Rome, Titus, Zealots and Al Queda

[Axis Kast]

Afghanistan was a special case. I am referring to your claim that there is a general longstanding security interest in the Middle East because of oil.

The problems posed by Afghanistan are only multipled in the cases of Syria, Lebannon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

There is no getting around the fact that we cannot turn back the clock on terrorism, or the regimes responsible for it - which happen to be some of the largest oil producers as well.

In order to effectively reduce terrorism, we must change the forms of government responsible for misrule. That means installing responsible and accountable regimes. It thus boils down either to installing a more pallatable version of the Shah (from everyone's point of view) - i.e. a singular dictator heading all aspects of the state -, or a democracy. Since it's unlikely the dictatorship route will work at all, democracy is the best choice. But, unfortunately, that democracy must be imposed - because it isn't about to come except at gunpoint.

[Darth Wong]

Again, your argument is based on the assumption that the only way to deal with other parts of the world is to make sure you're in control of what goes on over there. Your conclusion (that Islamic terrorism against America caused this situation) is perverse, because the reverse is true: this situation caused Islamic terrorism against America.

[Patrick Degan]

Afghanistan was a special case. I am referring to your claim that there is a general longstanding security interest in the Middle East because of oil.

The problems posed by Afghanistan are only multipled in the cases of Syria, Lebannon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

There is no getting around the fact that we cannot turn back the clock on terrorism, or the regimes responsible for it - which happen to be some of the largest oil producers as well.

In order to effectively reduce terrorism, we must change the forms of government responsible for misrule. That means installing responsible and accountable regimes. It thus boils down either to installing a more pallatable version of the Shah (from everyone's point of view) - i.e. a singular dictator heading all aspects of the state -, or a democracy. Since it's unlikely the dictatorship route will work at all, democracy is the best choice. But, unfortunately, that democracy must be imposed - because it isn't about to come except at gunpoint.

Utter lunacy.

[Axis Kast]

Again, your argument is based on the assumption that the only way to deal with other parts of the world is to make sure you're in control of what goes on over there. Your conclusion (that Islamic terrorism against America caused this situation) is perverse, because the reverse is true: this situation caused Islamic terrorism against America.

My conclusion is nothing of the sort, and if you actually read what I wrote instead of creating strawmen all the damn time, you'd know that. Of course, you're too busy debating what you'd rather I have said than the actual matter at hand.

At this point, the only way to stem terrorism is to be in control of what goes on there, because as I've pointed out before, such is America's power that even with much more conservative foreign policy, we'd still be a force of emasculating proportions. Our superpower - hyperpower - is simply too great.

I'd also love to see an example of your "negotiation" or "alternative methods" for a change, Mike. What do you think we should be doing in the Middle East, exactly?

Utter lunacy.

Concession accepted.

[Darth Wong]

My conclusion is nothing of the sort, and if you actually read what I wrote instead of creating strawmen all the damn time, you'd know that. Of course, you're too busy debating what you'd rather I have said than the actual matter at hand.

Nope, that's what you said. You just don't like seeing it translated from doublespeak into plain English.

At this point, the only way to stem terrorism is to be in control of what goes on there, because as I've pointed out before, such is America's power that even with much more conservative foreign policy, we'd still be a force of emasculating proportions. Our superpower - hyperpower - is simply too great.

I can almost hear the "fap fap fap" sound from here.

I'd also love to see an example of your "negotiation" or "alternative methods" for a change, Mike. What do you think we should be doing in the Middle East, exactly?

Same thing the world's other nations do. Pay for oil because it's a valuable resource and they have a right to sell it on their own terms. That's how business normally works, and if they gouge you on price you can fight back by developing alternate oil sources and thus threatening their livelihood. But nooooo, you had to "control" them, so they would do what you wanted them to do and none of this negotiation business would be necessary!

[Axis Kast]

Nope, that's what you said. You just don't like seeing it translated from doublespeak into plain English.

We cannot simply turn back the clock on terrorism, Wong. I've already said it umpteen times: turning inward isn't the answer; attempting to placate regimes that have sponsored terrorism since Day One by ignoring the threats they pose and playing "fair" when they have only tried to destroy us is stupidity, not shrewd statesmanship.

Same thing the world's other nations do. Pay for oil because it's a valuable resource and they have a right to sell it on their own terms. That's how business normally works, and if they gouge you on price you can fight back by developing alternate oil sources and thus threatening their livelihood. But nooooo, you had to "control" them, so they would do what you wanted them to do and none of this negotiation business would be necessary!

We do pay for oil, nitwit.

There was terrorism long before Iraq. And before you cry about the Shah, that was a Cold War matter.

[Patrick Degan]

At this point, the only way to stem terrorism is to be in control of what goes on there, because as I've pointed out before blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah....

Utter lunacy.

Concession accepted.

As I've said before, your delusional fantasies are not my problem.

[Darth Wong]

Nope, that's what you said. You just don't like seeing it translated from doublespeak into plain English.

We cannot simply turn back the clock on terrorism, Wong. I've already said it umpteen times: turning inward isn't the answer; attempting to placate regimes that have sponsored terrorism since Day One by ignoring the threats they pose and playing "fair" when they have only tried to destroy us is stupidity, not shrewd statesmanship.

Clearly, you do not understand that this is actually how negotiations work. They usually involve parties whose interests conflict, and between whom there may even be hostility. Ronald Reagan demonstrated this kind of statesmanship by negotiating successfully with Mikhail Gorbachev when the opportunity presented itself, despite the overwhelming history of hostility between the US and the USSR for the past 50 years.

Instead of this, you propose that we in the western world should attempt to violently destroy or suppress any government whose interests conflict with ours and from whom there has been hostility in the past, and that those of us who do not pull our weight in this grand enterprise are either cowards or fools.

Same thing the world's other nations do. Pay for oil because it's a valuable resource and they have a right to sell it on their own terms. That's how business normally works, and if they gouge you on price you can fight back by developing alternate oil sources and thus threatening their livelihood. But nooooo, you had to "control" them, so they would do what you wanted them to do and none of this negotiation business would be necessary!

We do pay for oil, nitwit.

Don't be an idiot. The point is not that you do not presently pay; it is that you consider it unacceptable to be forced to pay market value. Instead, you must have some kind of "leverage" to force the suppliers to acquiesce to your terms under threat of arms.

There was terrorism long before Iraq. And before you cry about the Shah, that was a Cold War matter.

Still completely missing the point, I see.

[frigidmagi]

Excuse me, hate to interput the screaming match of which nothing will come from.

If the average Arab citizentry is put in charge of their nations and we fucking leave their homes and don't come back, will it see a lessening of terrorism?

As for the other countries they can stay on oil if they want, not my business. The United States should lessen it's oil dependence as much as possible, as soon as possible. This means another fuel must be found.

[Sarevok]

Humm... dont type and use the phone at the same time. Sigh.

Ok well plan Titus will not work. Perhaps there is another historical possiblity.

Maybe there is a way of enforcing centralization on Islam - yeah right! Thats what they need - their own Pope!

Muslims had their version of the pope in the form of the Calipha. The first four caliphas and most of the following ones were good. However after the forteenth centure everything went downhill.

[Sarevok]

This was a big question in the 8th and 9th century, maybe revitalizing these old theories that see the Koran as God´s word transformed by man might be possible. Likely as viable as reviving Arianism today, but worth a try IMHO ...

The holy Koran is abosolute word of God and not written by anyone not even the Prophet himself. It cant be taken as God's word transformed by man.

[Elfdart]

Excuse me, hate to interput the screaming match of which nothing will come from.

If the average Arab citizentry is put in charge of their nations and we fucking leave their homes and don't come back, will it see a lessening of terrorism?

Against the US? Yes. Against each other? No.

I'm of the opinion that Uncle Sam should quit that part of the world and not even look back. Pull ALL troops from the region, demolish the bases and leave the Arabs, Iranians, Israelis, Kurds and Turks to settle things. We've fucked things up so badly that nobody -even Israel and Turkey- trusts us to be an honest broker.

[MKSheppard]

I'm of the opinion that Uncle Sam should quit that part of the world and not even look back

Fucking Moron. Until the Russian Siberian deposits are tapped and drilled
and producing massively, we HAVE to stay in the Middle East, and take
all this islamofascist shit, which is funny, Europe and Japan get the majority
of their oil from the Middle east, while we only get 20% of it from the ME,
which we could easily shift over to our friend Vladmir's companies

[Sarevok]

Why should the US stay in the middle east ? The oil belongs to the Arabs. They will sell it whoever they want. No one should force them.

[MKSheppard]

Why should the US stay in the middle east ? The oil belongs to the Arabs. They will sell it whoever they want. No one should force them.

Remember the 1970s gas lines? Like it or not, Oil is a vital national
resource, and we can't rely on the fickle behavior of the Saudi
royal family as much as we'd like to.

[Elfdart]

I'm of the opinion that Uncle Sam should quit that part of the world and not even look back

Fucking Moron. Until the Russian Siberian deposits are tapped and drilled
and producing massively, we HAVE to stay in the Middle East, and take
all this islamofascist shit, which is funny, Europe and Japan get the majority
of their oil from the Middle east, while we only get 20% of it from the ME,
which we could easily shift over to our friend Vladmir's companies

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph and then call someone else a "fucking moron". You are one dumb twat.

[RedImperator]

I'm of the opinion that Uncle Sam should quit that part of the world and not even look back

Fucking Moron. Until the Russian Siberian deposits are tapped and drilled
and producing massively, we HAVE to stay in the Middle East, and take
all this islamofascist shit, which is funny, Europe and Japan get the majority
of their oil from the Middle east, while we only get 20% of it from the ME,
which we could easily shift over to our friend Vladmir's companies

You contradict yourself in the same paragraph and then call someone else a "fucking moron". You are one dumb twat.

It's nto a contradiction. We might not get our oil directly from there, but it's not as if it won't be an economic catastrophe for us if Europe and Japan get cut off. The Siberian and Caucausus fields aren't developed enough, and there isn't enough in the developed fields in the rest of the world (Alaska, the North Sea, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc) to supply the entire West. And neither Japan nor Europe have thw ability to keep things stable there (i.e., prop up awful puppets like the Saud dynasty so even worse alternatives don't take over).

If it weren't for the damn oil, I'd be all for your plan. Let the place become Africa with a worse climate and without the nifty animals. And it would be enormously satisfying to see the Saud family get strung from lampposts. Abandoning Israel isn't smart--if they feel they have nothing to lose, they'll settle the Palestinian issue with indescriminate artillery bombardments rather than soldiers going house to house--and a few places like Lebanon and Bahrain don't deserve to be thrown to the wolves, but the rest of it? You're right, fuck 'em. Except they have the oil and we can't.

[Axis Kast]

Clearly, you do not understand that this is actually how negotiations work. They usually involve parties whose interests conflict, and between whom there may even be hostility. Ronald Reagan demonstrated this kind of statesmanship by negotiating successfully with Mikhail Gorbachev when the opportunity presented itself, despite the overwhelming history of hostility between the US and the USSR for the past 50 years.

Instead of this, you propose that we in the western world should attempt to violently destroy or suppress any government whose interests conflict with ours and from whom there has been hostility in the past, and that those of us who do not pull our weight in this grand enterprise are either cowards or fools.

One cannot negotiate with partners of bad faith. How many times do I have to repeat myself? This isn’t simply about the oil; it’s about confronting the terrorism that won’t stop until the United States has no more interests in the Middle East whatsoever, a condition impossible to meet even if we so desired it.

The Arab world has reached a point of critical mass, so to speak. Without disengaging from the region – which is not an option in the realm of possibility, let alone consideration, given our global influence even when oil isn’t a factor –, we cannot hope to stop terrorism (not that I think even disengagement would truly satisfy organizations such as al-Qaeda). As Afghanistan and Iraq have proven, the current status-quo must somehow give way in the Middle East; there can be no lasting security for the United States – let alone positive growth of the kind that retards or discourages the growth of terrorism in the area itself – without new, more responsible government. Unfortunately, the Arab world isn’t about to inaugurate the type of democratic regimes that make this possible. That’s where regime-change and nation-building come in. And before you go off on a furious rant about how this causes terrorism for the umpteenth time, Mike, I remind you that I’ve already acknowledged that several times. Unfortunately, it’s a Catch 22. There will be terrorism regardless of what we do, but nation-building is the best option.

[PainRack]

At this moment in time, it is estimated that there are 1 million fundamentalist muslims.

Bullshit. Where did you get your numbers?

It was an extrapolation from a survey done in various Muslim countries, from Indonesia and malaysia, Pakistan, some Arab nations and so on and forth.

Please note that fundamentalist in this question merely means "Do you feel that Islam is very important in your life", as it is impossible for any such survey to determine otherwise.

[PainRack]

And I acknowledged your point. But, as I said, America would face terrorism even if the population were more keenly aware of the problems and more cautious about the opinions of others. The United States is simply too large and too important not to excite people into desperation about control over their own futures.

So, which is it, terrorists hate America, or that the rest of the world hate America?

Terrorists result to violence not because they hate America, but because they believe, or are led to believe that violence is the sole remaining option left to them to advance their cause, no matter what that cause may be. Hating America comes with the territory, but it doesn't cause terror.

[PainRack]

One cannot negotiate with partners of bad faith. How many times do I have to repeat myself? This isn’t simply about the oil; it’s about confronting the terrorism that won’t stop until the United States has no more interests in the Middle East whatsoever, a condition impossible to meet even if we so desired it.

Except that "terrorism", or confrontation with external imperialist powers is a relatively recent event, that started only in the 20th century. Of course, one can argue that the

The Arab world has reached a point of critical mass, so to speak. Without disengaging from the region – which is not an option in the realm of possibility, let alone consideration, given our global influence even when oil isn’t a factor –, we cannot hope to stop terrorism (not that I think even disengagement would truly satisfy organizations such as al-Qaeda). As Afghanistan and Iraq have proven, the current status-quo must somehow give way in the Middle East; there can be no lasting security for the United States – let alone positive growth of the kind that retards or discourages the growth of terrorism in the area itself – without new, more responsible government. Unfortunately, the Arab world isn’t about to inaugurate the type of democratic regimes that make this possible. That’s where regime-change and nation-building come in. And before you go off on a furious rant about how this causes terrorism for the umpteenth time, Mike, I remind you that I’ve already acknowledged that several times. Unfortunately, it’s a Catch 22. There will be terrorism regardless of what we do, but nation-building is the best option.

Let me ask you one thing. Why can't the Arab world do it on their own? That's right, why not? Iran is reforming. Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, all these are relatively modern countries.

Why must it be neccesary for America to not just apply pressure on local governments to reform, but to actually resort to extreme measures of nation building to enact change?

For all those who disagree otherwise, saying that those in power will not allow it, let's take a good look at Britain, and several of her Arab nations, like Jordan and Oman and their history.

[Axis Kast]

So, which is it, terrorists hate America, or that the rest of the world hate America?

Terrorists result to violence not because they hate America, but because they believe, or are led to believe that violence is the sole remaining option left to them to advance their cause, no matter what that cause may be. Hating America comes with the territory, but it doesn't cause terror.

Are you trying to make a coherent point of your own, or do you just like rewording what I’ve already said? We’ve already discussed why the rest of the resents American power. And that there is indeed a culture of victimization in the Middle East. I don’t need you rephrasing all of my arguments in question form.

Let me ask you one thing. Why can't the Arab world do it on their own? That's right, why not? Iran is reforming. Kuwait, Dubai, UAE, all these are relatively modern countries.

Iran is reforming, but they’re also an unrepentant state sponsor of terrorism. I think you’d agree that if only the strategic situation befit it, we could be invading Iran with absolute legitimacy on all of the charges we laid at Saddam Hussein’s feet.

Why must it be neccesary for America to not just apply pressure on local governments to reform, but to actually resort to extreme measures of nation building to enact change?

For all those who disagree otherwise, saying that those in power will not allow it, let's take a good look at Britain, and several of her Arab nations, like Jordan and Oman and their history.

Because in the case of nations like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, where most of the problems lie, there aren’t any progressive reform movements – nor any nascent reform movements, for that matter. Iraq wasn’t going anywhere fast; Iran tempers its positive steps forward with a healthy involvement in international terrorism, and Saudi Arabia’s left hand passes terrorists cash while its right ineffectually tries to root out those same organizations.

[dummnutzer]

The holy Koran is abosolute word of God and not written by anyone not even the Prophet himself. It cant be taken as God's word transformed by man.

This is the ruling opinion today, but it was a big question in the 8th and 9th century.

Religions can be changed: Constantine created Christianity as we know it. The assassins were turned into pacifists. The Saudis are changing Islam right now.

The US invented modern PR and propaganda, let us use it to transform mainstream Islam into a more benevolent force.

Costly and difficult, but less violent and likely cheaper than another Bush War.

[Plekhanov]

What purpose does this paragraph serve other than to imply that Arabs are jealous?

It serves the purpose of exposing just how different our worldviews are. The Middle East, Africa, and Asia view the United States as an interloper incapable of so much as genuinely sympathizing with their problems, let alone empathizing. This is exacerbated even further in the Arab world, where a culture of victimization has emerged: the West must be pushed out of the Arab world not only because its interventions hinder true self-determination, but also because no entity in the West is seen by Arab extremists as remotely capable of fathoming or accommodating their situation in a fair or constructive relationship.

This might what you think you wrote but it definitely isn’t what’s there in your post. So far in this short thread you’ve accused Painrack, Darth Wong and myself (that’s 3 of the 4 people you’ve responded to) of misunderstanding your posts. Maybe the problem isn’t in us poor confused, mortals being unable to comprehend your words wisdom but in the gap between what you seem to think you’re are writing and proving and what we are reading.

Where exactly in this paragraph did you “encapsulate” my “commentary”? It seems to me that you are arguing that Arabs are angry because they are weak that much is true but you only tell half the story. They are also angry because we have exploited and perpetuated that weakness for our own ends through a system of Imperial domination, I can find no reference to this in your post.

This is emasculation. I speak of emasculation.

You speak of Arab weakness I don’t deny that but you emphatically do not acknowledge the role the USA has had in painstakingly attempting to maintain this weakness, in fact you actually have the audacity to liken the US to

the elephant being unable to walk in the forest without trampling somebody or something – no matter how careful he may be – is very true.

You actually attempt to claim that far from deliberately preying upon and perpetuating Arab weakness the USA is merely some good-hearted clumsy giant who can’t help but step on a few lesser creatures. This is a fundamentally dishonest portrayal of how US policy in the Arab world has unfolded IT IS A LIE. CIA sponsored coups don’t inadvertently happen THEY ARE DELIBERATE ACTS you simply cannot honestly claim as you initially tried to that USA has been “careful” not to trample upon other People’s when the exact opposite is the case and the US has gone out of it’s way to step on people.

Because there’s no way to end the fallout of what you call “imperialism”

What do you call it if not Imperialism?

we cannot rewrite our history.

It’s odd that you should say that because you seem to have been trying to do just that, maybe you should try learning from it instead.

“This time?!” It’s never been attempted before. The kind of nation-building we’re doing in Iraq has no parallels – least of all Iran.

So the US has never overthrown a government on false pretences before and installed a more compliant one? Please enlighten me Kast why is “nation building” so different from all the other times?

[Patrick Degan]

Iran is reforming, but they’re also an unrepentant state sponsor of terrorism. I think you’d agree that if only the strategic situation befit it, we could be invading Iran with absolute legitimacy on all of the charges we laid at Saddam Hussein’s feet.

A laughable argument considering how illegitimate the charges against Hussein have proven, and an insane one considering how we've already stupidly committed ourselves to two wars in the region and are straining our resources as it is.