11-09-2004, 03:10 PM
Here's a nickel, rent a clue.
Currently, there's such an immense amount of anti-American resentment and open hatred being built throughout the Arab world that you will, tragically I fear, suffer for generations from it.
Pardon me, but we have been dealing with this Arab antipathy since about 1972, where have you been? Or 1979, pick your seminal event.
In a recent "Internet-Fatwa"
Wahadi sect has been staunchly reactionary since . . . the Saud Family chose to ally with them in their bid for power. How is this news? Same crap, different, day, and I will make two points that you, and many others, seem to have missed.
1. 1973, King of Saudi Arabia major leader in the OPEC Oil Embargo versus US. That is economic warfare of the sort that we had inflicted on Japan 1940ish, due to their war of aggression in China. Our only friend in the PG that I can recall was the Shah of Iran. We have a bunch of mutually usefull arrangements with a number of Gulf States, but no friends. Can you, or anyone in America, understand that? We had a mutually useful alliance with the USSR versus Third Reich, but we were not friends.
2. Allies of convenience, at best, still at odds with one another over Isreal, and any number of other things, to include such domestic issues as Womens' Rights. If you bothered to talk to the average Arab in 1991, the world view of a number was "when we needed their help, Allah provided for America to help us. He will do so again if we ever need them again. Until then, they can just go home, thank you very much."
The policy problems in that arena were exacerbated by the attempt to use Saudi Arabia as a major base, post Gulf War, with the follow on irritation the resulted. This was ALL pre 9-11. But I guess you weren't paying attention until the Iraq War, right?
The Saudis have never been our friends. We have been usefully mutual to one another, at best. All the political smokescreens on that score are just that, PR releases for the ignorant. Looks like a lot of folks swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Again, this coming from Saudi Arabia, your most important ally in the Gulf...
Old News. We left their turf thanks to their generally antipathy towards America. Ask an soldier who was in the desert 90-91 about simple things, like fake Christmas trees and magazines. Not our friends.
Also, security in an arabic country is not improved by bashing down people's doors, storming their houses at night, shouting swear words at them in English and treating the men like dirt in view of their women and family.
Nor in any country, yours included. Nor is security improved internally by turning a blind eye towards decapitators and thugs, or anarchists and fraud "clerics" like young Mr Sadr. Culturally, however, most Arabs understand that message far more clearly than the mixed signals they get from the West, to include the US.
a potential 100.000 civilian deaths
Based on what math? And, is a criminal family considered a civilian? What do you really know about what is going on in Iraq, on the ground? Not much, it seems to me.
you're dealing with people who, historically, are quite used to holding a grudge not for years but for
Yep, we concur completely. That did not start with 1948, however, its been going on since, as near as I can figure, about the time of the great Schism in Islam that started with the death of the Prophet. Nothing new under the hot, arabian sun on that score.
I can personally understand EVERY government that does not want to be drawn into the quagmire you created...
Right. Failure to present a United Front sent Saddam the signal that he could once again work between the seams and pull off yet another nose thumbing versus "The Western Powers." France, Germany, and USSR, by publically splitting with the US/UK on this guaranteed that multilateral pressure would not work. (That does not excuse the decision to go into Iraq, however, it was one of many contributing factors.)
No, the Iraqi situation is there and is gonna stay there, but the real problem is that THIS time (unlike during the cold war and the perceived communist threat) there might be an actual "domino effect", and that the first stones have already toppled.
That the US invasion was a catalyst to further polarization among moderate Arabs and old schoolers is probably true. That was a risk of the course of action taken.
Fundamentalist and extremist movements are currently gaining support and momentum in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jemen, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, even Turkey (NATO member!) and probably a dozen other countries that don't come to mind right now. Tragic thing is, in some of those countries they were actually dwindling prior to King George II's recruitment campaign.
You might recall that in Turkey, in the late 1990's, a Muslim Party prime minister was able to achieve the Prime Minister's seat. That did not last long. Consider why his coalition fell apart.
PS: The Phillipines is on that list as well. Malaysia's PM has been, for the past decade or so, unapologetically anti Western.
I think the "nuclear threat" from Iran is currently completely exagerrated while more REAL threats are conveniently ignored. (Btw.: the EU has been negotiating a possible solution to the dilemma for months behind the scenes and I'd wager my money on Europe to be more able to reason with Iranian diplomats than the "Satan America" :P )
Considering that the Theocratic leadership, ( an actually accurate use of that term) of Iran declared war on "The Great Satan" in 1979, I do not find that surprising at all. You all are better appeasers than we have ever been, over in Europe.
But here's a probably much more severe threat:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
Frightening side note: Abdul Qadeer Khan, long-time head of the Pakistani nuclear program is also an avid and outspoken admirer of Usama bin Ladin...
No argument from me that the Pakistani development of nukes is, no matter how I slice it, a bad thing. No upside. But those folks have shown that they can, at the moment, be worked with, even if at a glacial pace.
However, threat includes more than capability, it includes intention. Depending on the government in power, that is a real toss up. A RISK.
Of course it would help a TON, if US involvement in these negotiations were not always perceived as being so completely biased towards the Israeli side. (I do admit, that only some bias is real and some merely perceived, but again in the Arab world perception can be as -if not more - problematic!)
Too bad you feel that way, the US, and for that matter, the USSR who beat us to it, made a policy decision in 1948 to help appease Western Guilt over the holocaust, to support the existance of Israel as a sovereign nation. Until we change that policy, Arabs will be irritated with us, as their general policy is to drive the Jews into the sea. Gee, does that sound like ethnic cleansing to you? It does to me.
Perhaps, simply stopping the dull "Auto-Veto" against every single UN resolution that would criticize Israel would be a first step...
For example, most UN resolutions require BOTH sides to work toward a solution, if one bothers to read the fine print. Those resolutions tend to get more support. See the policy above. Or would you rather Israel were dissolved? The good UN giveth and the good UN taketh away. Is that your preference?
Prior to 9/11 there were a few thousand radicals in the islamic world hating the west with such an intense determination that they were ready to die killing "infidels". Today, there's probably hundreds of thousands and MILLIONS of sympathizers.
False. There were millions of sympathizers before 9-11. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the shadow money cropped up at the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing attempt, Khobar Towers, in Beirut . . . drop the soda straw. That there may be more willing recruits I won'd argue with, they've been funneling into Fallujah, Karbala, Al Amara etc for some time now.
People like Bin Ladin and radical islamists in many other countries hate us not for things the Europeans have NOT done but for what the US has done. Supporting Israel, bombing Beirut, toppling the Iranian Government and bringing Shah Reza Pahlavi back, the first Gulf war, the support for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families (all while claiming to bring freedom and democracy to the region <_< ) and countless other blunders of the "Oil must flow" age...
I see, it is a crime against humanity to support Israel. Once again, we see deep seated European anti Semitism at work, even when it is not obvious to the player involved. (If you want to throw rocks, be prepared to accept a few in return.) So, how do you feel about the Islamic goal to undo the Reconquista in Spain? Check out some of the Islamicist rhetoric on that score. It's spooky.
Whatever we do, creating more hatred CANNOT end terrorism, and waging war on weakness cannot work.
Adding to the world's hate and discontent is certainly not a great way to head toward a more peaceful world, no question. That takes two parties, willing to negotiate, to resolve. Gee, last I checked, the Islamicists have not been willing to negotiate, but have been willing to hide behind the skirts of their women. That makes working toward a win win, or at least "good enough" situation pretty darned difficlut, even for expert statesmen, if there are any left on the planet Earth.
What is "waging war against weakness?" Could you please elaborate on that thought? It's not clicking for me.
Occhi
Currently, there's such an immense amount of anti-American resentment and open hatred being built throughout the Arab world that you will, tragically I fear, suffer for generations from it.
Pardon me, but we have been dealing with this Arab antipathy since about 1972, where have you been? Or 1979, pick your seminal event.
In a recent "Internet-Fatwa"
Wahadi sect has been staunchly reactionary since . . . the Saud Family chose to ally with them in their bid for power. How is this news? Same crap, different, day, and I will make two points that you, and many others, seem to have missed.
1. 1973, King of Saudi Arabia major leader in the OPEC Oil Embargo versus US. That is economic warfare of the sort that we had inflicted on Japan 1940ish, due to their war of aggression in China. Our only friend in the PG that I can recall was the Shah of Iran. We have a bunch of mutually usefull arrangements with a number of Gulf States, but no friends. Can you, or anyone in America, understand that? We had a mutually useful alliance with the USSR versus Third Reich, but we were not friends.
2. Allies of convenience, at best, still at odds with one another over Isreal, and any number of other things, to include such domestic issues as Womens' Rights. If you bothered to talk to the average Arab in 1991, the world view of a number was "when we needed their help, Allah provided for America to help us. He will do so again if we ever need them again. Until then, they can just go home, thank you very much."
The policy problems in that arena were exacerbated by the attempt to use Saudi Arabia as a major base, post Gulf War, with the follow on irritation the resulted. This was ALL pre 9-11. But I guess you weren't paying attention until the Iraq War, right?
The Saudis have never been our friends. We have been usefully mutual to one another, at best. All the political smokescreens on that score are just that, PR releases for the ignorant. Looks like a lot of folks swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Again, this coming from Saudi Arabia, your most important ally in the Gulf...
Old News. We left their turf thanks to their generally antipathy towards America. Ask an soldier who was in the desert 90-91 about simple things, like fake Christmas trees and magazines. Not our friends.
Also, security in an arabic country is not improved by bashing down people's doors, storming their houses at night, shouting swear words at them in English and treating the men like dirt in view of their women and family.
Nor in any country, yours included. Nor is security improved internally by turning a blind eye towards decapitators and thugs, or anarchists and fraud "clerics" like young Mr Sadr. Culturally, however, most Arabs understand that message far more clearly than the mixed signals they get from the West, to include the US.
a potential 100.000 civilian deaths
Based on what math? And, is a criminal family considered a civilian? What do you really know about what is going on in Iraq, on the ground? Not much, it seems to me.
you're dealing with people who, historically, are quite used to holding a grudge not for years but for
Yep, we concur completely. That did not start with 1948, however, its been going on since, as near as I can figure, about the time of the great Schism in Islam that started with the death of the Prophet. Nothing new under the hot, arabian sun on that score.
I can personally understand EVERY government that does not want to be drawn into the quagmire you created...
Right. Failure to present a United Front sent Saddam the signal that he could once again work between the seams and pull off yet another nose thumbing versus "The Western Powers." France, Germany, and USSR, by publically splitting with the US/UK on this guaranteed that multilateral pressure would not work. (That does not excuse the decision to go into Iraq, however, it was one of many contributing factors.)
No, the Iraqi situation is there and is gonna stay there, but the real problem is that THIS time (unlike during the cold war and the perceived communist threat) there might be an actual "domino effect", and that the first stones have already toppled.
That the US invasion was a catalyst to further polarization among moderate Arabs and old schoolers is probably true. That was a risk of the course of action taken.
Fundamentalist and extremist movements are currently gaining support and momentum in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jemen, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, even Turkey (NATO member!) and probably a dozen other countries that don't come to mind right now. Tragic thing is, in some of those countries they were actually dwindling prior to King George II's recruitment campaign.
You might recall that in Turkey, in the late 1990's, a Muslim Party prime minister was able to achieve the Prime Minister's seat. That did not last long. Consider why his coalition fell apart.
PS: The Phillipines is on that list as well. Malaysia's PM has been, for the past decade or so, unapologetically anti Western.
I think the "nuclear threat" from Iran is currently completely exagerrated while more REAL threats are conveniently ignored. (Btw.: the EU has been negotiating a possible solution to the dilemma for months behind the scenes and I'd wager my money on Europe to be more able to reason with Iranian diplomats than the "Satan America" :P )
Considering that the Theocratic leadership, ( an actually accurate use of that term) of Iran declared war on "The Great Satan" in 1979, I do not find that surprising at all. You all are better appeasers than we have ever been, over in Europe.
But here's a probably much more severe threat:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
Frightening side note: Abdul Qadeer Khan, long-time head of the Pakistani nuclear program is also an avid and outspoken admirer of Usama bin Ladin...
No argument from me that the Pakistani development of nukes is, no matter how I slice it, a bad thing. No upside. But those folks have shown that they can, at the moment, be worked with, even if at a glacial pace.
However, threat includes more than capability, it includes intention. Depending on the government in power, that is a real toss up. A RISK.
Of course it would help a TON, if US involvement in these negotiations were not always perceived as being so completely biased towards the Israeli side. (I do admit, that only some bias is real and some merely perceived, but again in the Arab world perception can be as -if not more - problematic!)
Too bad you feel that way, the US, and for that matter, the USSR who beat us to it, made a policy decision in 1948 to help appease Western Guilt over the holocaust, to support the existance of Israel as a sovereign nation. Until we change that policy, Arabs will be irritated with us, as their general policy is to drive the Jews into the sea. Gee, does that sound like ethnic cleansing to you? It does to me.
Perhaps, simply stopping the dull "Auto-Veto" against every single UN resolution that would criticize Israel would be a first step...
For example, most UN resolutions require BOTH sides to work toward a solution, if one bothers to read the fine print. Those resolutions tend to get more support. See the policy above. Or would you rather Israel were dissolved? The good UN giveth and the good UN taketh away. Is that your preference?
Prior to 9/11 there were a few thousand radicals in the islamic world hating the west with such an intense determination that they were ready to die killing "infidels". Today, there's probably hundreds of thousands and MILLIONS of sympathizers.
False. There were millions of sympathizers before 9-11. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the shadow money cropped up at the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing attempt, Khobar Towers, in Beirut . . . drop the soda straw. That there may be more willing recruits I won'd argue with, they've been funneling into Fallujah, Karbala, Al Amara etc for some time now.
People like Bin Ladin and radical islamists in many other countries hate us not for things the Europeans have NOT done but for what the US has done. Supporting Israel, bombing Beirut, toppling the Iranian Government and bringing Shah Reza Pahlavi back, the first Gulf war, the support for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families (all while claiming to bring freedom and democracy to the region <_< ) and countless other blunders of the "Oil must flow" age...
I see, it is a crime against humanity to support Israel. Once again, we see deep seated European anti Semitism at work, even when it is not obvious to the player involved. (If you want to throw rocks, be prepared to accept a few in return.) So, how do you feel about the Islamic goal to undo the Reconquista in Spain? Check out some of the Islamicist rhetoric on that score. It's spooky.
Whatever we do, creating more hatred CANNOT end terrorism, and waging war on weakness cannot work.
Adding to the world's hate and discontent is certainly not a great way to head toward a more peaceful world, no question. That takes two parties, willing to negotiate, to resolve. Gee, last I checked, the Islamicists have not been willing to negotiate, but have been willing to hide behind the skirts of their women. That makes working toward a win win, or at least "good enough" situation pretty darned difficlut, even for expert statesmen, if there are any left on the planet Earth.
What is "waging war against weakness?" Could you please elaborate on that thought? It's not clicking for me.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete