lowing wrote:
JahManRed wrote:
lowing wrote:
Yes because the Muslim world LOVED the US before Bush "invaded" Iraq. You guys really need to wake up about your beloved Muslim world.
Id say they have 100 years of western interference to be pissed about. If Iran supplied Mexico with billions and the tools to invade the USA, you would be right to be abit pissed about it.
Europe and the USA have been fucking with the middle east since the 1st World war. Nearly 100 years of interference and occupation.
Granted that Europe did the majority in the first half.
So we occupied them in ww1 &2 for their oil to fight two wars they had nothing to do with.
We then allow settlement in their lands for a people wronged in a war they had nothing to do with.
The CIA carry out numerous clandestine operations in the area to maintain the western Oil monopoly.
The CIA funds plans and carries out regime change.
The US picks and backs countries in the area with money and weapons so they can kill their neighbours.
The US trains the Mujaheddin/Taliban in how to be better terrorists.
That's why the Muslim world has a problem with the west and particularly the USA. You would like to paint them as mindless hate filled savages and the only reason they have issues with the west is because they are such.
If not for the west EVERY country in the ME would be living in the 9th century, forgotten. Oil raised the ME to compete and prosper. A resource for all people in the ME to thrive. THe hate for the west stems from the fact that the govts. of the ME are keeping the money that the west SPENDS there, for themselves, while it leaves its people suffering and neglected. They then skew that hate and have it directed toward the west as the cause for their suffering. The problem lies WITHIN the ME, not outside of it.
Well that's your opinion. I guess we will never know what way the ME would have turned out if it had been left to its self. At least you admit that the west has intervened. And that the leaders of ME countries have kept the profits to themselves.
Now you have to look at
who put these leaders there.
Who supported/supports them.
"Hypocrisy has always permeated U.S. policy in the Middle East. While some regimes, such as those in Iraq, Iran, and Libya, are dubbed "rogue states," this has absolutely nothing to do with whether these regimes are repressive or invade their neighbors. When Israel--the only nuclear power in the region--invaded Lebanon in 1982 and killed 40,000 people in its efforts to smash the PLO, it had the backing of Washington. Though lip service is paid to helping the oppressed Kurds in Iraq, U.S. ally Turkey is given weapons to attack its own Kurdish minority. While Saddam Hussein is certainly a tyrant, he was every bit as much of a tyrant when he was Washington's friend. While his invasion of Kuwait was condemned, the U.S. supports Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. The coalition lined up against Iraq in 1991 consisted of countries such as Kuwait, a monarchy that still does not grant women the right to vote; Saudi Arabia, which publicly executes its critics; and Egypt, which outlaws opposition parties, and sometimes murders them when they protest.
U.S. imperialism in the Middle East has always been naked and brutal. It is primarily responsible for upholding backward, dictatorial regimes that, without its help, would have been overthrown long ago. Middle East specialist Dilip Hiro spelled it out: "It is much simpler to manipulate a few ruling families (and to secure fat orders for arms and ensure that oil prices remain low) than a wide variety of personalities and policies bound to be thrown up by a democratic system."26 But such brutality always provokes a reaction--as the new Intifada shows. "If history is any guide," writes Michael Hudson, "hegemony by the United States or any other party in the Middle East tends to produce resistance."27 That resistance is back--not just in the Intifada in Palestine, but in the large sympathy demonstrations throughout the region. The struggle against U.S. imperialism in the Middle East is intimately tied up with the aspirations of the mass of Arab workers and peasants in that region, not only against the American "colossus," but against their own ruling classes."
http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml
