Can I tell you... freespeech, propaganda, or anti-religion?

[Buzkashi]

Iran is so rich in resources, they could be just as happy as the Saudis, but they chose to follow their ridiculous religious leaders. Iraq was ruled by a tyrant for many years, and I can't imagine how iraqis could be unhappy about having him gotten rid of. But instead, they rally to the hatemongers, who want to cause nothing but chaos. And there are volunteers flocking to them every day, this I don't understand.

Maybe because Iran doesn't want to become the ass-slaves of the U.S?

And on the Iraq situation.

You're right. Saddam was a cruel and petty dictator.

I live in San Diego. We have the second or third highest population of Iraqi's in America. I've dealt with countless Iraqi's and almost all of them hated Saddam and still do. As a matter of fact, they were so happy when they found out that he had been removed by the U.S. If you ask them how they feel about it now, years later almost all of them say they wish he was back. Why? Because situations have simply been far worse with his absence.

And if you ask why people rally to there local leaders and why there is still violence there then listen to Immortal Techinques song "Bin Laden" . He hits it spot on when he says, "they try and say that the rebels in Iraq still fight for saddam, but thats bullshit, I'll tell you why its totally wrong, because if another country invaded the hood tonight, it would be war fare through harlem and washington hieghts. I wouldnt be fighting for bush, or white americas dream, I'd be fighting for my peopls survival and self esteem. I wouldn't be fighting for racist churches in the south my nigga, I'd be fighting to get the Occupation out my nigga. "

What it comes down to is the west has fucked the Middle East the same way they fucked Africa, but the whats different is that the many in that region are actualyl fighting back. Thats where the violence stems from. The only way the problems can even start to settle is if we stop getting involved in Mid east affairs completely.

[Shaka Zulu]

Quite frankly, putting all the violence in the middle east down to "oppression" of one or another kind is just as stupid as putting it all down to religion. I said before, the hatemongers probably have their reasons, which have nothing to do with religion at all. They want personal power and influence, or whatnot. But those people who blow themselves up, what are their reasons? Why do saudis become terrorists or even suicide bombers? Are they poor? Are they oppressed? Likely as not, they are just having an identity crisis, and instead of doing something useful, they think that killing people might just be the thing for them.
Why do british nationals from middle class families become suicide bombers?
I'll give you social arguments for Palestinians, for noone else.
Iran is so rich in resources, they could be just as happy as the Saudis, but they chose to follow their ridiculous religious leaders. Iraq was ruled by a tyrant for many years, and I can't imagine how iraqis could be unhappy about having him gotten rid of. But instead, they rally to the hatemongers, who want to cause nothing but chaos. And there are volunteers flocking to them every day, this I don't understand.

Maybe Islam is not the reason for everything, but adding Islam to the mix is like pouring gas on a fire, because it seems the seeds of violence are already apparent in the book or closely related sources. Of course other religions also have those sources, but the difference is, they don't follow them to the letter anymore. This is, to quote someone else here, the information age. Get some information, get some perspective. It's just a goddamn book.

I don't even want to start about the question of women.

I'll be brief Its NOT stupid at all. These countries besides Saudi Arabia who just have a big minority of extremists of pan-islamists, have ALL had very unstable and conflict stricken modern history. They havent had time to settle and have healthy enough state. Just look at the modern history of them, Palestina is an obvious one. Iraq? It was a colony for Brits until very late, and what happend? It just changed hands indirectly to when it was a young country, to become an puppet and colonized by the US. They set up Saddam (by getting "rid" of the leader), thats has been their entire modern history in short. They have just changed hand from one oppressor to another. So excuse me if I disagree if saying the obvious is stupid.

These people have been helpless to change or effect their fate since their country was born. And yes they have alot of bad blood between eachother hasnt been settled at all, because the country being set-up how it was flawed to begin with. But more importantly it has been so unstable all the time they never had the chance to settle this grudges (grudges grown out of oppressors forming favourites, Saddam with sunni, brits and yanks with shia etc). Irans history is VERY similar, Brittish colony, got a new country, Their PM is ousted/killed because he didnt want to give free oil to Brits and yanks. They appoint another dictator in the Shah. And Believe me when I say that the fundenmentalists that rule Iran now wouldnt have the influence or have the same setting to take power in if the shah hadnt viciously oppressed and mishandled Iran for decades. Basically unstable and oppressed helpless people are breeding grounds for extremism. There is a reason the countries the terrorists come from arent turkey, malaysia, tunisia and lots of other peaceful countries. If the countries were peaceful, the extremists would be an insignificant minority with little power. But decades long unstable fucked up countries creates the perfect stage and recruiting ground for these extremists, and they grow, because the decade long political oppression and the emperialistic actions of the Western powers create the perfect excuse to recruit desperate and helpless people. They just have to point to the actions of those to brainwash them.

So in short, DO NOT underestimate the significant political turmoil these countries have been in since they were created.

[psi29a]

Infamous cut-scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian

[youtube]h1dZ0YddG7w[/youtube]

If you are not offended, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Brainpiercing]

"they try and say that the rebels in Iraq still fight for saddam, but thats bullshit, I'll tell you why its totally wrong, because if another country invaded the hood tonight, it would be war fare through harlem and washington hieghts. I wouldnt be fighting for bush, or white americas dream, I'd be fighting for my peopls survival and self esteem. I wouldn't be fighting for racist churches in the south my nigga, I'd be fighting to get the Occupation out my nigga. "

What it comes down to is the west has fucked the Middle East the same way they fucked Africa, but the whats different is that the many in that region are actualyl fighting back.

That's factually just totally wrong. Of all the terror in Iraq only a small part actually hits the foreign soldiers. Most of the terror hits the civilian population of Iraq, and that's why I call bullshit on the entire resistance scheme. There may be some local leaders who are fighting against the US (Sadr, or similiar), but those don't produce the majority of the terror in Iraqi streets today. The terror in Iraq exists only for one reason: To destabilise the country so that at some point the Americans will give up, and the extremists can take hold. Don't fool yourself that it would become any better if the US left. If they left now, there would most probably be some small-scale shia-sunni genocide, and then new dictators would take hold. But since those have been busy killing their own population the past few years, they would be far worse than your American occpation troops.

The US-occupation in Iraq is about as full of errors at it gets. They went in for the wrong reasons, they didn't take enough care of civilian casualties (and generally treated Iraqis like shit), they had no plan for the future, etc.. But there is still one striking difference between a US-occupation and a stone-age islamist dictatorship: Under an American occupation, anyone can believe what they like and live how they like. Under the taliban-like dictators of the future, you can either live THEIR way, or no way.
The region is not fighting back, those who want power after throwing out the west are fighting back. They are abusing those who are impressionable enough to listen to their hate-preachings, and they are carrying out their fight on the backs of their own people. That's not what a resistance looks like, they just want power for themselves.

[Buzkashi]

You keep saying Stone Age Islamic Dictatorship. Whats wrong with you? Our invasion of Iraq has killed more Civiliians than saddam could dream of.

Also, if you've ever been to Dubai(highly doubt it). Many of the regios are ruled by the Amirs. Pretty much Dictators. Everything goes through them. They rule under Islamic law and every single citizen is taken care of almost 100%. From paying for all college, to providing housing to married couples. In fact, its possible I may be moving to this "stone age" dictatorship. Its funny because you like to throw the term Dictator at ruler who you dont agree with.

[psi29a]

There is such a thing as benevolent dictator. However, some people would disagree that there ever was one.

Dubai is actually very nice place to visit.

[Shaka Zulu]

I would say Tunisia has had VERY benevolent presidents. In their modern history, the only have had few presidents. They basically stay in power quite long (quite painless and without conflict). But they have taken care of their country perfectly and cleanly, socially reforming and with great economic growth, actually better growth then some EU countries (like Italy and Portugal). Dubai is very nice, but Tunisias main income is tourism. The rest they have to earn and substiate themselves like everyone else.

UAE's emirs and the country in general have very good bussinessmen and merchants, BUT they have it very easily because they are swimming in oil. Not hard to affford to have everyone living in luxury (and their population is loooow) with that kind of resources even if many others have been corrupted and been abusive about it. So yeah lucky in being overabundant in resources.

But its prolly irrevelant to what you meant Psi, if I read your right.



P.S Brain piercing, do you still think its stupid that a countries history of fucked up instability and oppression shapes it for what it is;) (big reason why Iraq and Iran are they way they are, while Turkey and Tunisia for example are peaceful) Or just conveniently ignoring the post

[Brainpiercing]

P.S Brain piercing, do you still think its stupid that a countries history of fucked up instability and oppression shapes it for what it is;) (big reason why Iraq and Iran are they way they are, while Turkey and Tunisia for example are peaceful) Or just conveniently ignoring the post

Yes, the past DOES shape a country. However, at some point you just have to stop pointing fingers and accepting the fact that whoever is living HERE and NOW has no choice but to accept the responsibility placed on their shoulders simply by being born at a time when the past is PAST. I'm not blaming the middle-east equivalent of Joe Average who is just trying to get a fucking life at all. There are just good ways and bad ways of going about that.

I'm German, we could go about pointing fingers at the US for bombing us to hell and back. But it's OVER. It was over a long time ago. And I have to say to myself, even though the German equivalent of Joe Average may not have deserved being bombed to hell and back, there was a damn good reason the US did it.

And I have to ask myself the moral question of whether it's wrong to fight madmen, even if they are dictators and leaders of other countries. (That being said, that was not GWB's reason for invading Iraq, I'm not that deluded.)

[Buzkashi]

What I'm trying to say is that the problems in the Middle East have happened before. Its a problem that eventually gets fixed by the people. So many people believe its America or the Wests job to bring civilization and modernization to all these countries. What people forget is that civilization in general started in that region. If anyone knows how to create a functioning society its them. The west is the greatest power in the world right now. Its a new thing. The west has only been dominant for what?... 600 years or so? Before that they were painting themselves blue and living in dung huts. What we as Americans need to do is get our greedy hands out of the other parts of the world and let them recoup and solve there problems. Shit it might take decades, but it'll get better.

[psi29a]

What I'm trying to say is that the problems in the Middle East have happened before. Its a problem that eventually gets fixed by the people. So many people believe its America or the Wests job to bring civilization and modernization to all these countries. What people forget is that civilization in general started in that region. If anyone knows how to create a functioning society its them. The west is the greatest power in the world right now. Its a new thing. The west has only been dominant for what?... 600 years or so? Before that they were painting themselves blue and living in dung huts. What we as Americans need to do is get our greedy hands out of the other parts of the world and let them recoup and solve there problems. Shit it might take decades, but it'll get better.

Won't be a problem in a few years thanks to China. China as a culture/civilization has been around thousands of years. It is older than America and even 'the west'. They think nothing of us, China will around before and after western civilization. Just look at what they are doing right now playing tit for tat with Iran, having their own Tanks in Darfur. All the political crises in the world has Chinese fingers in the pie. You can't blame them for looking out for themselves, but Americans need to realize it is a new kid on the block still.

[Brainpiercing]

Well, there are a few problems with leaving the middle east alone:

Israel is an ally of the west.

There's tons of oil still in the middle east, which means it will never be left alone. That's just a fact. I don't condone it.

Most probably the middle east won't leave us alone in return.

[psi29a]

Most probably the middle east won't leave us alone in return.

Er, in what way? America is half a world away. What are middle-eastern countries going to do, invade? Are they going to go nuke us?

No, and that is because we will go balls to wall WW2 all over their assess. What a wonderful way to create a 'just war' that gets all of America (regardless of creed or religion) to go fuck up another country. And by fuck up, let me tell you about the shoulder mounted nuke dispensers of pain. Because we can fuck shit up, we just aren't very good at rebuilding.

If we packed up our shit and went home, the middle-east will solve it's own problems without us.

However, it isn't going to happen because 'we' are too invested in the area, the machines of industry must have oil.

I highly doubt that any country will at this point dick around with us. Iran getting nuke capable isn't exactly what I'm afraid of, let them have nuke tech... the genie has been out of the bottle for years now. I'm afraid of Pakistan having a revolution, and then letting their nukes go on the open markets to NGOs (none government organization) to ship to any place they want to.

Iran is a stable country with a rational actor, they want to live just like the rest of us. Sure, their president is a bit of a dick but at least you can predict him.

[Buzkashi]

Iran more than likely already has Nuclear Weapons. I mean the soviet arsenal's didnt just disappear.

Hell I think Killfile had a very interesting topic one time about Game Theory. I think thats what it was called. Basically he was talking about how Iran has had for some time doomsday weapons and that because they are a rational country they have yet and more than likely wont use them unless attacked in advance.

[Shaka Zulu]

P.S Brain piercing, do you still think its stupid that a countries history of fucked up instability and oppression shapes it for what it is;) (big reason why Iraq and Iran are they way they are, while Turkey and Tunisia for example are peaceful) Or just conveniently ignoring the post

Yes, the past DOES shape a country. However, at some point you just have to stop pointing fingers and accepting the fact that whoever is living HERE and NOW has no choice but to accept the responsibility placed on their shoulders simply by being born at a time when the past is PAST. I'm not blaming the middle-east equivalent of Joe Average who is just trying to get a fucking life at all. There are just good ways and bad ways of going about that.

I'm German, we could go about pointing fingers at the US for bombing us to hell and back. But it's OVER. It was over a long time ago. And I have to say to myself, even though the German equivalent of Joe Average may not have deserved being bombed to hell and back, there was a damn good reason the US did it.

And I have to ask myself the moral question of whether it's wrong to fight madmen, even if they are dictators and leaders of other countries. (That being said, that was not GWB's reason for invading Iraq, I'm not that deluded.)

I agree that at some point you have to stop blaming the past. BUT NOT WHEN ITS SO RELEVANT to how the present is shaped in everyway. For example good example on ze germans, or even the other losers of WW11 in Japan and Italy, country fucked up for a while, but eventually rebuilt and they had time to settle their differences and move on. But you cannot say the past havent entirely shaped todays Iran and Iraq, the past actions of Western emperialism and puppet dicators of theirs is the reason why the countries are fucked up. Its not like they had time to govern themselves and move on and settle their differences, but on the contrary, they have been ruled by the same crap in different names.

Both countries has had dictators for decades who were SOLELY at power because the west put them there and supported them. In Irans case they were oppressed so much that the general population had to follow in the only revolution they had, for them it was supposed to be a liberation, but sadly dictatorship shaped the country in fundentamenlist extremists taking advantage on the fuck ups of the dictator. In Iraq their were way less powerless and havent had any opportunitiy to oust Saddam, because the US were bankrolling him for 4 decades almost (whenever they tried to resist, they got slaughtered with the weapons of the west). And when eventually they got rid of Saddam, its because the US themselves decided to take care of their own puppet, and while doing so, they fucked over the iraqi's way more then ever.

So please be able to differentiate the relevance of the past, in these cases, the past clearly governs the present. Ignoring the past that has made the present the fucked up hellhole it is now is nothing but delusion. Yes ofcourse the iraqi average joe etc has responsibility to shape his life. But thanks to the power mongers that has oppressed them since the countries birth, they have had ZERO means to effect their future or their lives in any way. Its OVER for the Germans because the yanks decided to bomb you to smitherings then rebuild your country peacefully and give it back to you. Iraqi's havent been treated anyway but getting fucked over since the country was formed (their initial leaders were ousted and killed BY the western powers, due to their interests in their resources, Germany was way different, but they would have tried or succedeed in fucking you over for decades if you were swimming in oil too). BIG DIFFERENCE. dont you think?

To summarize my post (though the problem itself is having their greedy hands there and stabbing everyone to drink their blood):

What we as Americans need to do is get our greedy hands out of the other parts of the world and let them recoup and solve there problems. Shit it might take decades, but it'll get better.

[Brainpiercing]

Ok, but then please build a high wall around the middle east and put a lid on it. Let noone in and noone out. In a hundred years we can then lift the lid and see who is left.

There are parts of Africa where the same applies.

[Shaka Zulu]

I know you are a simpleton, but you dont need to parody yourself with posts like that. One can be realistic enough and realise the real politik, but the issue was you saying its stupid to factor in how fucked up oppressed they have been in the past, and still are, that it shapes them and pretty much explains why things have been the way they are.

That does not mean suddenly just leaving them entirely or wacky scenarios like you suggested is the answer, there is no easy solution, wont say I have anything close to it. But its common sense to point out that the issue is the powerful fucking over the misunfortunate/powerless (and that one should take responsibility for your actions), you said me pointing that out (the obvious) was stupid. Thats all really, waste your petty attempts of sarcasm on someone else ( You are quick to blame the non-western factors, but when one points out the obvious of the western powers, you try belittle it by saying its stupid or making retarded jokes like above).

[Tonbo]

build a high wall around the middle east and put a lid on it. Let noone in and noone out.

That is Al Qaeda's dream.

[Facade19]

Well Brainpiercing if some Middle Eastern countries would receive a second Marshal Plan (or some plan similar to that) I am sure these countries would be able to build themselves just like Germany was able to do so after WWII with plenty of U.S. aid. BTW Brainpiercing there is plenty of resentment towards the USA by Germany. How do I know? I lived there for 13 years.

[Brainpiercing]

build a high wall around the middle east and put a lid on it. Let noone in and noone out.

That is Al Qaeda's dream.

Of course it is.

[Xandarg]

Infamous cut-scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian

[youtube]h1dZ0YddG7w[/youtube]

If you are not offended, then you haven't been paying attention.

Hahaha! That's the worst thing I've ever seen! No wonder it didn't make the final cut. Simply hilarious though.

The west is the greatest power in the world right now. Its a new thing. The west has only been dominant for what?... 600 years or so? Before that they were painting themselves blue and living in dung huts.

Agreed (well, it's a fact, so it's not there to be disagreed with or agreed with... So, I guess I mean: acknowledged and happy that you've brought it up). However, it also brings up the point that power and the development of civilizations has nothing to do with race/religion/or even ideology (counter to what has been preached in Eurocentric American classrooms for years, and in other countries around the world that preach nationalism). It's more objectively to do with circumstance and context so generally the "rise of a civilization" is brought about through historical conjuncture.

What I'm trying to say is that the problems in the Middle East have happened before. Its a problem that eventually gets fixed by the people. So many people believe its America or the Wests job to bring civilization and modernization to all these countries. What people forget is that civilization in general started in that region. If anyone knows how to create a functioning society its them.

This seems to portray something counter to the above argument, that somehow a people (due to ethnicity, religion, shared history or experience) can be better or worse at forging a functioning society. The Cradle of Civilization in Mesopotamia was just as much due to historical conjuncture and context as was the Rise of The West.

What we as Americans need to do is get our greedy hands out of the other parts of the world and let them recoup and solve there problems. Shit it might take decades, but it'll get better.

Improving the quality of life of a people is far too complex an undertaking to be discussed succinctly, so I can't say I disagree with you. One way of helping the people of the world is to leave them alone to work out their problems for themselves. I certainly would agree that most Western policies have accomplished nothing except to add fuel to the fire, not least of all due to their true objectives which have all too often been motivated by greed. But I would still like to stay open to other possibilities as well that run short of either extreme: war or indifference.

Well Brainpiercing if some Middle Eastern countries would receive a second Marshal Plan (or some plan similar to that) I am sure these countries would be able to build themselves just like Germany was able to do so after WWII with plenty of U.S. aid.

I agree, these are the kinds of policies that move us forward toward cooperation and mutual benefit.

Most probably the middle east won't leave us alone in return.

psi29a effectively addresses why the threat to the US from war (or an attack from a country's government) is greatly exaggerated in American society, but I think the real issue is the fear of terrorist attacks (which work outside of country to country interactions, and are thus free from the restrictions imposed by Game Theory and Rational Choice models, in this context), ie. If we move out of the Middle East, then we'll just be leaving ourselves open to another 9/11. I don't agree with this rationale, of course, but I believe it's important to explain why:
http://www.tkb.org/
The above is a link to the Terrorism Knowledge Base which catalogues global incidences of terrorism. There you can graph for yourself (I wish I knew how to upload an image) the number of terrorist incidents committed globally (select "Region" when prompted to select a category by which to graph and later select all regions) between 1969 and present day. You will see that after America began it's Global War on Terror, the global number of terrorist incidents increased and has increased many fold since then. This increase also began at the end of a global low of terrorist incidents, which occurred during the Clinton years, a time when American foreign policy had been comparatively more conciliatory (which hawks saw as creating an impotent America) (barring Operation Desert Fox, which lasted only four days and was nothing compared to the scope of the wars started during the Bush years especially in regard to the number of innocent people effected). Obviously there is more to the story of global politics and this is a drastically simplifying model of politics, but I think this one piece of evidence (of many out there, if you are well read in foreign policy and international relations) shows fairly clearly that a foreign policy of war and retribution, though simplistically seeming to be a good way of stopping terrorism (ie. punish the bad guys), is actually quite counter-productive to this goal.