our freedom just as important as theirs

chewy

have to back memoch up there thats good list of neo-imperalism

as for venezula look up the revolution will televised that film by the irish guys who were there during the coup

Zombrex

Originally posted by vorbis
Wicknight have you been at the medecine cabinet. ... Thats pure capitalism in terms of greed.

Er, I am pretty sure there are very few islamic fundamentalists on the OPEC board.

Originally posted by vorbis
since the second world war, what oil producing countries have been occupied? As in since they got their independence. Iraq is about the only one.

Since the WWII not many. As press coverage and independence ideas became greater it was harder for the western "demoncratic" countries to occupy other countries. Instead they used illegal back channels to help over throw unfriendly leaders and install puppet regines. I can give you a long list if you wish.

pork99

Originally posted by dathi1
With the help of successive British, French and US governments for the past 70 yrs. They had'nt a hope.

But at some point the world is asking: “Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration—all rogues who hijacked Arab countries—or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?

No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty.

The enemy of the Middle East is not the West so much as modernism itself and the humiliation that accrues when millions themselves are nursed by fantasies, hypocrisies, and conspiracies to explain their own failures. Quite simply, any society in which citizens owe their allegiance to the tribe rather than the nation, do not believe in democracy enough to institute it, shun female intellectual contributions, allow polygamy, insist on patriarchy, institutionalize religious persecution, ignore family planning, expect endemic corruption, tolerate honor killings, see no need to vote, and define knowledge as mastery of the Koran is deeply pathological.

When one adds to this depressing calculus that for all the protestations of Arab nationalism, Islamic purity and superiority, and whining about a decadent West, the entire region is infected with a burning desire for things Western—from cell phones and computers to videos and dialysis, you have all the ingredients for utter disaster and chaos. How after all in polite conversation can you explain to an Arab intellectual that the GDP of Jordan or Morocco has something to do with an array of men in the early afternoon stuffed into coffee shops spinning conspiracy tales, drinking coffee, and playing board games while Japanese, Germans, Chinese, and American women and men are into their sixth hour on the job? Or how do you explain that while Taiwanese are studying logarithms, Pakistanis are chanting from the Koran in Dark-Age madrassas? And how do you politely point out that while the New York Times and Guardian chastise their own elected officials, the Arab news in Damascus or Cairo is free only to do the same to us?

Victor Davis Hanson

Zaphod B

Not sure what you were attempting to accomplish by just copying and pasting Mr Davis Hanson's thoughts - especially since you just stuck them there without any kind of comment of your own, as if one man's opinion somehow serves as conclusive proof that your argument is correct. One man, i might add, who refers to Chomsky and those who would dare to take him seriously as "Wackos"... because obviously unlike Chomsky, clearly Hanson is totally objective and doesn't lean at all to the right eh...

Er so they cut heads off in the Middle East... it's deeply unpleasant but they did it in France up to (and including) 1977. France isn't generally considered to be in the Middle Ages these days (nice opportunity for sarcastic comments for all fans of Freedom Fries there). Plus lynchings and mutilations would surely never happen in America eh... oh, wait...
His argument consists almost solely of "They're stuck in the Middle Ages!" and he refuses to accept that there might be any cause for this that isn't the fault of the people of the Middle East. Again... what a "Fair and balanced" view.

I'm not saying everything the man says is wrong. I personally don't think we can go lay all the blame at the door of the West. But perhaps we could discuss this further if you actually comment on what he says rather than simply paste it.

pork99

Originally posted by Zaphod B

I'm not saying everything the man says is wrong. I personally don't think we can go lay all the blame at the door of the West. But perhaps we could discuss this further if you actually comment on what he says rather than simply paste it.

I could not state the case as eloquently myself.

I feel that the most articulate postings on this board are pro-Islamicist terrorist so I enlisted the help of Mr Davis Hanson to say what I believe to be the truth in an attempt to restore some balance.

Again I would not support all his stances. He is a bit too hawkish in other articles. The war against Islamic fundamentalism is a war which must be fought and won but it is a war which needs to be fought "smarter not harder".

For example I saw a programme on Channel 4 about American effort to combat al Quaeda in Yemen. They have imprisoned a lot of terrorist suspects and they got anti-al Quaeda Muslim clerics going into the prisons to argue against the fundamentalist reading of Islam. Just a small example.

The Americans put a lot faith in their carrier groups, stealth bombers, armoured divisions etc but theses weapons and these thing can still come in handy. However we could be in a conflict where these things are as useful as the Maginot line in WWII or cavalry in WW1. We're fighting a new type of war with the weapons appropriate for the last war or the war before that.

By analogy with WWII Iraq is probably an unnecessary front in this war like the campaigns in Norway in 1940 and Crete in 1941. However in those campaigns it would have been better if the "good guys" had won.

halkar

The war against Islamic fundamentalism? Who is in war? am I missing something Pork99? Last 2 wars wasn't because of Islamic fundamentalists. Or was there Christian fundamentalists then?

If you leave me alone I won't touch you. Simple fact of life. West are trying to slave these people, it is not up to you or me or anybody to judge the way they live. Why not first find the root of the problems and try dealing with them instead of going for crusades again?

Sand

The war against Islamic fundamentalism? Who is in war?

The Jihad that the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting against their enemies in Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, China, Indonesia,Morrocco, Turkey, Spain, and the United States of the top of my head.Some of the nations they are fighting are oppressive and cruel and others arent but they are all enemies of the Islamic fundamentalists. Dont act surprised.

If you leave me alone I won't touch you. Simple fact of life. West are trying to slave these people, it is not up to you or me or anybody to judge the way they live.

Actually the wests interests traditionally go as far as ensuring the oil supply continues and Israel is relatively protected. They have tended to follow the line of reasoning that so long as these two concerns are addressed then theyve no issue with whose in power in the middle east, they can work with all of them. Assad, Saddam, the shah of iran, the saudi royal family - all these have been allies of the west because they kept the oil flowing and could be discouraged from doing much more than talking big about Israel. Even the fundamentalists in Iran could have been American allies if they hadnt taken the US hostages and threated to cut of the oil supply. Look at Gaddaffi.

So youre right - in a way the west supported the slavery of the middle east to these dictators. They didnt care what went on, they probably comforted themselves that to intefere would be neo-imperialism, that it was what the Arabs really wanted, it wasnt for them to judge how the Arabs dealt with their free thinkers or pro-democracy types.

That cant be allowed to continue any longer - the Middle East is a disaster as a result of this policy and a prime recruiting ground for Islamic fundamentalists who are exporting their terror. Whether you support the overthrow of tyrants on principle or simply wish to protect the west out of pure self interest then it is clear the Middle East must be fixed. When religious leaders are screaming for the murder of westerners without any censure then it is very much for us to judge.

Why not first find the root of the problems and try dealing with them instead of going for crusades again?

The root cause are the regimes in place and the willingness of the west to deal with them. The destruction of Saddams regime is just, and it encourages other regimes in the region to reform before they too become seen as part of the problem - Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next. The Saudis in particular need to decide pretty quickly if theyre fundamentalists or in favour of western reforms such as greater freedoms, and at least an effort to bring in secularism and democracy.

dathi1

Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next.

BULL....Gaddafi was already making waves of reform with the west long before the Iraqi Invasion and Occupation. He's a wise opportunist who has turned his back on the so called Arab leadership...and who would blame him. He now has a grand view of setting up a new pan African economic zone with Libya at its core. So far as his support for Palestine hasn't wavered and he never liked sadam. He also like sadam has his yearly death quota on Islamic extremists. Same old Gaddafi

halkar

First of all it is not Jihad that is going on and don't mix the Jihad to terrorism. Both are different things. Jihad what might be coming but not what we see today.
What wouldn't suprise me is if the west doesn't get their act together and once in their history support these nations peoperly without discriminating for their religions, lives and respect them for what they are instead of using them just to pull the oil out of their lands so that their fancy SUVs and V8s can bring their kids to schools which are only few yards away.

Originally posted by Sand
......
The root cause are the regimes in place and the willingness of the west to deal with them. The destruction of Saddams regime is just, and it encourages other regimes in the region to reform before they too become seen as part of the problem - Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next. The Saudis in particular need to decide pretty quickly if theyre fundamentalists or in favour of western reforms such as greater freedoms, and at least an effort to bring in secularism and democracy.

Of course west have no issue with any power in the region as long as they bend over to west, if not they'll get a smack. Is this something that can be proud off? And why should they bend over? Irish fought to British for their independence too and many other countries did so in the course of their history. bending over is not easy when someone comes and tells you how to live your life. Destruction of Saddam did nothing in the region but I wouldn't suprise if it unites the region against US and their puppet state of Israel. Here is your root cause. While US lets Israel to have their nuclear facilities and supports and probably pays for it but if anyone else does in the region it is "no no you can't do that play the game right or else". And what Saudis does none of your and my bussiness. They are not coming and asking you to change your government, are they?