PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Wasn't it King Cnut though, who illogically tried to make the waves retreat?
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
I'm new here from NYC, thoughts about the "War"
- Thread starter tribal
- Start date
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
JOHNNY CNUT!!!!!!
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
J
J-Bob
Guest
Paul Foot actually proosed some good ideas regarding what should be done;
The full article is here:A Shabby excuse for democracy
The full article is here:A Shabby excuse for democracy
bezzer
!i!iCommodore 64!i!i
If a sparow hawk levatates on warm vents of air, in mid flight, and slowley circles down towards the ground, with the objective of takeing a small piece of pray, perhaps a common field mouse in the act of procreation , or evan a disabled bat, that perchance had colided with a farmers pitch fork, does this ( unmercifull) act by the sparrow hawk, mean that’s its population of speciesis is in moral decay, by displaying un-hawkish tendenceys of a scavenger ? 
T
TopCat2
Guest
you have gone on a tangent now haven't you Bezzer...
hipipol
Peckham Wry
JC,
My you are a strange man.
"Internet is a great palce for trying things you cant do at home"
"We all do it" (?)
"There's absolutely no penalty"
Now, to use your style of "analysis" we deduce from that you are actually an extremely mousey individual in real life with few friends who sees the internet as a way of "getting back" at the world which has been so cruel in ignoring him.Although I'm sure that in real life you are frightfully amazing etc, but in the cyber world you just want to be misunderstood and picked on-aaah.
English is a tricky language and it may be that some of its subtlety has passed you by, up there in the never ending tundra, etc, but I would draw your attention to the words, "us", "the West", and "we" in my last post. I did not at any point in it specifically state that the US should "keep its nose out" and even the Wests keeping its nose out was referring to propping up repressive regimes and to the self determination of the local population.
Some facts;
1 Within months of both India and Pakistan testing nuclear weapons, the Kargil fighting, after Pakistan sent some of its regular troops into India, at the same time setting up supposed peace talks, took place.
The two countries involved held themselves back, not the piddling US sanctions. ( you will note that the lifting of same made no difference to India, both the BSE Sensex and the NSE Nifty fell that day, though Karachi climbed a small %)
2 US intervention has perhaps stayed Cairos condemnation of Israeli action, but nothing else.
3 The cart comes after the horse. You seem to have difficulty with the notion of causal relationships-please try harder, the order for your future guidance is, Cause, then , Effect
I hope this proves of use to you,
Regards, Paul.
My you are a strange man.
"Internet is a great palce for trying things you cant do at home"
"We all do it" (?)
"There's absolutely no penalty"
Now, to use your style of "analysis" we deduce from that you are actually an extremely mousey individual in real life with few friends who sees the internet as a way of "getting back" at the world which has been so cruel in ignoring him.Although I'm sure that in real life you are frightfully amazing etc, but in the cyber world you just want to be misunderstood and picked on-aaah.
English is a tricky language and it may be that some of its subtlety has passed you by, up there in the never ending tundra, etc, but I would draw your attention to the words, "us", "the West", and "we" in my last post. I did not at any point in it specifically state that the US should "keep its nose out" and even the Wests keeping its nose out was referring to propping up repressive regimes and to the self determination of the local population.
Some facts;
1 Within months of both India and Pakistan testing nuclear weapons, the Kargil fighting, after Pakistan sent some of its regular troops into India, at the same time setting up supposed peace talks, took place.
The two countries involved held themselves back, not the piddling US sanctions. ( you will note that the lifting of same made no difference to India, both the BSE Sensex and the NSE Nifty fell that day, though Karachi climbed a small %)
2 US intervention has perhaps stayed Cairos condemnation of Israeli action, but nothing else.
3 The cart comes after the horse. You seem to have difficulty with the notion of causal relationships-please try harder, the order for your future guidance is, Cause, then , Effect
I hope this proves of use to you,
Regards, Paul.
Johnny: Man, what did you do to upset this crowd so much? Oh yeah, probably the common sense thing. So now you are a racist, a nazi (the eugenics approach),and a twat (well, join the club...).May I offer a suggestion here? Stop trying to explain to the people in this thread what you mean by using examples, previous events, or other methods. You'll find that if you stick to the line of repeating yourself over and over again and throwing in a few choice insults, you will be WAY more convincing? Rubbish, I here you say...well it works for everyone else around here
If everybody wants the US or Western world to butt out of international politics, maybe they should for a while...surely the "democratically elected" leaders that will sweep into office in these countries will take great care of the welfare of their citizens, right? Because we all know that there is plenty of evidence to prove that they will not trash their own environment, murder their own people, and put everyone (many of whom would agree with the posts in this thread) in a deep, dark hole...
Then we could open a new subject in a couple of years about "how things went wrong when the West and the US bailed out on the rest of the world"
"standing by the computer with fire extinguisher"...
If everybody wants the US or Western world to butt out of international politics, maybe they should for a while...surely the "democratically elected" leaders that will sweep into office in these countries will take great care of the welfare of their citizens, right? Because we all know that there is plenty of evidence to prove that they will not trash their own environment, murder their own people, and put everyone (many of whom would agree with the posts in this thread) in a deep, dark hole...
Then we could open a new subject in a couple of years about "how things went wrong when the West and the US bailed out on the rest of the world"
"standing by the computer with fire extinguisher"...
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Right on rasrave.
Let the US butt out please.
Will that mean, for the Middle East:
1. Stop supporting Israel against Palestinians?
2. Get their jets out of Iraq and ignore sanctions?
3. Stop supporting the Saudis and other assorted criminals?
Yes please. Common sense at last. Let the others sort out their own problems. Might means a great hike on oil prices, but what the heck - it's their oil - right?
The most decent thing you've said I think. Unlike JC and others here, you must've at least read the American Declaration of Independence (even though you're not American, I know).
Let us test out your theory. In Iran, at least, America has been proven wrong. I'm willing to accept that the rest of the world can get along just fine without US political interference.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
Let the US butt out please.
Will that mean, for the Middle East:
1. Stop supporting Israel against Palestinians?
2. Get their jets out of Iraq and ignore sanctions?
3. Stop supporting the Saudis and other assorted criminals?
Yes please. Common sense at last. Let the others sort out their own problems. Might means a great hike on oil prices, but what the heck - it's their oil - right?
The most decent thing you've said I think. Unlike JC and others here, you must've at least read the American Declaration of Independence (even though you're not American, I know).
Let us test out your theory. In Iran, at least, America has been proven wrong. I'm willing to accept that the rest of the world can get along just fine without US political interference.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
Patel: I know that you are fair game for mental math...if the US/West "butts out", can you promise that as a direct result, people like Bin Laden and cohorts will never again attack US/Western interests, or people, for that matter. Or maybe they would see this as a sign of their agenda working, and in fact intensify their actions? I say this concerning some of the Islamic groups in particular who have made it quite clear that they will never be happy until the West or the US have been disposed of (or are all muslim). Can the US/West rely on the newly elected gvmts. of these countries to make their people "toe the line". I think not, sadly...Another thing, if the US and the Western world bail on all these countries, does that mean that we do not have to spend billions a year supporting them to ensure that they do not starve to death? The problem is, if you "bail" on one issue, you might as well "bail" on them all. The depressing part (for me) would be to watch the starving, sick, and sudjugated people in these countries in a couple of years come back to the West for food, money, and other aid, once again needing a handout. This has been discussed before, the argument being "well, not only should the West bail out but they should also set up these countries by helping them economically" Why? Is that not a contradiction in terms? How can Western gvmts. do both things at the same time? I doubt that the taxpayers in the West would agree with the theme of "fine, you don't want our culture, influence, political system, etc..but you still want the economic/humanitarian/whatever help". You might not be happy to hear me say this, but the taxpayers do get to vote, whereas the "newly freed from US/Western influence countries" may well not...
Patel: another thing that bothers me is that if the West/US bails out, is there not a good chance that the void will be filled by other nations/groups/cultures eager to make a buck? That would (historically) seem to be the case, with nations playing one potential suitor against the next, therefore continuing what has been going on for a while?? What are your thoughts on this?
Rasrave, there is, and you have not acknowledged this, the world of difference between politically and militarily interfering in a country, and distributing humanitarian aid. The former seems to be the US's prerogative, and the latter seems to be what they do to sweeten the pill for people who might otherwise condemn them. The US is doing both in Afghanistan at the moment, but until the aid is anything more than a cynical ploy to win the 'hearts and minds' of the international community (who should on the whole know better than to let their hearts and minds be won), it remains the US doing no more than paying lip service to the principle of at the very least restricting war to those on whom it is specifically being waged instead of a WWII/Vietnem style total war. Let us not forget that the US used very similar 'humanitarian' tactics in Vietnam to win 'hearts and minds,' alongside with unmitigated barbarity which disgraces the human race to this day. I am very much in favour of economic and humanitarian aid to countries and people which need it as this will very much help to diminish the pool of malcontents that the terrorists are then able to draw on for their recruits. However, to glut the maw of death (to use a phrase from 'Frankenstein'), with the blood of more innocents will undoubtedly cause the number of recruits to organisations like OBL's to rise dramatically.
PEACE TO ALL!
(Edited to make my meaning clearer. Ah, the wonders of a comma).
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
PEACE TO ALL!
(Edited to make my meaning clearer. Ah, the wonders of a comma).
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: Nemo ]
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
well, that seems to be a question of, should the west entirely leave the situation alone, or should it try to clean up the mess it's made?
personally, I don't think it's a choice between isolationism and exploitation. Surely there is an, er, third way between not helping fellow human beings in need, and propping up corrupt governments for your own purposes? Doesn't seem that hard to me.
i think a lot of people are of the opinion that the US has such a bad record it should leave things entirely, since it obviously can't get them right. I don't completely subscribe to this myself, I'm all for world co-operation in ideas and commerce, but it has to be fair, not exploitative as much of the modern model is.
personally, I don't think it's a choice between isolationism and exploitation. Surely there is an, er, third way between not helping fellow human beings in need, and propping up corrupt governments for your own purposes? Doesn't seem that hard to me.
i think a lot of people are of the opinion that the US has such a bad record it should leave things entirely, since it obviously can't get them right. I don't completely subscribe to this myself, I'm all for world co-operation in ideas and commerce, but it has to be fair, not exploitative as much of the modern model is.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Uncomfortable Fact For The Day: Iran has advised the US that if any American servicemen get into trouble, such as downed airmen, etc., the Iranians will assist the US military with the problem.
Iran coming to the aid of the Great Satan...
Iran coming to the aid of the Great Satan...
Come on Nemo...Iran scared of the US? Where have you been since 1979?? They are just joining in on the "let's beat up on the Afghnanis" bandwagon...
Although, seeing as they have been having much better relations with the US in the last couple of years, maybe it's a sign of good will...
As far as the "let's help them with humanitarian aid" approach, does that then not make it look like "OK, we're a small nation that wants nothing to do with Western values or politics, but we sure would like some free food, medicine, and financial help. All we have to do now is get rid of the Western influence (by whatever means necessary), then come back and ask for free help with strings attached". Even if that was (laughably) feasible, don't you think that the Taliban (and others) have trashed any hope of this possibility with the people from the West??
Although, seeing as they have been having much better relations with the US in the last couple of years, maybe it's a sign of good will...
As far as the "let's help them with humanitarian aid" approach, does that then not make it look like "OK, we're a small nation that wants nothing to do with Western values or politics, but we sure would like some free food, medicine, and financial help. All we have to do now is get rid of the Western influence (by whatever means necessary), then come back and ask for free help with strings attached". Even if that was (laughably) feasible, don't you think that the Taliban (and others) have trashed any hope of this possibility with the people from the West??
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
"some of the Islamic groups in particular who have made it quite clear that they will never be happy until the West or the US have been disposed of (or are all muslim)."
Like who?
Unlike PCS, I don't believe that the right (moral or self-interested) thing for the west or any country to do would be to pursue a policy of isolationism and have myself seem many examples of European and US aid going towards concretely improving material conditions and political conditions in developing/emerging countries and economies. I understand and agree with the criticism that OCS might well make - that any decisions as to the allocation of aid are implicitly political and could be regarded as political intervention - but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing (or at least, bad enough to cancel out the good).
However, it's also clear that arming a country (any country) to the teeth or throwing vast sums of cash at aid schemes which are military-oriented, badly-managed, unnecessary or just subsidies to domestic firms will not succeed in creating stability or economic growth. In fact, there's a lot to suggest that the schemes which have the most positive impact to the dollar are the ones which are organised on small scales, by local NGOs, with East-East or South-South exchanges of knowledge.
Like who?
Unlike PCS, I don't believe that the right (moral or self-interested) thing for the west or any country to do would be to pursue a policy of isolationism and have myself seem many examples of European and US aid going towards concretely improving material conditions and political conditions in developing/emerging countries and economies. I understand and agree with the criticism that OCS might well make - that any decisions as to the allocation of aid are implicitly political and could be regarded as political intervention - but I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing (or at least, bad enough to cancel out the good).
However, it's also clear that arming a country (any country) to the teeth or throwing vast sums of cash at aid schemes which are military-oriented, badly-managed, unnecessary or just subsidies to domestic firms will not succeed in creating stability or economic growth. In fact, there's a lot to suggest that the schemes which have the most positive impact to the dollar are the ones which are organised on small scales, by local NGOs, with East-East or South-South exchanges of knowledge.
C
calico
Guest
It is true that the good old USA, (land of the free and the worlds model democracy remember) has given out trillions of pounds worth of aid to foreign countries. But do they thank them for it, these ungreatful uncivilised swines? Not a bit of it!
Look at Africa for example. Rolling golden fields full of wheat and corn, vast acres of fruit orchards bursting with plump apples, and cherries. Fat satisfied children twiddling on their nintendos, comfy homes and plush decor warmly glowing from the log fire.
And all because of the world banks generous loans and interest free credit!
"Thank you Amerikkka for your generous aid"
say the worlds developing** nations
"without you, we'd be fucked!"
**For the word "developing" read; not actually
developing at all quite frankly, but thanks for the sack of corn we get once a month anyway as it is helping us to progress that little bit further.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: calico ]
Look at Africa for example. Rolling golden fields full of wheat and corn, vast acres of fruit orchards bursting with plump apples, and cherries. Fat satisfied children twiddling on their nintendos, comfy homes and plush decor warmly glowing from the log fire.
And all because of the world banks generous loans and interest free credit!
"Thank you Amerikkka for your generous aid"
say the worlds developing** nations
"without you, we'd be fucked!"
**For the word "developing" read; not actually
developing at all quite frankly, but thanks for the sack of corn we get once a month anyway as it is helping us to progress that little bit further.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: calico ]
interesting view points. rasgrave has an excellent point though, how can you just leave and 'butt out' of the entire region? lets talk realistically. in today's market oriented world, the economies of countries are becoming increasingly networked, so an economic backlash in Thailand can hurt Japanes markets, where as before, that was not the case. the same issue arises here. if we leave the middle east without any form of aid, support, etc., the fickle rulers of moderate countries like Jordan and Egypt will not be able to sustain power, resulting in a wide collapse of governments and overall order. groups like al qaeda will be brought to power through the vacuum, and you will see taliban-like regimes propping up all over the place. do we really need another taliban? patelcorner shop: you seem to be on some sort of anti-west tirade? do you have significant issues? there is also talk of stopping all aid to israel, now think about that! you stop aid to israel ok, israelis do not recieve any military aid, and are forced to turn to other weapon exporters like s.africa or russia, whose human rights and policy records do not exactly shine. furthermore, you will be putting the most stable and most profitable market in the entire middle east in jeapordy, resulting in significant worldwide financial instability. adding to that, the israelis will not simply give up, they have won 5 major wars, even if they are gravely outnumbered. we all know that they have a nuclear program, and to assure their survival, just as you will assure yours, they will not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, if the situation is critical. the idea of not supporting israel is irresponsible and highly catastrophic for the stability of the entire region and the world. as rasgrave or someone has said, if we simply abandon the region, al qaeda and co. will see this as a sign of their own progress, they will continue their efforts to destabilize governments and global markets, throwing the world in chaos and despair. you are suggesting one bright future.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
So tribal,
Because you can't trust people to be able to lead their own lives - in other words, self determination, your country will interfere in those countries because basically their people are barbarians and ours are civilised, right?
Nowadays, it is not fashionable to call this colonialism. But this is exactly what it is.
If the States is going to interfere - let it. But people with interfere back with the States. If someone tries to interfere with my life, I am damned well going to respond to that person. The French resistance fought their Nazi oppressors, in the same way that Palestinians are fighting their Israeli oppressors, aided and abetted by America.
You say your country is not providing military to Israel. Really? Then why do we see Apache helicopters and other assorted American war equipment used on Palestinian children on TV all the time?
Fighting for freedom and independence is called self-determination and is enshrined in you country's declaration of independence, which sought to free America from colonial England's interference. Americans above all should be the ones who know all about fighting from interference and for independence.
I agree with what rasrave said. Leave everything alone. Leave people to their own devices.
I believe in freedom for everyone, not just the west. Preserving the western concept of freedom is exactly what I'm trying to protect. It is those people who do not believe in a people's right to self-determination without interference who are anti-freedom, anti-West, and if they're American, anti-American.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
Because you can't trust people to be able to lead their own lives - in other words, self determination, your country will interfere in those countries because basically their people are barbarians and ours are civilised, right?
Nowadays, it is not fashionable to call this colonialism. But this is exactly what it is.
If the States is going to interfere - let it. But people with interfere back with the States. If someone tries to interfere with my life, I am damned well going to respond to that person. The French resistance fought their Nazi oppressors, in the same way that Palestinians are fighting their Israeli oppressors, aided and abetted by America.
You say your country is not providing military to Israel. Really? Then why do we see Apache helicopters and other assorted American war equipment used on Palestinian children on TV all the time?
Fighting for freedom and independence is called self-determination and is enshrined in you country's declaration of independence, which sought to free America from colonial England's interference. Americans above all should be the ones who know all about fighting from interference and for independence.
I agree with what rasrave said. Leave everything alone. Leave people to their own devices.
I believe in freedom for everyone, not just the west. Preserving the western concept of freedom is exactly what I'm trying to protect. It is those people who do not believe in a people's right to self-determination without interference who are anti-freedom, anti-West, and if they're American, anti-American.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Rasrave,
I don't think you should play mental games with the future and try to second-guess what is going to happen to justify the Status Quo.
Say if America does pull out and terrorist attacks from an outside source still happens. Then of course America should feel free to pursue those people and States. But this should be based on common sense and justice, not as an excuse for bullying or maintaining oil interests.
I have to keep on going back to Gandhi's example. The British set up a similar scenario for him as a justification for staying on. After all, what on Earth would happen if they left? Gandhi replied that yes, India would have problems, but they would be India's problems. Not problems for the British.
Just read your comments about aid. Firstly, it is ironic given that American action is actually disrupting aid in Afghanistan. Secondly, if America wants to sulk and not give any aid then that is up to America. Other countries will fill that void (and make a nice profit with loan agreements too) and the recipients of that will remember who NOT to make their future trading partners, I'm sure.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
I don't think you should play mental games with the future and try to second-guess what is going to happen to justify the Status Quo.
Say if America does pull out and terrorist attacks from an outside source still happens. Then of course America should feel free to pursue those people and States. But this should be based on common sense and justice, not as an excuse for bullying or maintaining oil interests.
I have to keep on going back to Gandhi's example. The British set up a similar scenario for him as a justification for staying on. After all, what on Earth would happen if they left? Gandhi replied that yes, India would have problems, but they would be India's problems. Not problems for the British.
Just read your comments about aid. Firstly, it is ironic given that American action is actually disrupting aid in Afghanistan. Secondly, if America wants to sulk and not give any aid then that is up to America. Other countries will fill that void (and make a nice profit with loan agreements too) and the recipients of that will remember who NOT to make their future trading partners, I'm sure.
[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Johnny,
You've actually proved that if countries are left alone, and America has a reasonable attitude towards them, they can actually become your friends. Just like Iran, coming to the aid of America, as you said.
This is what people on this board are trying to show you. If you unfairly create a conflict with people then those people will become your enemies. But you if treat them fairly and not interfere in their lives, they can be your friends when it counts.
And this is the path to peace. Allow people their right of responsibility to go their own way.
You've actually proved that if countries are left alone, and America has a reasonable attitude towards them, they can actually become your friends. Just like Iran, coming to the aid of America, as you said.
This is what people on this board are trying to show you. If you unfairly create a conflict with people then those people will become your enemies. But you if treat them fairly and not interfere in their lives, they can be your friends when it counts.
And this is the path to peace. Allow people their right of responsibility to go their own way.
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
Calico: are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.
Rasrave and Tribal, I was talking solely of humanitarian and, in very restricted cases, economic aid. Other than that, the government of any country other than the US is no business of the US and the US has no right to get rid of/appoint them. Nice as it would be to be rid of the Taliban, it must be done from within Afghanistan because any government put in place by the international community would be, on the balance of probability, doomed to fail and the whole terrorism débâcle would be repeated in a few years time.
As regards the situation about aid specifically, if humanitarian and economic aid is targetted to reduce poverty, then the number of recruits to groups like OBL's will see a dramatic fall. Poverty is one of the major causes of terrorism so if it is targetted as the evil of society it undoubtedly is, then terrorism, another evil, will decline.
PEACE TO ALL!
As regards the situation about aid specifically, if humanitarian and economic aid is targetted to reduce poverty, then the number of recruits to groups like OBL's will see a dramatic fall. Poverty is one of the major causes of terrorism so if it is targetted as the evil of society it undoubtedly is, then terrorism, another evil, will decline.
PEACE TO ALL!
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
BTW, please could you (all) try and use paragraphs? It makes it much easier to read. At the end of the paragraph, hit the the return button twice; that way, you get a line between paragraphs, which makes it even easier to read.
Like this!
Like this!
ok ill use paragraphs!
patels: its funny to read what you say, because you are accusing US of being colonialist, oppressor, bully, etc. that is a very cute, naive and simple way of looking at the world. country A is more powerful than country B. Country A has a bigger sphere of influence both militarily and economically than B, therefore country A is an oppressor. Buddy, no one is saying that mid east countries should not have their own rulers, govt, way of life, etc. look at egypt, look at jorday, morocco, UAE, these are all moderate and rather stable arab countries, ruled by their own people, witout the 'imperialist' darth vader like US interfering with them.
why cant you see that every stable nation on earth has significant things in common with each other. 1. free trade and open markets 2. a non-radical and democratic/parliamentary monarchy govt (china is an exception). 3.the flexibility to adapt to a changing world and a changing economy. this is why jordan is modernizing its schools with the internet. this is why china is becoming more capitalistic. this is why pariahs like iraq, iran, syria, afganistan, sudan,etc, are so poor, disgruntled and unstable. not because the US is 'evil and oppressive', but because the leaders of those countries are not doing a good job ruling their people.
now look at countries like S.Korea, Phillipines, Thailand, Taiwan, Poland, S.Africa, Romania, the list goes on, countries which were mid-east poor and unstable, countires which adapted to western style reforms and systems and countries which are now prospering, not because they abuse others and 'oppress' and 'colonize', but because they are logic and progressive. so stop with this US-oppressor non sense, boo the bad bad US, boo. rather silly.
now i never said that US doesnt give Israel weapons, every one knows it does. i merely stated that it would be unwise and dangerous not to support israel, read what i said again. and another thing, you say that the terrible israelis are slaughtering palestinian children with US weapons. let me ask you. you have a son. you feel that you are oppressed for one reason or another. so would you tell your kids to take fire bombs, rifles and stones, go up to soldiers and attack them? what do you think will happen? do you think the soldiers will stand there and smile? it is a known fact that the palestinians use children to attack israelis, and when an inevitable casualty arises, they get the benefit and the sympathy of the media and the world. why do you think you dont see any palestinians killed in protests who are older than 20-30. except for the known terrorists that israel assassinates, there are very few adults who attack israeli troops and the victims are palestinian children, who are fed the daily hate rhetoric heard on palestinian tv and radio.
sorry to say patels, there are always 2 sides to an issue.
hope the paragraphs helped.
patels: its funny to read what you say, because you are accusing US of being colonialist, oppressor, bully, etc. that is a very cute, naive and simple way of looking at the world. country A is more powerful than country B. Country A has a bigger sphere of influence both militarily and economically than B, therefore country A is an oppressor. Buddy, no one is saying that mid east countries should not have their own rulers, govt, way of life, etc. look at egypt, look at jorday, morocco, UAE, these are all moderate and rather stable arab countries, ruled by their own people, witout the 'imperialist' darth vader like US interfering with them.
why cant you see that every stable nation on earth has significant things in common with each other. 1. free trade and open markets 2. a non-radical and democratic/parliamentary monarchy govt (china is an exception). 3.the flexibility to adapt to a changing world and a changing economy. this is why jordan is modernizing its schools with the internet. this is why china is becoming more capitalistic. this is why pariahs like iraq, iran, syria, afganistan, sudan,etc, are so poor, disgruntled and unstable. not because the US is 'evil and oppressive', but because the leaders of those countries are not doing a good job ruling their people.
now look at countries like S.Korea, Phillipines, Thailand, Taiwan, Poland, S.Africa, Romania, the list goes on, countries which were mid-east poor and unstable, countires which adapted to western style reforms and systems and countries which are now prospering, not because they abuse others and 'oppress' and 'colonize', but because they are logic and progressive. so stop with this US-oppressor non sense, boo the bad bad US, boo. rather silly.
now i never said that US doesnt give Israel weapons, every one knows it does. i merely stated that it would be unwise and dangerous not to support israel, read what i said again. and another thing, you say that the terrible israelis are slaughtering palestinian children with US weapons. let me ask you. you have a son. you feel that you are oppressed for one reason or another. so would you tell your kids to take fire bombs, rifles and stones, go up to soldiers and attack them? what do you think will happen? do you think the soldiers will stand there and smile? it is a known fact that the palestinians use children to attack israelis, and when an inevitable casualty arises, they get the benefit and the sympathy of the media and the world. why do you think you dont see any palestinians killed in protests who are older than 20-30. except for the known terrorists that israel assassinates, there are very few adults who attack israeli troops and the victims are palestinian children, who are fed the daily hate rhetoric heard on palestinian tv and radio.
sorry to say patels, there are always 2 sides to an issue.
hope the paragraphs helped.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Tribal,
I'm just going to refer you to my comments above to rasrave and JC, otherwise I'll just be repeating them.
As for your support of Israel, you're giving me the reasons why you think you should support Israel. I'm not going to get into a long discussion about Israel because I think it would be too much work to draw you to some relevant basic facts which you ought to be aware of so I've given you a link here.
You're basically saying that you want to militarily, financially and politically support one set of people against another, meaning that you DO want to interfere.
So whilst I understand that you, and America might have complaint about having to burden all the world's ills and making sure that nothing goes 'wrong', it is rather unfair to force this complaint on other people by assuming thay're too backward to manage things themselves and having your troops on Saudi soil (where they are not wanted by ordinary Saudis), your planes over Iraq, your weapons in Israel and so on. Some people might think it is unfair that America is helping out these bad guys against them, or that their children are dying through American bombs, sanctions or military equipment. But still, America decided to interfere so that's her own business.
Secondly, thanks for the examples of those countries. I'm not saying that Americans are interefering with all countries - only the ones that have riches like oil. So the Asian tigers are doing very well indeed. Singapore does very well even though it's just a lump of rock in the sea. Malaysia does well too. China and India (hopefully soon to be joined by Pakistan and Central Asian republics) are taking steps to reform their economies too. Most, if not all of these countries were under colonial occupation at one time or the other, and they seem to have done very well once they became independent nations, democracy or no democracy (in China's case).
The real examples you don't provide, Saudi Arabia (despot regime), Kuwait (despot regime) and Iraq are the ones that exist the way they do because of American support for the regimes. Arabia nearly bankrupted itself buying American weapons to subdue it's own population. Kuwait and Saudi are also protected by America in case Saddam tries to do anything funny again (after America encouraged him against Iran and the Kurds). These are the examples you ought to be addressing.
If America simply left (that's right: 'You will simply walk away and leave', in Gandhi's words) then whether or not the situation changes - and it will - you leave people to get on with it. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you.
I'm just going to refer you to my comments above to rasrave and JC, otherwise I'll just be repeating them.
As for your support of Israel, you're giving me the reasons why you think you should support Israel. I'm not going to get into a long discussion about Israel because I think it would be too much work to draw you to some relevant basic facts which you ought to be aware of so I've given you a link here.
You're basically saying that you want to militarily, financially and politically support one set of people against another, meaning that you DO want to interfere.
So whilst I understand that you, and America might have complaint about having to burden all the world's ills and making sure that nothing goes 'wrong', it is rather unfair to force this complaint on other people by assuming thay're too backward to manage things themselves and having your troops on Saudi soil (where they are not wanted by ordinary Saudis), your planes over Iraq, your weapons in Israel and so on. Some people might think it is unfair that America is helping out these bad guys against them, or that their children are dying through American bombs, sanctions or military equipment. But still, America decided to interfere so that's her own business.
Secondly, thanks for the examples of those countries. I'm not saying that Americans are interefering with all countries - only the ones that have riches like oil. So the Asian tigers are doing very well indeed. Singapore does very well even though it's just a lump of rock in the sea. Malaysia does well too. China and India (hopefully soon to be joined by Pakistan and Central Asian republics) are taking steps to reform their economies too. Most, if not all of these countries were under colonial occupation at one time or the other, and they seem to have done very well once they became independent nations, democracy or no democracy (in China's case).
The real examples you don't provide, Saudi Arabia (despot regime), Kuwait (despot regime) and Iraq are the ones that exist the way they do because of American support for the regimes. Arabia nearly bankrupted itself buying American weapons to subdue it's own population. Kuwait and Saudi are also protected by America in case Saddam tries to do anything funny again (after America encouraged him against Iran and the Kurds). These are the examples you ought to be addressing.
If America simply left (that's right: 'You will simply walk away and leave', in Gandhi's words) then whether or not the situation changes - and it will - you leave people to get on with it. If you don't bother them, they won't bother you.
The vast majority of Arabs in the middle east believe America systematically denies them democracy and freedom through proxy dictatorship so that it can aggressively protect its own interests. and the more you look at US policy in the middle east the harder it is to disagree.
For example:
Egypt - Mubarak is deeply unpopular, elections are blatantly rigged, opposition parties outlawed, islamic groups ruthlessly stamped out. But is also 2nd largest recipient of US aid ($2bn) virtually all military. currently undergoing bright star military exercise with US (largest international military exercise in the world)
Saudi Arabia - fundamentalist kleptocratic monarchy loathed by Saudis. every bit as barbaric as Taliban. saudi elite funds al-qaida and also funded taliban. dissidents routinely executed. one of the world's lowest human rights ratings. But also enjoys very close ties with US. Massive market for US arms. 25,000 US troops in Saudi - intelligence reports say their sole purpose is to protect the monarchy. against insurrection.
Pakistan - military dictatorship, democracy unavailable until further notice. regime hugely unpopular for capitulating to US. corruption endemic. But now enjoys full US military backing. all sanctions removed. $600m aid deal agreed. substantial debt relief to follow.
The list goes on. But its fair to say that the US actively prevents democracy in the middle east because democracies have a habit of pursuing their national interests. Far better to prop up pliant chronies backed up with plenty of US hardware to deal with dissent. keep the oil flowing, keep suez open, let us use your airbases and there won't be a problem. any states that don't comply are by definition rogue states.
and apart from recent aid pledges to afghanistan, virtually all US aid to middle east is military not humanitarian.
most arabs regard rejection of US military action as a matter of survival.
and you can't argue with that.
For example:
Egypt - Mubarak is deeply unpopular, elections are blatantly rigged, opposition parties outlawed, islamic groups ruthlessly stamped out. But is also 2nd largest recipient of US aid ($2bn) virtually all military. currently undergoing bright star military exercise with US (largest international military exercise in the world)
Saudi Arabia - fundamentalist kleptocratic monarchy loathed by Saudis. every bit as barbaric as Taliban. saudi elite funds al-qaida and also funded taliban. dissidents routinely executed. one of the world's lowest human rights ratings. But also enjoys very close ties with US. Massive market for US arms. 25,000 US troops in Saudi - intelligence reports say their sole purpose is to protect the monarchy. against insurrection.
Pakistan - military dictatorship, democracy unavailable until further notice. regime hugely unpopular for capitulating to US. corruption endemic. But now enjoys full US military backing. all sanctions removed. $600m aid deal agreed. substantial debt relief to follow.
The list goes on. But its fair to say that the US actively prevents democracy in the middle east because democracies have a habit of pursuing their national interests. Far better to prop up pliant chronies backed up with plenty of US hardware to deal with dissent. keep the oil flowing, keep suez open, let us use your airbases and there won't be a problem. any states that don't comply are by definition rogue states.
and apart from recent aid pledges to afghanistan, virtually all US aid to middle east is military not humanitarian.
most arabs regard rejection of US military action as a matter of survival.
and you can't argue with that.
Similar threads
