Did anyone say the surge had improved matters for the US?

[spot]

May I just collate a few headlines, on the grounds that any bunch of people so charged with empathy at the Horrendous Lincoln Earthquake (fatalities: 0) might go totally overboard on seeing these?

Bush: No Promises On Troop Withdrawals: Declines To Repeat Administration Promises Of Bringing U.S Troops From Iraq Before Term's End.

US President George W. Bush on Saturday told his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he must "stop exporting terror" on the eve of the Iranian leader's first visit to Iraq.

President Bush's last trip to Iraq was kept secret until he arrived at a U.S. military base. Eight hours later he left, after Iraq's leaders traveled to meet him there. In sharp contrast, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit - the first ever by an Iranian leader to Iraq - was announced in advance. He plans to spend the night here, and Iranian TV will broadcast his departure ceremony live.

In an interview with The Financial Times, Hojjatollah Ghanimifard said that over the past three months, Iran has received 75 percent of the proceeds from its oil sales in euros and the remaining 25 percent in the Japanese currency, yen.

A total of 633 Iraqi civilians died violently in February, compared with 466 in January, according to figures released by Iraq's interior, defence and health ministries.

Sixty Palestinians were killed by Israelis today in the Gaza Strip.

Would anyone like to join the dots?

[Benjamin]

Yeah, the rockets the Palestinians are firing at Israeli citizens are supplied by Iran.

[gmc]

Benjamin;790178 wrote: Yeah, the rockets the Palestinians are firing at Israeli citizens are supplied by Iran.


and the bombs the israelis drop on the palestinians are from planes supplied by the americans.

What is your point?

[Benjamin]

Jester;790201 wrote: You were good at connect the dots in school werent you!:D
Yes and thank you for recognizing my abilities. :wah:

More dot connecting... France was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq but supplied Israel with weapons during the 40s to fight Iraq (and several other Arab nations).

[gmc]

Benjamin;790535 wrote: Yes and thank you for recognizing my abilities. :wah:

More dot connecting... France was against the U.S. invasion of Iraq but supplied Israel with weapons during the 40s to fight Iraq (and several other Arab nations).


During the iran/iraq war the US sold weapons to both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_ ... nd_support

what is the point you are trying to make?

[Benjamin]

gmc;790812 wrote: During the iran/iraq war the US sold weapons to both sides.


Good point. More dots connected. It's beginning to form an image.

[Bryn Mawr]

Benjamin;790973 wrote: Good point. More dots connected. It's beginning to form an image.


Although at this point it's more of a Rorschach blot than a picture.

[gmc]

Nothing inn the middle east does any of the nations involved much credit. It is however all done supposedly in our interests and for the best possible motives.

[Galbally]

OK, Iran gives Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Al-Aqsaqa martyrs brigade lots of weapons to fire at Isreali civilians in Askalon and Haifa, Syria gives Hezbollah weapons and money to continue to fight its war against the Jews in Israel, and the Christian Marionites in Lebannon. Saudi Arabia provides tens of millions of dollars for funding Wahabist Madrassas in Pakistan and Afganistan helping to continue the spread of violent and phsychotic version of Islam amoung the young men of those regions, and also money poors in for the building of enourmous Mosques and Islamic "centres" in the Capitals and provincial cities of Europe (there is an enourmous one being built in London) Australasia, and the Americas, the Muslim minorities in European country's are being incited by their elders and by senior clerics in the middle east to resist assimilation with the secular christian societies they live in, and instead create a parallel Islamic society withing Europe, meanwhile the Arab gulf states give monies to various Islamic groups in SE Asian countries such as the Phillipines, or Indonesia, or Bali, or Malasia to fight non muslim minorities or majorities (depending on the country), the Arab League refuses to denouce and in fact tacitly supports the Muslim Sudanse Government's genocide against its non muslim, Christian southern tribal population, as well as Chads Islamic fighters against the non muslim government, money is also being provided for hardline Nigerian clerics to found schools and groups in that country to continue the endless religions conflict between Christians and Muslims there, likewise money pours in from the Islamic world to fund Somali muslim death gangs, hardline Algerian terrorist groups, and now Kenya is the lastest country where outside powers attempt to ensure that the very complex socio economic and tribal problems there become ones of muslims against non muslims.

I dunno, what do you think is going on?

[spot]

Why do you have this inbuilt desire to kill people who aren't friendly to your nation? What obligation is there to be friendly? Why can't people merely be allowed to dislike each other in peace? Like us or die really isn't the way forward, it's just more of what we've been complaining about.

[Galbally]

rjwould;791495 wrote: I think it's all about religion and politics. Unfortunately, my country seems to always be in the middle of it.


That's the price you pay for being a strategic superpower, well my view would be though I certainly don't support everything the US does, and Iraq is a particular nadir of US foreign policy, I certainly don't think America is responsible for a lot of the trouble in the world, far from it in fact. Certainly in the Middle East, I think that the role of the US and the West is a sideshow from the huge historical processes that are going on internally within the Islamic world right now, like a counter-reformation or something of that nature, its hard for us to tell from this perspective, mostly its nothing to do with non muslims and the outside world, other than their role as something "other" that Islam seems to be reacting against, as well as within itself. Personally, I'm western, and I don't give a damn what happens to Islam, I'm all for peaceful coexistence if thats what will be on the cards, but not at any cost, and if peace isn't on the agenda (in the widest sense) then so be it. But we shall see what we shall see.

[spot]

Without US interference there would be a useful debate in the Middle East about the nature and emphases of Islam. With the US there it's polarized and the intransigents are the main voice speaking for the common and extremely unhappy man in the street instead of a half of a reasoned discussion.

Iraq used to be a secular republic with an impressive record of bringing modern rights to women. Is anyone even capable of pretending they'll go back to it in this generation? What happened? The US interfered in the internal processes of the state and overthrew the legitimate government.

Iran used to be a secular republic too. Is anyone even capable of pretending they'll go back to it in this generation? What happened? The US interfered in the internal processes of the state and overthrew the legitimate government.

The Islamic world can't have the internal debate we'd all like to see because the Islamic world is struggling to retain its independence in the face of overwhelming and illegal greed.

[spot]

Jester;791849 wrote: To dislike in peace is fine with me.


Please write to your single-track "bring 'em on" President about that then. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists"?

I'm not with the terrorists but, believe me, I'm as far as you can get from wanting that wreched incompetent criminal conspiracy of an administration to succeed in anything at all.

[spot]

rjwould;792198 wrote: Can you be more specific here? Illegal greed from whom or where, America only? I have to say that most of the governments in the region are greedy too. Whether or not greed is illegal in certain countries I don't know, I do know however that it is frowned upon by many religious people and liberals, depending on ones perspective.


Private criminal greed among the backers of the current White House administration, the people for whom a long-term peace dividend would have meant lower profits.

[Bryn Mawr]

rjwould;792228 wrote: If I were a die hard capitalist I would probably make the argument that slow movement on the part of the Islamic world is the cause of these problems. That the rest of the world is leaving them behind, and they even trail Africa at this point in the advancement of societies towards world peace via a competitive consumerist philosophy.

In your earlier post you pointed out that America has done this before. So, while I agree that this administration is as inept and incompetent as it gets, I wonder if my prior paragraph is in fact accurate.


Do you not feel that extreme sanctions and continual, externally sponsored, wars tend to slow down a regions development?

Not a good explanation I think.

[Bryn Mawr]

rjwould;792265 wrote: Even though some of these conflicts are externally sponsored, still, it takes elements within the given country that need or want sponsoring and even solicit it.

Moreover, currently in the middle east, most governments are self sufficient and not dependent on America's will for good or bad. The two you speak of are Iraq and Iran, both of which were sanctioned by the international community, not just America. The US may be a force behind those sanctions much of the time and does exert a lot of pressure in so doing, but those countries do have the freedom to disagree and not submit to the pressure..


I was not pointing the finger at America but at the conditions what are, you must admit, not ideal for societies to "advance"

[Galbally]

spot;792184 wrote: Without US interference there would be a useful debate in the Middle East about the nature and emphases of Islam. With the US there it's polarized and the intransigents are the main voice speaking for the common and extremely unhappy man in the street instead of a half of a reasoned discussion.

Iraq used to be a secular republic with an impressive record of bringing modern rights to women. Is anyone even capable of pretending they'll go back to it in this generation? What happened? The US interfered in the internal processes of the state and overthrew the legitimate government.

Iran used to be a secular republic too. Is anyone even capable of pretending they'll go back to it in this generation? What happened? The US interfered in the internal processes of the state and overthrew the legitimate government.

The Islamic world can't have the internal debate we'd all like to see because the Islamic world is struggling to retain its independence in the face of overwhelming and illegal greed.


I see your point, but to be honest I disagree in principal in that similar to the way that Europe has always seen Islam at its "other", the barbarian at the gates, so Islam views the West, its not just America, the reality of American and European power infuriates Islamic thinkers, as they percieve their civilization as a uniquely chosen and moral one, and the reality of its weakness fundamentally questions Islam's basic asumptions about itself.

The question is: If Islam is so great, why has it failed utterly to deal with the Western Challenge since 1500, either intellectually, philosophically, economically, and especially militarily?

For a religion that presumes its teachings to be the first and last word on all important questions in life and to represent the perfect, universal society, this has been a serious problem for a long time. We of course hadn't had to ask those questions of ourselves since the middle ages as we have been involved on a huge arc of progress and dominance for a long time, though perhaps that phase is truly coming to an end, whether thats a good thing for you and I remains to be seen. So I see what has been going on in the Middle East since the collapse of the last truly powerful semi-Universal Islamic society (that of the Ottoman Turks) an attempt to reconcile that uncomfortable fact, the creation of the state of Israel was just a further infuriating demonstration of Arab disunity, military weakness, and poverty of intellectual responses to real-world problems. Hence the huge animus to the Jews and their state, as well as of course the actual political struggle of Palestinian Arabs to regain political control over their old Ottoman territories.

Once the bogeyman was European and colonial, then it was escape from the decadent and failing Ottomans, then it was the French and British again, then it was Jews and Israel, then it was the Russians, and the Jews again, now its the Jews and the Americans, (the latter of whom best represent the material power of the Western christians and their ability to influence what happens in the Islamic world politically, and BTW exactly the same things were said of the British in their empire building heyday by the Arabs as is now said about the US).

I think that there is an opinion that is current that if Israel wasn't there, or if it was destroyed, and if the Americans retreated from the world, then the energy for this new militancy within Islam would not be there, I think that's a profound misunderstanding of Islam and Islamic civilzation. Certainly the day-to-day troubles in the middle east form a series of definite events and driver for many things, but what is happening goes much deeper than that, and a lot further back in history, Islam is 1400 years old and has been changing and developing or regressing through all that time mostly under its own internal dynamic, it contains its own motivations, and is a world within itself that functions for its own specific reasons. To ascribe what is happening between the Islamic world and the Western world to the last 30 years of American foreign policy is a gross simplification of what is happening in my opinion, and also shows a lack of respect for the fact that Islam doesn't require America to have its own agenda or world view.

I also think that the idea that there would be automatic "peaceful coexistence" between say Europe and the Islamic world if only the yanks would stop throwing their weight around is extreme wishful thinking, in fact the two civilizations are deeply inimical to each other for whatever reason, and always have been. There are only periods of calm, usually when one is ascendent over the other, or both are too war weary to demerit the case for a large scale challenge. I don't see that anything has actually changed much on either side, or that there is any real prospect it ever will. I am not sure why people think that more than a millenia-old historical process has ended because now we have cars, the internet, and iPods instead of horses, books, and drums?

Its only because of the complete global dominance of primarily European culture for the past 4 centuries that has left many middle class Europeans so complacent about the fragility of their own position in the world as pampered, generally indulgent members of a small rich low-birth-rate section of the native white societies of their own homelands, that are busy de-industrializing themselves, eschewing technical and engineering based careers as being something for metics, and increasingly living on credit, the value of their houses, wishful thinking, and on capital that currently flows in our direction from the actual productive work of people mostly now employed in SE Asia. (Though we do have some meaningful industry left in Europe and North America and we have not entirely turned into rentier economies yet), there is a case to be made that if we keep going the way we are going we will eventually be living off the cream from the top of the global financial system, the major productive centre of which is moving away from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in much the same actual postion as the French aristocracy prior to 1789 and we know what happened to them.

These people (and they include you and I) are actually an elite within an elite, whose intellectual gymnastics and in-built christian guilt complex have managed to shelter themselves from the reality of living at the top for a very long time, purely because of superior productive economic systems and the capability to defend them against all comers, in a world mostly populated by very poor, very badly educated, very exploited, very ill informed very religious, very angry people who are more than anything else persecuted nowadays from within by wicked regimes and indifferent corrupt governments, (who occasionally throw up the odd anti hero for our college students, you know, like Che Geuvara, or Trotsky, or Mao once upon a time) and who are constantly being told that those same Europeans and their American cousins are of course to blame for all of their problems, all the time, in some sort of grand conspiracy theory spanning centuries but not of course their own societies or their own leaders. Of course I am not for one moment trying to say that the Western countries don't get up to all sorts of shenanigans, of course they do, and if people have an awful lot of resentment I think its fair to say that much of it was well earned if the truth be told.

Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder how the elite classes of the Byzantine Greeks of Constantinople, Anatolia, Syria, North Africa, and the Levant viewed what was happening to them and their failure to match the challenge of Islam, and whether they understood that they and their entire civilization would one day be consumed utterly by that new power and forgotten, in much the same way the Natives of Hispanola were by the Spanish, I wonder will that one day be our fate? Maybe one day Kipling's poem will apply to all of Europe, and that prediction made (I think it was Gibbon) that had Charles Martel not stopped the Moors at Poitier's, then the lessons of the Koran would now be being taught from Canterbury and the Gleaming spires of Oxford would be used to call the faithful to prayer might also one day come to pass? Actually I doubt it, though its an interesting thing to ponder. I actually think that this is just the latest phase in a civilizational struggle that has in reality been going on for a very long time, and that eventually a new equilibrium will be reached again, but its always interesting to watch these things ebb and flow.

[spot]

Several points, all of them core problem areas between us.Jester wrote: Are you suggesting that had the US (or the west) not interfered in any way, that Islam would be neutral and law abiding and at least at a peaceful dislike with the west and the US?Yes, completely, assuming that the thorn in their side - Israel - had no Jew-specific laws. Since without the US (or the west) interfering in any way Israel couldn't possibly be the way it is - a continuing apartheid state - then that assumption's reasonable.Jester wrote: I look out across the western world and whether you label it christain or not its far more law abiding and commonly good for the typical citizen than Islam is.There's the nub of your blinkering. Come on, stand back and be honest and use your mind. The US has two and a half million adults in jail? Every one of those once had a clean record and became a criminal? One man becoming a criminal is down to any number of reasons. I think - I may be wrong, but I think - that a third of adult American men have a criminal conviction before they die and the proportion is rising, and that's not one man. That's an entire society fallen into the mire.

I could go and look it up but I seem to remember that one adult American man in ten will die having served jail time and than most of them would describe themselves as born-again Christians. "It's far more law abiding and commonly good for the typical citizen than Islam is" is just plain untrue, and it's at the heart of why the typical citizen of an Islamic nation regards the US with such total and justifiable disdain. The proportion of criminals in an Islamic society is many times lower than in the US, Islamic society is far more law abiding. It's the sight of the complete moral breakdown of US society that Islamic society finds so repulsive - a justifiable reaction. US society, complete with its claim to Christian values, is a moral cess pit awash with criminality by comparison with even troubled states like Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan, much less more peaceful Islamic states like Turkey, Syria or Indonesia.Jester wrote: Your anti-royal comments on the Harry thread indicate to me a sympathy for the terrorists.I keep saying I'm a monarchist, that I regard having the Queen as the Head of State to be the best possible constitution for any country, and yet you see me as anti-royal. You're just reading what I write with your blinkers. What you see isn't there to be seen, it's not true and I've no idea why you think it. I'm not anti-royal, I've invariably said how sorry I am for the family and expressed my gratitude to them for the function they perform so uncomplainingly.

Who are the terrorists? They're members of a loose criminal association labelled, for convenience, Al Qae'da. A few of them are currently in Europe planning criminal outrages. A few of them are in Iraq and Afghanistan under arms. A few are in other Islamic states, or in Africa. All these members and associates should be in jail, they should all be tried in a court of law, they are a policing problem. There's not the slightest way in which their worldwide numbers could possibly exceed, shall we guess, ten thousand. Fewer than the Mafia in the US and Italy, all of whose members and associates should also be in jail, they should also all be tried in a court of law, they are also a policing problem. Probably a larger one which has killed more people than Al Qae'da. You can't abuse the language to the extent of calling everyone who disapproves of the US, or even fights the US on the ground, as terrorists. The people fighting the US in Afghanistan are the exact same freedom fighters - the US expression for them, not mine - who pushed the Russians out with US equipment. They're not terrorists, they're nationalists. The people fighting on the ground in Iraq may indeed have some Al Que'da component but if so it's no more than a few hundred of them, the rest are the people who will form the government when the US leaves, rather in the way the Viet Cong did in Vietnam. They're not your friends, far from it, but they're not terrorists. The reason they're not your friends is that your troops are in their country where they have no business to be.

[gmc]

Actually 1% of americans are apparently in jail

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 90007.html



Quote:

Originally Posted by Jester

Your anti-royal comments on the Harry thread indicate to me a sympathy for the terrorists.

I keep saying I'm a monarchist, that I regard having the Queen as the Head of State to be the best possible constitution for any country, and yet you see me as anti-royal. You're just reading what I write with your blinkers. What you see isn't there to be seen, it's not true and I've no idea why you think it. I'm not anti-royal, I've invariably said how sorry I am for the family and expressed my gratitude to them for the function they perform so uncomplainingly.


Just to highlight one big difference between the UK and the US. Opposition to the war does not mean you do not support the troops, far from it. Many are angry at the fact the troops are involved in this at all. Nor does opposition to the war mean that you support terrorism. No British politician would dare come out with such a statement because laughter would be the politest response.

Nor does being anti royal indicate any support for terrorists. Nor indeed is it unpatriotic. How on earth do you come to that conclusion is completely beyond me. Living a a free country we can say what we like about the bastards. Indeed many would suggest she bugger off back to germany and take her immigrant greek husband with her. We put up with the royal family because they are useful but they're on a knife edge and they know it. The constitutional monarchy suits us and has evolved over time but whether we should allow the descendants of medieval warlords to keep the land they stole and their privileges and titles is a moot point that comes to the fore every now and then. Indeed many refuse to accept royal honours especially after it came out that TB was selling them to his mates.

posted by galbally

I actually think that this is just the latest phase in a civilizational struggle that has in reality been going on for a very long time, and that eventually a new equilibrium will be reached again, but its always interesting to watch these things ebb and flow.


Great post-wish i had your way with words. I like to think things like the internet make a big difference. Nowadays govt can't do what it likes in far away countries and get away with it so readily.

[spot]

gmc;792589 wrote: Actually 1% of americans are apparently in jailSwot I said, innit.

The US has two and a half million adults in jail.

[spot]

Jester;793004 wrote: Interesting take. I stand corrected on your anti-royal stand, my apologize.

Criminals are criminals because they commit a criminal act, regardless of numbers that is an individual action, it does reflect on the US as a whole, but not on the principles for which it stands, but on the actions of the individuals, far more (99%)are law abiding citizens. 1% does not even scratch the surface as a representation. I find it amazing that you dislike incarceration as a method of correction being that you prefer it to capital punishment.

Second point, muslum countries dont have as many criminals because the punishment is much harsher with an immediate sentence, very little appeal. And generally handled within a family system and not to the government level.

Third point, I wasnt refering to just the US, I said the west in general compared to muslum countries in general.

And I really dont give a flip what reason they give for hating us, the basis is that all non muslums are infidels in thier eyes, even a converted infidel is still a dog."on the actions of the individuals, far more (99%)are law abiding citizens"? That's so immediately provable as false that I'm not even sure I understand what you mean by it. Do you mean that every single person who's not in jail at the moment is a law abiding citizen? That's how you define a law abiding citizen, that he's not in jail today? The man who was released last week is now a law abiding citizen? The man who hasn't yet been caught for those ten burglaries is a law abiding citizen? Your use of language is astonishing. If one in ten adult American men have done jail time before they die can we use that to say 90% of adult American men are law abiding citizens, rather than 99%? A difference of a factor of ten and still, in my opinion, an extreme overestimate? Criminals are criminals because they commit a criminal act, regardless of whether they've done their time or not. I know what we could agree on - most Americans are law-abiding. That, I'm sure, is fair comment, but 99% is lunacy.

Yes, in Muslim eyes all non-Muslims may well be dogs if you want to use that word. In Christian eyes all non-Christians are going to hell, remember. Which is worse? Neither's an excuse for killing each other.

I dislike incarceration as a method of correction because it's ineffective. What would be effective is the detection of crime, the apprehension of the perpetrator and his conviction in court. That requires effective policing. You might like to urge your State Governor to adopt effective police techniques and to stop employing goons.