BF2S Forums Pretty Please? (Rice urges end to Mid-East enmity)

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

So am I to understand the the fundamentalist will not be satisfied with a complete and peaceful agreement between the two? You sound as if your are suggesting it is more religious than political for them. (tread carefully Cam, I think you see where I am going )

A significant proportion of Islamic fundamentalists that do not hail from Palestine care little for Palestinians. They wish to rid the entire middle east of western and Israeli influence - meaning Saudi Arabia and all the other US client states have to go, in their eyes. As such, fixing Palestine does not mean an end to Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

Most of us know this, however some have attempted to portray the extreme fundamentalist as tolerant. They put the blame squarely on the west's support for Israel. What they often overlook is the fact that it is their own people who have agreed to exploit their land and sell them out. The rest of the world is progressing around them and in order for them to compete and prosper they require our greedy little tentacles in their society. It gives them the opportunity to bring in foreign money and place all of their short comings on Western society. I often hear about how much we need their oil. With as much discontent these countries supposedly have with the US you would think they would cut our oil off until we agree to stop supporting the Israeli's (Or get the hell out of the region all together). They need us more than they like to admit. You don't have to support terrorism or build a military machine to compete with the United States. Turn off the faucet and watch it crumble from the inside.

Think about it. If they really wanted to make a statement and show us our support for Israel is unacceptable OPEC would come together and sanction the United States. You know Hugo is on board. Who would they have to blame then?

not a fan of our last two secretaries of state

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Most of us know this, however some have attempted to portray the extreme fundamentalist as tolerant. They put the blame squarely on the west's support for Israel. What they often overlook is the fact that it is their own people who have agreed to exploit their land and sell them out. The rest of the world is progressing around them and in order for them to compete and prosper they require our greedy little tentacles in their society. It gives them the opportunity to bring in foreign money and place all of their short comings on Western society. I often hear about how much we need their oil. With as much discontent these countries supposedly have with the US you would think they would cut our oil off until we agree to stop supporting the Israeli's (Or get the hell out of the region all together). They need us more than they like to admit. You don't have to support terrorism or build a military machine to compete with the United States. Turn off the faucet and watch it crumble from the inside.

Think about it. If they really wanted to make a statement and show us our support for Israel is unacceptable OPEC would come together and sanction the United States. You know Hugo is on board. Who would they have to blame then?

What the arabs need to do is to focus on overthrowing all of the US client regimes. It is not in their best interests to serve the interests of the US. That is why it is so important that they defeat the US in Iraq, before Iraqi 'democracy' heads south a la Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the rest - 'democracies' built for the sole purpose of opening free markets and which inevitably end up being run by elites. Getting rid of their leaders is exactly what they need to do and that is what they did do in Iran. They need to
follow Iran's example. Iran is a prosperous society today as a result of their revolution, advancing technologically, full suffrage for all adults, largely free from external influences and true to their own ancient and unique culture (although they're seemingly keen to fuck that up recently). The US have sought to undermine and overthrow the Islamic revolution in Iran since its very inception, commencing with the Iran-Iraq US proxy war through right up to the present goings-on. Is it any wonder fundamentalists cry foul with respect to US interference in their affairs?

PS They did turn off the OPEC taps in the 70s as a result of Israeli shenannigans. Personally, I think they should turn the taps off completely until the Palestine issue is resolved. But arabs rarely show any kind of solidarity. Tribalism FTL.

I guess you're fine then with persecution of Bahai's, execution of women for "adultery" (i.e. being raped), and hanging of gays, and apparently you want that all over the place. Gee, I didn't know CameronPoe was secretly an Islamic fundamentalist...

CameronPoe seems to be the ultimate example of the America-hater; he'll even go so far as to support Islamic extremists. He obviously doesn't care if they establish Sharia governments that oppress women and minorities. In CameronPoe's eyes, as long as they don't like America, then that's fine with him.

UGADawgs wrote:

I guess you're fine then with persecution of Bahai's, execution of women for "adultery" (i.e. being raped), and hanging of gays, and apparently you want that all over the place. Gee, I didn't know CameronPoe was secretly an Islamic fundamentalist...

CameronPoe seems to be the ultimate example of the America-hater; he'll even go so far as to support Islamic extremists. He obviously doesn't care if they establish Sharia governments that oppress women and minorities. In CameronPoe's eyes, as long as they don't like America, then that's fine with him.

LOL. What a pathetic lack of understanding and misreading of my post. Perhaps try re-reading. Some facts about my post:

a) I said ARABS not ISALMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS should overthrow their oppressive regimes propped up and installed by the US in the middle east. You know - US friendly regimes like that of Saudi Arabia: where stealing something gets your hand chopped off or Afghanistan where the burka is making a resounding comeback. Did you know that the Iraqi consitution was written by unelected individuals, in fact it was written under the almost total direction of the US? How democratic... lol. The only element of Saddam's constitution that remained was ... you guessed it ... trade unions are banned. Typical. I believe they made sure there was NO corporate tax either. Pathetic.

b) Iran is not an Islamic fundamentalist state. They are an Islamic state. Women have the vote. Women don't need to wear the burka. The Iranian consitution guarantees rights for all religious minorities, in fact 30,000 jews live happily in Iran. They just have a different culture that you fail miserably to understand. Iran are far from perfect, don't get me wrong but it isn't our place to dictate how they govern themselves and run their lives. Perhaps you need to stop obsessing about stuff that happens more than 10,000 miles away from America. Your view of Iran is tainted by the media. They wanted rid of external influence over their valuable resources in the seventies and the US just hasn't let it lie since.

c) I don't see regimes that 'as long as they don't like America, that's OK': I prefer regimes that are popularly elected and are in the best interests of their people, which you don't see much of the in the middle east. Get rid of all the US puppets, let ordinary Arab people prosper from managing their own affairs themselves and deriving proper benefits from their own natural resources and you'll find that they won't be so bothered about flying planes into skyscrapers. Prosperity breeds apathy. Healthy bank accounts don't generally make for willing suicide bombers. If these regimes want to build relationships with the US on a 'parity of esteem' basis, equal partners not subjects to US control/influence, then that will be a good thing: but that will be their choice.

It always amazes me how certain posters on these forums have difficulty reading and interpreting posts written in the english language.

Stingray24 wrote:

It will take far more than giving Islamic extremists access to more money to stop them from blowing up civilians.  Imo, that would do little to diminish their suicidal mindset.

Another misreading of another post. Islamic extremists themselves are unredeemable, money or not. The environment in which Islamic extremism flourishes would cease to exist however if Arabs were allowed to prosper and take control of their own lives and their own region though. The fertile grounds for the recruitment of loony suiciders would largely disappear.

rawls2 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

It will take far more than giving Islamic extremists access to more money to stop them from blowing up civilians.  Imo, that would do little to diminish their suicidal mindset.

Another misreading of another post. Islamic extremists themselves are unredeemable, money or not. The environment in which Islamic extremism flourishes would cease to exist however if Arabs were allowed to prosper and take control of their own lives and their own region though. The fertile grounds for the recruitment of loony suiciders would largely disappear.

Thats the same thing as saying that aggressions toward Israel would cease if they just did what the Arab world wants them to do.

Eeeerrrrmmmm. It's not even similar to saying that. Bad analogy. Ordinary arabs just want the same thing as all of us - happiness, security and prosperity. Islamic extremists want a violent interpretation of the Q'uran to rule the entire world with an iron fist. What you do is provide an environment where such extremism can't flourish, i.e., one where the mainstream wins out over the extremes.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-26 15:53:15)

CameronPoe wrote:

UGADawgs wrote:

I guess you're fine then with persecution of Bahai's, execution of women for "adultery" (i.e. being raped), and hanging of gays, and apparently you want that all over the place. Gee, I didn't know CameronPoe was secretly an Islamic fundamentalist...

CameronPoe seems to be the ultimate example of the America-hater; he'll even go so far as to support Islamic extremists. He obviously doesn't care if they establish Sharia governments that oppress women and minorities. In CameronPoe's eyes, as long as they don't like America, then that's fine with him.

LOL. What a pathetic lack of understanding and misreading of my post. Perhaps try re-reading. Some facts about my post:

a) I said ARABS not ISALMIC FUNDAMENTALISTS should overthrow their oppressive regimes propped up and installed by the US in the middle east. You know - US friendly regimes like that of Saudi Arabia: where stealing something gets your hand chopped off or Afghanistan where the burka is making a resounding comeback. Did you know that the Iraqi consitution was written by unelected individuals, in fact it was written under the almost total direction of the US? How democratic... lol. The only element of Saddam's constitution that remained was ... you guessed it ... trade unions are banned. Typical. I believe they made sure there was NO corporate tax either. Pathetic.

b) Iran is not an Islamic fundamentalist state. They are an Islamic state. Women have the vote. Women don't need to wear the burka. The Iranian consitution guarantees rights for all religious minorities, in fact 30,000 jews live happily in Iran. They just have a different culture that you fail miserably to understand. Iran are far from perfect, don't get me wrong but it isn't our place to dictate how they govern themselves and run their lives. Perhaps you need to stop obsessing about stuff that happens more than 10,000 miles away from America. Your view of Iran is tainted by the media. They wanted rid of external influence over their valuable resources in the seventies and the US just hasn't let it lie since.

c) I don't see regimes that 'as long as they don't like America, that's OK': I prefer regimes that are popularly elected and are in the best interests of their people, which you don't see much of the in the middle east. Get rid of all the US puppets, let ordinary Arab people prosper from managing their own affairs themselves and deriving proper benefits from their own natural resources and you'll find that they won't be so bothered about flying planes into skyscrapers. Prosperity breeds apathy. Healthy bank accounts don't generally make for willing suicide bombers. If these regimes want to build relationships with the US on a 'parity of esteem' basis, equal partners not subjects to US control/influence, then that will be a good thing: but that will be their choice.

It always amazes me how certain posters on these forums have difficulty reading and interpreting posts written in the english language.

1. Considering that Iranians and Afghanis had established those governments that are so oppressive, I don't hold a lot of hope that if we just leave the Middle East alone, they'll all modernize completely. I hate that the US has to support governments like Saudi Arabia, but I seriously doubt that the Saudi Arabian people would have a major revolution in ideology if they were allowed to have elections.

2. Iran is not the most oppressive state, but it's close. We're talking about a country that punishes women who are raped by whippings or even death, regularly tortures its citizens, and holds the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality.

3. Like I said before, even in prosperous, modern countries like the UAE, Muslim governments still are quite restrictive. If modern reformers can go into Arab countries and remodel them like Ataturk did in Turkey, then that'd be great, but there haven't been signs of any such movement in strength.

UGADawgs wrote:

1. Considering that Iranians and Afghanis had established those governments that are so oppressive, I don't hold a lot of hope that if we just leave the Middle East alone, they'll all modernize completely. I hate that the US has to support governments like Saudi Arabia, but I seriously doubt that the Saudi Arabian people would have a major revolution in ideology if they were allowed to have elections.

2. Iran is not the most oppressive state, but it's close. We're talking about a country that punishes women who are raped by whippings or even death, regularly tortures its citizens, and holds the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality.

3. Like I said before, even in prosperous, modern countries like the UAE, Muslim governments still are quite restrictive. If modern reformers can go into Arab countries and remodel them like Ataturk did in Turkey, then that'd be great, but there haven't been signs of any such movement in strength.

Iran sure is oppressive in certain regards but not as oppressive as some of the other regimes in the region, especially that of key US ally Saudi Arabia. But you are forgetting that the regime in Iran is the popular creation of the people of Iran, supported by the vast majority. If you don't get in Iran's way, it won't get in yours. The problem is that the west has gotten 'in Iran's way' since the revolution established itself. If we were more isolationist and concentrated on our own affairs, not trying to force our will on others there would definitely not be as much animosity towards us as there is. But alas it is too late to make amends for our misdemeanours (e.g., funding the illegal Iraqi invasion of Iran, etc.).

My view is that the west should take an isolationist stance on the international stage, where dealing with the outside world involves fair trading and ZERO exploitation/imposition of will. The rest of the world, including the middle east, has not evolved (grown up if you will) fully in terms of politics/civilisation. Many of these nations are still in their 'middle ages' as it were. One cannot expect for them to jump into 21st century western civilisation like that (perhaps it isn't even appropriate to them and never will be). Our interference in the region, supporting dictatorial regimes, is simply placing a useless band-aid on a festering sore that will eventually turn gangrenous. It is time to withdraw, let them fight out their little battles for supremacy, let them mature and grow up at their own pace and remain supremely vigilant in ensuring that they do not try to harm us in their 'growing up' interim period, through effective non-intervenionist deterrency-based retaliatory-only defense policy.

I don't know what people have against a policy of containment, especially in the case of USA, who are more than 10,000 miles away from the action.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-26 16:57:58)

UGADawgs wrote:

Because while that "growth" occurs, millions of women and other minorities suffer under the yoke of the evils of Sharia government. I know it's hypocritical that we talk about this and then support Saudi Arabia, but when it comes to principle, the governments of Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. must eventually fall and be replaced by Western democracies that respect the rights of all people. I don't think that an active role of invading different countries is the way to do it, but the West must still have a strong hand guiding those small resistant groups pushing for democracy. Eventually that may grow to aid in the subversion of those nations, but right now we should fund democratic and human rights groups in the Middle East.

Well this is where we fundamentally disagree. I am an isolationist. I support the concept of the people of a particular region sorting out their own problems and finding their own direction. It is arrogant to expect that our system of government suits people of very different and alien cultures to our own. Western democracies are highly flawed too - perhaps they might eventually find a better alternative (probably not lol). Invasion is not the way, you're damn right there. Financially supporting certain groups I see no problem with, but significantly subverting the political process in a particular country that is not part of 'the west' is something I won't support, unless said regime has actually attacked us. Doing so would only blow up in our own faces as has happened many times before.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-26 17:16:24)

UGADawgs wrote:

Not getting whipped or stoned is pretty beneficial to any person, whatever their culture may be. There are some things that are just fundamentally wrong, and governments that completely marginalize whole sections of the populations are one of them.

That is not our responsibility. They'll never learn if they have to be mollycoddled by the west. Similar principle applies to throwing aid at Africa. Africa won't learn how to move forward on its own if it starts to rely on western aid.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-03-26 17:20:41)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070327/ts_ … srael_dc_6
Israel has agreed to talk now. Baby steps I guess. The United States would like Israel to commit to a more specifics.

"The issues would be security, humanitarian and the political horizon," the senior official said, the latter term a loose reference to a U.S.-backed vision of a Palestinian state alongside a secure
Israel.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-27 13:59:44)