Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok Lets but I guess only you are allowed to reference past decades "The middle east has been the anus of the earth since prehistoric times. The natives of that area are obsessed with slaughtering one another over the flimsiest pretexts. They not only hate themselves, but are completely hostile to everyone else."
Uhhhh. What did the natives in Europe do in Ww1 and WW2? They killed a whole lot more people than the middle easterners did amongst themselves. The " natives" in Europe are STILL at each other's throats over land and religion and power... Please be intellectually honest.... Tell us about those Natives in Spain (Inquisition and racism) and the natives in Italy( Mussalini and friends) and the natives in England (Ireland Wales Scotland) . no group of people have a monopoly on dysfunction...
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
That's past tense with reference to the present.
That's present tense.
Now that we've settled the grammar, do you still want to defend the middle east's barbarism?
Couple of points:
- Grammer check, how witty...
- Every country is at a different timeline in their countries progress, you can't weigh their actions in
comparison to where we now are.
- It wasn't so long ago that Russia & The Ukraine were in armed conflict, that Yugoslavia tore itself apart
and how many week since Israel has had armed conflicts?
- How many Mass shootings in this country this month?
Barbarism comes in many forms and faiths and even though Isis is one of the worst now I think those countries in the region should be addressing it. We can just concern ourselves as another US citizen exercises their right to keep and bear arms as they kill another group of innocents bystanders..
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfriqueNY
Uhhhh. What did the natives in Europe do in Ww1 and WW2? They killed a whole lot more people than the middle easterners did amongst themselves. The " natives" in Europe are STILL at each other's throats over land and religion and power... Please be intellectually honest.... Tell us about those Natives in Spain (Inquisition and racism) and the natives in Italy( Mussalini and friends) and the natives in England (Ireland Wales Scotland) . no group of people have a monopoly on dysfunction...
Uhhh please read back to the previous posts, I originally said "Real intelligent, heaven forbid they should be confused with the western nations that spend a 1000+ years warring on themselves and anyone else they could get near." What you are commenting on is a response of the other poster to my statement.
When? Over a hundred years ago. For the detail, read this book:
Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, by Robert Dreyfuss.
I used to have the time to read, but can't seem to get to them anymore. When I did always have a book going, these are two among the rest I would also highly recommend when it comes to this subject of the Middle East and/or Oil.
"Dreams and Shadows: The Future of the Middle East," by Robin Wright
"The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power," by Daniel Yergin
Because I think that the US is commonly demonized by Palestinians and their allies as the main reason why Israel exists, which puts us in an unfairly unfavorable light in the Middle East. Whereas the truth is more complicated than that. To the extent that anyone opposes the existence of Israel, lets let Britain, Germany, and Russia, at least, share the unfavorable light.
Too bad too many people are inclined to use terms like "demonize," "enemy," "anti-Semite," "hate...," when it comes to this contentious issue, but of course people will be people...
Nevertheless or aside from all the rhetoric, again I think the history and facts tend to speak for themselves, don't they? And what criticism there may be by Palestinians regarding their plight as a result of Zionism and/or the United States role in affording that plight is for everyone to assess as they will. For example, consider the following and you tell me to what extent the U.S. gets "credit."
Israel–United States relations are a very important factor in the United States government's overall policy in the Middle East, and Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship.
The main expression of Congressional support for Israel has been foreign aid. Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid ($121 billion, not inflation-adjusted) since World War II. Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services. More recently, in fiscal year 2014, the US provided $3.9 billion in foreign military aid to Israel. Israel also benefits from about $8 billion of loan guarantees.
Congress has monitored the aid issue closely along with other issues in bilateral relations, and its concerns have affected Administrations' policies. Almost all US aid to Israel is now in the form of military assistance, while in the past it also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to other countries.
In addition to financial and military aid, the United States also provides political support to Israel, having used its United Nations Security Council veto power 42 times with respect to resolutions relating to Israel, out of a total 83 times in which its veto has ever been used. Between 1991 and 2011, 15 vetos were used to protect Israel out of 24 in total.
Bilateral relations have evolved from an initial US policy of sympathy and support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in 1948 to an unusual partnership that links a small but militarily powerful Israel, dependent on the United States for its economic and military strength, with the American superpower trying to balance other competing interests in the region. Others maintain that Israel is a strategic ally, and that US relations with Israel strengthen the US presence in the Middle East. Israel is one of the United States' two original major non-NATO allies in the Middle East. Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East", when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year. Currently, there are seven major non-NATO allies in the Greater Middle East.
Um..., your anger at the US might have kinda taken you down a dark path there, friend.
Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of evils. When Kermit Roosevelt got that assignment, the real issue was 'do we let Persia fall to the Soviet Union?' Remember, the cold war started in the northern provinces of Iran in March 1946 when the Soviets 'moved in for awhile.' It took the US and the UK to move them back out. The Soviets (Russians), going all the way back to Lenin, recognized the unique geopolitical value of Persia. The US (and its allies) firmly believed that keeping Persia in the west's sphere of influence was very much to our benefit.
Remember that back then, we didn't have much oil coming out of Alaska and no one had ever heard of shale oil. In the coming years Nixon would take the US dollar off the gold standard, and Saudi Arabia had to save our butt by agreeing to demoninate oil in dollars - just to give our dollar a benchmark value (~'73). So we were dependent on ME oil in more ways than one. (Meanwhile, the Sovs needed it to fuel their war machine - literally.)
No argument the Savak could be bad actors. But have you seen what Khomeini et al replaced it with? Did you know the 'Revolutionary court's' firing squad was permanently maintained on the very rooftop of the former girls' school Khomeini used as his residence?
If you whip out your calendar, 1979 (37 years ago) is when all of the current mess started - by a guy named Khomeni, a megalomaniac with some delusional vision of an 'Islamic Revolution.'
Now, if you read any decent history book about the fall of the Shah, you will know that the Carter administration had several alternatives available to it in 1978 - one of which was to to use military power to keep the Shah in power. He declined to do so. (Start with Mission to Tehran.) Maybe Carter was reluctant because of the '53 coup - or maybe he already knew the Shah had terminal cancer and figured it wasn't worth the trouble.
You will also know that on two occasions, "that despotic Shah" is the one who kept Khomeini alive. When Khomeini was sent to Turkey in exile ('75 or '76 or so), the Shah ordered he be exiled as opposed to that which his SAVAK had recommended - they offered to simply make him disappear. The Shah said no, just send him into exile. In September 1978, Saddam's brother-in-law flew to Tehran with a secret offer by Saddam to take care of Khomeini. The Shah said no, just send him into exile in France. The rest is history. On Feb 1, 1979, Khomeini returned to Iran and seized power. And it's been a mess ever since.
So if I were going to get mad at "that despotic Shah" about anything, it would be for not allowing Khomeini to 'disappear' when he had the chance. Twice. Look what that left us with.
You know, come to think of it, it's kinda like when Bill Clinton had the chance in 1998 to send a missile up Osama bin Laden's butt, but he didn't...
History is the tool that reminds us that no policy is ever as good as it looked at the time. But history always leaves us guessing what might have happened...
I find it interesting that anyone who seems above-average informed about the history of the Middle East would pick the year and place as 1979 in Iran as the origin of "when all the current mess started." Maybe it is the "current mess" that needs to be defined, so I can better understand.
Otherwise, I always have to wonder about such criticisms or perspectives because of that last line that is most true of all. We can only "guess" as to what might have happened instead. What seems clear to me is that for many reasons going back well before 1979, Arabs/Muslims are none too keen to follow any lead from the West and what lead does tend to get followed all too often seems to be leaders who only have self-interest and the want of power as their goal. This has often been the reason given for why Muslims are so inclined toward a theocracy and religious leaders. They just can't trust anyone other than God to perhaps deliver them from the same old violence and tyranny that has plagued the Middle East for centuries now, aggravated by these damn foreigners from the West and their culture of vices...
Might be a while before any of those notions and dynamics change any I think...
- Every country is at a different timeline in their countries progress, you can't weigh their actions in
comparison to where we now are.
The ME claims to be the cradle of civilization. they should have outgrown that cradle long ago.
[/quote]
and how many week since Israel has had armed conflicts?[/quote]
With hateful Arab neighbors who have neve relented in thier terrorism, you mean.
Quote:
- How many Mass shootings in this country this month?
A lot fewer than in the sparsely populated ares under ISIS control and elsewhere in Syria. Heck, there were something like 73 killed in a bombing in Baghdad a couple of days ago.
Quote:
Barbarism comes in many forms and faiths and even though Isis is one of the worst now I think those countries in the region should be addressing it. We can just concern ourselves as another US citizen exercises their right to keep and bear arms as they kill another group of innocents bystanders..
The ME violence predates Islam by millennia. I don't think it's strongly connected to whatever the flavor of the month religion is in that area. It may provide a convenient excuse, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Books...
