Muslims and thermonuclear fire *fap fap fap*

[Darth Wong]

he warned that once the US was allowed to put bases in Saudi Arabia, they would not leave, and he was correct

I am not on Axis Kast's side here. But according to this We did leave Saudia Arabia a few months ago... To move next door.

They moved to a spot barely outside SA's borders. This is like saying that the squatter left your house and you should be happy because he killed the next-door neighbours and moved into their property and is now standing 3 inches on his side of the property line with a gun pointed at you.

However we have already signed an agreement that if the Iraqi government ask us to leave after the January elections, then we will.

I'll believe that promise when I see it fulfilled.

[frigidmagi]

I'll believe that promise when I see it fulfilled.

Well, Since Bush has a very small chance of reelection...

Anyways can I get that in writing, in a PM or e-mail Wong?

[Darth Wong]

I'll believe that promise when I see it fulfilled.

Well, Since Bush has a very small chance of reelection...

Anyways can I get that in writing, in a PM or e-mail Wong?

Why would you need it in writing? It would be pretty hard for me to disbelieve that the Americans are completely pulling out of the ME when it's actually happening, wouldn't it?

[frigidmagi]

I'm not saying you would disbelieve it if you saw it on CNN (you might be right to question if it was fox alone).

Still if you are proven wrong, it'll be a fairly rare event and I might want proof someday.

[Rogue 9]

Erm... Frigid? It's in writing, right here in this thread.

[frigidmagi]

I want something I keep in my records and get to easily Rogue.

[Axis Kast]

Wrong. You have claimed that America tried to practice noninterference and was basically dragged into the Middle East, when nothing could be further from the truth.

No. I have argued that the United States could not attempt to practice non-interference, because our very size and strength mean unwelcome influence on others, intended or no. Simply because non-interference has not been tried does not mean that non-interference will work. In fact, it’s an impossibility. You could tack the name to another policy, but it would be disingenuous, to say the least.

More typical Kast bullfuckery. Bin Laden doesn't complain about the US interfering against Iraq; he warned that once the US was allowed to put bases in Saudi Arabia, they would not leave, and he was correct.

And yet without our material support – including those troops, many of whom are responsible for instructing their Saudi counterparts –, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would be virtually defenseless.

So? The point is that your "elephant cannot help but trample" analogy is bullshit; there was deliberate interference, not incidental contact.

Deliberate interference thoroughly justified by external circumstances unique to that time, but with repercussions to this current day. You seem to be suggesting that we can turn back the clock, if only we stop conducting damage control and watching our backs against reprisals for the past. But there’s already been too much bad blood to pack up and leave.

I love the way you casually talk about alternately supporting and then "putting a boot" on various nations in the Middle East in order to keep the whole area in a state conducive to your wishes, and then you deny that people in the Middle East have any legitimacy when they claim that America has been unduly interfering in their affairs

“Putting the boot” on Iraq was a necessity. There was no way around it. If we alienated members of the Arab world by flexing our muscles there, that was unavoidable. And if you want to call that “undue interference,” you go right ahead. I’ll call you a brain dead fucktard, though.

Yes it will; it just won't necessarily be the change you want. And that's where you are supposed to either admit that the US treats the Middle East as a possession to which it dictates terms (thus validating their claims of imperialism) or spew endless streams of bullshit. You choose the latter path.

You might have a point there, if not for the fact that most of the states in the Middle East are hardly states at all, and that our involvement there is predicated on national security requirements that simply cannot be ignored or reengineered. This is precisely my point.

It will be as effective as yours, and without all the needless interference. Simply buy oil from them at whatever price the market will bear. Fears of massive price hikes without our "boot" on their throats are exaggerated; they cannot afford to dry up the supply for their own sake.

Are you fucking blind? Or just stupid? Even abstaining from all oil products until now on would still not absolve us from having to worry about Middle Eastern terrorism, and the results of bad government in the Arab world. And even buying oil at market price wouldn’t absolve us from needing to ride herd over the region as a matter of national (and international) security. See Japan.

You can’t just pretend the Cold War didn’t happen, Wong. This is the result of our global fight against Communism: plenty of angry victims in the Third World. Walking away won’t make them happy, because in their current state, the presumption is that we’re still ultimately responsible for their hardship.

Oooh, a pre-emptive strawman! How clever by your standards, Kast.

So I take it you can’t back up this, “Buy oil at market-price,” plan, then?

[MKSheppard]

Sure, we could leave the Middle East with little problem for ourselves. But as long
as Big Oil and Big Israel have (as LBJ would say) Uncle Sam's pecker in their pockets,
we're going to be stuck in that Middle Eastern tar baby and we'll be stuck listening to Kast
and the Shepster fap-fap-fapping "Bomb them! Nuke Them! Oh God YES!"

Mr Dart is almost as stupid as Mr. Kast. However, I do belive that Mr Kast takes
the Cake, as it is. And how is paying billions of dollars to Egypt and Israel as
part of a peace deal ending the state of war between those two having Uncle
Sam's pecker in their pockets?

Egypt is really the only Arab state that can actually put up a good fight with
Israel, and by removing her from the equation, we have managed to prevent
an Arab-Israeli war for thirty long years, since the other arab powers are just
too weak, and can only press Israel on a single front.

Previous peace records have been 8 years, 11 years, and 6 years between
wars; I'd say those billions have been well spent. And I love how every person
always fap-fap-faps off to the billions of aid we send to Israel, and forget how
the Egyptians are driving around in M-1 Abrams tanks, and have billions of aid
from the US as well.

But since you probably won't accept me as a souce, here's something to shut
you the fuck up:

Proof, Bitch

US military aid finances most of Egypt's big-ticket defense
procurements - $1.3 billion annually for several years. Large projects underway include
the M1A1 Abrams tank manufacturing facility and the M88A2 coproduction program.

Neutrality hasn't been tried and found wanting -it hasn't been tried at all!

Funny, I seem to recall four US Laws being passed during the 1930s called
just that.

Again, Proof, bitch

The Neutrality Act of 1935 prohibited American citizens from selling arms to belligerants in
international war. It resulted from Italy's invasion of Ethiopia.

The Neutrality Act of 1937 stated that United States citizens could not sell arms to belligerants in
Civil Wars, including the government side. It resulted from the Spanish Civil War.

Later in 1937, a second Neutrality Act forbade travel by U.S. citizens on ships of belligerents.
This was aimed at the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945).

1) Some Muslims were every bit as fanatical over a hundred years ago. Yet there were no
suicide bombings of Americans during the Chester A. Arthur administration.

Again, you're full of shit

Proof again motherfucker

The Kafir of Nurestan were forcibly converted to Islam in 1896.

Back in 1896, they didn't have clothes made by DuPont, however, they had
sword waving scumfucks.

In fact, Muslim countries were historically friendly to us and among the first to recognize our independence.

2) If Bin Laden and his kind hate America for sexual license, women's rights and tolerance for
minority religions, why aren't bombs going off in Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo?

Shitfuckery defeated again, from Al Jazeera no less

Here the brigade is keeping its word. The death squad (of the Abu Hafs Al-Masri Brigades) succeeded in
penetrating the crusader European depths to strike one of the pillars of the crusader alliance - Spain - with a painful blow.
These bomb attacks were part of settling old scores with the crusader Spain for its war against Islam.

They're settling old scores, hrm...I think they're still pissed about old Charles Martel
stopping them cold all those years ago; right now, The Great Satan is on the top of
their Hitlist, the Euros are simply #2, instead of #1.

More Proof

"We will create waterfalls of blood that will drag you to their depths. You have condemned your people to that.
The infidel Europe has done the same to its people by following America. We will destroy European cities, starting
by you, Berlusconi"

Gee, I think they've got something in for someone, but I can't tell exactly who
they have it in for............

Bin Laden is up front about his grievances, which are:

Wrong.

OBL's real goals

Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs."

Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive
Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.

You can see the kind of government that OBL wants to inflict on us all in
Afghanistan under the Taliban, before they were destroyed.

Railing about the four greviances is just a convient smokescreen that people like
you use to avoid the cold hard truth that he wants to cut your balls off, and use
YOU as an enuch to guard his harem in the grand new Islamic Khalifa that
he of course, will lead.

They hate us for the reasons I listed above.

Wrong, they hate us because we are infidels, and have strayed a major metric
fuckload from the "true path" of Islam, yet we have had wondrous things
showered onto us, while the Arab world degenerated into a sand pit until the
kafirs discovered oil.

The thinking is, if the Islamic world 'rediscovers' true Islam, as put down in the
Koran, then worldy riches will fall down onto them granted by a kind Allah. Of
course, those pesky Kafirs will have to be destroyed or forcibly converted
first.

The fact that people in internet forums beat off to the thought of incinerating millions of innocent people
must do wonders for our image as well.

If it comes down to incinerating millions or seeing the Islamic Khalifa promoted
by Osama and his ilk spread across the face of the earth like a cancer, I'll incinerate
the cancer before it can spread any further.

[MKSheppard]

In fact, Muslim countries were historically friendly to us and among the first to recognize our independence.

Damn, forgot to respond to that, typo in my post

Anyway, you forget why they did that? it was because we came
in and killed off the Barbary Pirates, which were preying on shipping in
the Med.

[Darth Wong]

To Shep: it's true that the Muslim fanatics would like to impose Sharia upon the whole world, but most Muslims would not be willing to undertake actual terrorism to achieve this goal without a more intense motivating factor. Look at Christian fundamentalists; they would love nothing more than to impose their Biblical laws upon the world, but rarely do they take to violence in pursuit of their goals.

Kast: your entire rebuttal is based on the insistence that you have some national-security imperative to constantly interfere with the Middle East, ie- you have no choice (well, that and your usual auto-erotic fixation with endlessly pointing out how big and powerful the US is). How does it serve American national security to continuously support Israel no matter what it does? How does it serve American national security to alternately support and then attack various nation-states in the region in order to keep them at parity with one another? If the only thing the US ever did in the region was try to stop people from getting nukes, you might have a point. But that's not the case and you know it.

PS. If all of this constant interference in the Middle East is supposed to lower oil prices, then why is the price of oil so high right now?

[MKSheppard]

To Shep: it's true that the Muslim fanatics would like to impose Sharia upon the whole world, but most Muslims would not be willing to undertake actual terrorism to achieve this goal without a more intense motivating factor. Look at Christian fundamentalists; they would love nothing more than to impose their Biblical laws upon the world, but rarely do they take to violence in pursuit of their goals.

This probably has to do with the fact that Jesus was pretty much a
Pacifist, who said it's best to pay Caesar what you owe him, versus
Mohammed, who was a sword waving conqueror.

And of course, guess where the most militant, most radical sect of Islam
hails from; Saudi Arabia, Home of Wahabbinism. And they've got
oodles of cash to build mosques and other shit in other foreign countries
to spread Wahabbinism from the oil money of Kafirs. Ironically,
Europe and Japan are actually more dependent on Middle Eastern oil
than the US, so this is ironic on several levels.

[MKSheppard]

This is also not helped by the fact that these Wahabbist fucks can point
to the "immutable unchanging Koran" on such subjects as civil law, etc
etc.

Your children being drug addicts? Your economy falling into the shitter?

Don't worry, adopt strict Islamic Sheriat law, and things will improve,
ALLAU ACKBAR!

[Darth Wong]

To Shep: it's true that the Muslim fanatics would like to impose Sharia upon the whole world, but most Muslims would not be willing to undertake actual terrorism to achieve this goal without a more intense motivating factor. Look at Christian fundamentalists; they would love nothing more than to impose their Biblical laws upon the world, but rarely do they take to violence in pursuit of their goals.

This probably has to do with the fact that Jesus was pretty much a Pacifist, who said it's best to pay Caesar what you owe him, versus Mohammed, who was a sword waving conqueror.

That's true on paper, but it didn't stop Christians from being rabid militarists throughout most of the last two thousand years.

And of course, guess where the most militant, most radical sect of Islam hails from; Saudi Arabia, Home of Wahabbinism. And they've got oodles of cash to build mosques and other shit in other foreign countries
to spread Wahabbinism from the oil money of Kafirs. Ironically, Europe and Japan are actually more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US, so this is ironic on several levels.

So? Let me put it to you this way: suppose the Middle East managed to organize itself into a proper Islamic empire, complete with a centralized leadership, armies, etc. Would you consider the possibility that they would actually be easier to deal with than they are now?

[MKSheppard]

That's true on paper, but it didn't stop Christians from being rabid militarists throughout most of the last two thousand years.

The Reformation and the 30 Years' War put an end to outright religious
wars by the Christians, the Islamics haven't got their own Reformation,
so they're still the same fucks they were in the 7th Century AD, which
is where they'd love to drag us all the way back then.

So? Let me put it to you this way: suppose the Middle East managed to organize itself into a proper Islamic empire, complete with a centralized leadership, armies, etc. Would you consider the possibility that they would actually be easier to deal with than they are now?

We had that. It was called the Ottoman Empire. And they kept
the Arabians down, and all that. And yeah, it would make things easier
as we would have concrete definable targets we could attack and
invade, as opposed to rat hunting Al Quaeda down all over the world.

[Spice Runner]

The Ottomans were no better than the Arabs. They expanded into Europe, Asia and Africa. It's only because they were smacked down by the Russians and later other European powers that they seem tame.

[Spice Runner]

The political structure of the middle east does not matter. The root of the problem lies in their interpretation of their religion.

[Axis Kast]

Kast: your entire rebuttal is based on the insistence that you have some national-security imperative to constantly interfere with the Middle East, ie- you have no choice (well, that and your usual auto-erotic fixation with endlessly pointing out how big and powerful the US is).

We do, moron. It’s called containing blowback.

How does it serve American national security to continuously support Israel no matter what it does?

Did I say it does? I’m afraid I’ve caught on to your usual tactics, Wong. Attempting to change the parameters of the argument into something you feel might be more easily argued isn’t going to work anymore.

How does it serve American national security to alternately support and then attack various nation-states in the region in order to keep them at parity with one another?

It certainly served our interests during the 1980s, when our assistance and tacit support for Iraqi belligerence against Iran was viewed throughout the rest of the Middle East as a much-needed guarantee against the threat that the Revolutionary government would continue apace with expansionist policies where the former Shah had left off. The need again reared its ugly head in 1991, when Saddam, no longer fearing an Iranian counter-blow, invaded Kuwait under the mistaken impression that he would go unchallenged.

If the only thing the US ever did in the region was try to stop people from getting nukes, you might have a point. But that's not the case and you know it.

For the third time, Wong, nobody has said that American shit doesn’t stink. That’s only your purposely false impression.

PS. If all of this constant interference in the Middle East is supposed to lower oil prices, then why is the price of oil so high right now?

“This constant interference in the Middle East” is about applying pressure on governments once unwilling to act against terrorists and to secure oil, rather than set a price for it. There’s a difference.

The United States will be unable to effective counter terrorism on a long term basis without first assisting – violently, if necessary – in the creation of effective, responsible, centralized governing institutions in the Middle East. It says a lot that, like feudal Europe, the Arab world is still dominated not only spiritually, but also temporally, by religious bodies. Until central control solidifies, getting a handle on chaos there will be virtually impossible.

[Darth Wong]

Kast: your entire rebuttal is based on the insistence that you have some national-security imperative to constantly interfere with the Middle East, ie- you have no choice (well, that and your usual auto-erotic fixation with endlessly pointing out how big and powerful the US is).

We do, moron. It’s called containing blowback.

Wow, appealing to your own buzzwords now?

How does it serve American national security to continuously support Israel no matter what it does?

Did I say it does? I’m afraid I’ve caught on to your usual tactics, Wong. Attempting to change the parameters of the argument into something you feel might be more easily argued isn’t going to work anymore.

How am I changing anything? You claim that it's impossible to extricate yourself from the Middle East any more than you currently are, and I point out a huge example of an involvement which is totally unnecessary. So sorry you have no rebuttal except to make up excuses to ignore the point.

How does it serve American national security to alternately support and then attack various nation-states in the region in order to keep them at parity with one another?

It certainly served our interests during the 1980s, when our assistance and tacit support for Iraqi belligerence against Iran was viewed throughout the rest of the Middle East as a much-needed guarantee against the threat that the Revolutionary government would continue apace with expansionist policies where the former Shah had left off. The need again reared its ugly head in 1991, when Saddam, no longer fearing an Iranian counter-blow, invaded Kuwait under the mistaken impression that he would go unchallenged.

The need to adjust the results of your own intervention hardly refutes an argument against intervention, Kast. Iran was a result of American intervention too.

If the only thing the US ever did in the region was try to stop people from getting nukes, you might have a point. But that's not the case and you know it.

For the third time, Wong, nobody has said that American shit doesn’t stink. That’s only your purposely false impression.

In other words, you insist that America is ONLY involved in the ME for reasons of self-defense, and when I point out examples of clearly non-selfdefense involvement, you dismiss it as changing the subject!

PS. If all of this constant interference in the Middle East is supposed to lower oil prices, then why is the price of oil so high right now?

“This constant interference in the Middle East” is about applying pressure on governments once unwilling to act against terrorists and to secure oil, rather than set a price for it. There’s a difference.

Wow, and it's worked so well, with terrorism running rampant, hatred of the US at an all-time high, and oil prices also at an all-time high. What exactly has been "secured" here, Kast? Chaos?

The United States will be unable to effective counter terrorism on a long term basis without first assisting – violently, if necessary – in the creation of effective, responsible, centralized governing institutions in the Middle East. It says a lot that, like feudal Europe, the Arab world is still dominated not only spiritually, but also temporally, by religious bodies. Until central control solidifies, getting a handle on chaos there will be virtually impossible.

I love the way you always try to conclude your arguments by grandstanding and repeating your conclusions as if they were fact.

[Patrick Degan]

Hmm... the usual bullshit.

An insult is not an argument. What’s the matter, Deegan? Know I’m right?

No, I know you're insane. Your postings on this thread simply continue to demonstrate this. And as all your posting is the usual "fuck international law...Might Makes Right... America uber Alles" bullshit, it deserved no more rebuttal than to call it for what it is.

[Darth Wong]

Can you imagine Axis Kast talking about, say, handicapped parking spots? This is how I imagine it would go:

Your naive interpretation of handicapped parking spots notwithstanding, even the most cursory evaluation of history will reveal that people invariably act in their own interests. And there is no personal self-interest in observing the pointless exercise of avoiding these handicapped parking spots when they serve our purposes.

Indeed, the very notion of applying ethics or morality to something like driving is simply absurd. Look around you at the other drivers and you will see that none of them respect any of these ridiculous rules. Other drivers are reckless, ignorant, and foolish. The culture of driving is, in fact, so pervasively permeated by lawlessness and contempt for principles that borders on anarchy. Something you would realize if you were not so naive and so blinded by your hatred for people who park in handicapped parking spots.

In effect, by demanding that we respect these spots, you propose to cripple us and deny us the best parking spots while the other drivers take them at leisure! I don't know what kind of insane driving method you use, but I'm glad you are not at the wheel of my car.

[Vympel]

*pisses himself laughing* FUQ!

[Axis Kast]

Wow, appealing to your own buzzwords now?

What the fuck are you talking about? This is the entire basis of the argument. Apparently, you haven’t yet come to terms with the indisputable fact that our past actions have made the Middle East a dangerous place, and that we have to address the fallout of those actions – terrorism, ineffective government, etc. – despite the appeal of baseless fantasies about letting bygones be bygones.

How am I changing anything? You claim that it's impossible to extricate yourself from the Middle East any more than you currently are, and I point out a huge example of an involvement which is totally unnecessary. So sorry you have no rebuttal except to make up excuses to ignore the point.

Strawman once again. My argument, Wong, is that it’s impossible to extricate ourselves wholesale, and that what we are doing now is a necessity in the long-term. Aside from the obvious fact that removing support for Israel will do nothing to stop the terrorists already determined to reach our shores. Nor will it put an end to the violence in Iraq. Nor resolve the security problems posed by Iran. Spanking Israel and pushing out Sharon isn’t the solution to the Arab world’s meltdown.

The need to adjust the results of your own intervention hardly refutes an argument against intervention, Kast. Iran was a result of American intervention too.

Intervention is now necessary because of past intervention. Others – like the Iraqi insurgents, for example – are unwilling to “let bygones be bygones,” so to speak. They’ve already pledged to follow us back home even if we leave. The Iranians are showing no signs of wanting to put a grip on their Jerusalem Force, either – or their nuclear program, for that matter. Security threats all.

In other words, you insist that America is ONLY involved in the ME for reasons of self-defense, and when I point out examples of clearly non-selfdefense involvement, you dismiss it as changing the subject!

No. I insist that America has no choice but to become involved in the Middle East, because complete extrication is a practical impossibility, and that at the very least, we have an obligation to continue dealing with the outcome and fallout of events long past on the calendar, but very recent in the hearts and minds of the Arab world.

Wow, and it's worked so well, with terrorism running rampant, hatred of the US at an all-time high, and oil prices also at an all-time high. What exactly has been "secured" here, Kast? Chaos?

There hasn’t been a large-scale attack on an American target since 9/11. Even the Commission has reported that we are safer today than three years ago. Hatred of the U.S. was bound to skyrocket as a result of Iraq. That must be viewed in the context of the long-term push, which, if successful, will leave a credible nation-state in its wake. As for oil prices, our stated objective is to secure unimpeded access to oil, not to set its price. The idea that we can enter the Middle East and distribute oil for pennies – or even less than a dollar – is just a wanking fantasy from people who don’t know any better. Frankly, I didn’t even expect to hear it from you.

Can you imagine Axis Kast talking about, say, handicapped parking spots? This is how I imagine it would go:

You’ve got to be kidding me. You can’t justify your argument about “paying for oil at a nice, fair price,” so you revert to storytime?

[Patrick Degan]

Wow, appealing to your own buzzwords now?

What the fuck are you talking about? This is the entire basis of the argument. Apparently, you haven’t yet come to terms with the indisputable fact that our past actions have made the Middle East a dangerous place, and that we have to address the fallout of those actions – terrorism, ineffective government, etc. – despite the appeal of baseless fantasies about letting bygones be bygones.

So, because our actions have made the Middle East dangerous, the solution is to repeat those actions on a larger scale, eh?

[Axis Kast]

So, because our actions have made the Middle East dangerous, the solution is to repeat those actions on a larger scale, eh?

No, you moron. Because our actions have made the Middle East dangerous, the solution can't help but involve violence.

The Middle East won't change on its own. Look at governments like that of Saudi Arabia. Teetering on the brink. The institutions that most need to be there have no credibility - and, worse, no power, besides. That can't change but by outside intervention.

[BoredShirtless]

The Middle East won't change on its own.

How do you know? It's never been left alone, so how do you know? Whether it was the Ottomons, the British or the US, some entity has always been fucking around.

Look at governments like that of Saudi Arabia. Teetering on the brink. The institutions that most need to be there have no credibility - and, worse, no power, besides. That can't change but by outside intervention.

But it's YOUR FUCKING AROUND which corrupts or invalidates those institutions! Why don't you step back, apologise, invite there sporting teams over, and be nice for a change?