Do you mean my take on Pakistan? Bear in mind I’ve already admitted to knowing very little about Pakistan, hence why I didn’t want to comment initially. Having said that I’d say Musharraf’s erosion of their democracy is probably playing a significant role in the support of AQ. If I’m right that would of course be ironic, since that would mean less freedom but that’s how shit rolls some times.
Now, a crackdown on the radicals would seem a plus, even US supported, but I need to read more about why it’s going on in the first place. The motivations for these things are important in how to deal with them. This is especially a problem with a leader like Musharraf who’s eroding their people’s liberty. I don’t even know how Pakistanis feel about him come to think of it.
Dammit Gkhan, I’m too busy to be looking into all the shit you’ve made me curious about.
[quote]will to power wrote:
Not every action is frowned upon. Afghanistan was good work, spoiled only by moving onto Iraq and therefore allowing the current resurgence of the Taliban. Not to put words in his mouth, but I’m sure lixy would agree with this as well. [/quote]
Absolutely. I supported the ousting of the Talibans from day one. Hell, I would have been glad to join in kicking their ass.
Yet, Lixy, you constantly rip on the situation there, tear on the government and promote the propaganda of the Taliban.
Your posts about the war in Afghanistan speak for themselves.
Calling our forces baby and women killers, the government drug dealers, denying Iran supplies the enemy weapons amounts to Taliban propaganda in my book.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
denying Iran supplies the enemy weapons amounts to Taliban propaganda in my book. [/quote]
I’d be surprised to hear Iran is backing Taliban. The Taliban use to massacre Shia, and where enemies of Iran. Iran use to support the Northern Alliance in fact, don’t know if they still do. Where did you hear Iran is supplying the Taliban?
[quote]will to power wrote:
America’s actions in the Middle East right now are pushing up oil prices. How does this benefit me?
At any rate, I would feel a greater benefit from a freer Middle East than from cheaper oil and plastics. [/quote]
I think it is AQ’s actions that are causing the instability. But - they are not killing americans on american soil, or destroying american assets. I’d much rather exterminate the fuckers in their desert that have their goat smelling asses on my soil.
But - you are once again trying to blame the US for a global problem - I think they call it demand. More specifically, Chinese and Indian demand. Higher demand equals higher prices, especially when OPEC is controlling output.
But like I said, it’s easy to blame the US. It’s not going to change anything - much like none of the bitching and moaning about plight of the poor down trodden masses of the ME will change a damn thing until they want to do something about it.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think it is AQ’s actions that are causing the instability. But - they are not killing americans on american soil, or destroying american assets. I’d much rather exterminate the fuckers in their desert that have their goat smelling asses on my soil. [/quote]
For the last time, Al-Qaeda’s heavy presence in Iraq is a consequence of the US invasion.