3 possibilities.... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

tecoyah · 07-27-2007, 04:48 AM

Looking at what has been happening in the Middle East for the last few decades, I have tried to figure out why we, as the combined "western world" are even there in the first place. My conclusions leave three possible reasons, none of which work for me.

1) We hope to create stability through democracy in the region.
While I personally see this the most acceptable reason I will list, it is also unrealistic and flawed. The region has no interest for the most part in Democratic rule it would seem, and any attempt to force it will be met with opposition. The very act of trying to subdue a people to create democracy is counter to the Ideal.

2) Isreal.
The act of creating the Isreali state does not, in my opinion, create the responsibility to keep it alive. Obviously this action destabalized the region to the point of collapse in many ways. By continuing to protect a thing that most in the region have never fully accepted we alienate ourselves from accomplishing anything close to goals set out in item #1.

3) Oil
This is the obvious choice for underlying reasoning for interference in the region. The western world relies on a steady supply of energy to fuel economic growth and individual prosperity. By maintaining a presence within the oil producing areas we not only remind others of our desire to maintain the flow of oil, we keep the veiled threat of military might within plain sight.

Likely we deal with a very complex combination of the above factors. But none of them in any way meets my personal criteria, let alone justifies the incredible death and destruction brought about by western meddling.

aberkok · 07-27-2007, 05:11 AM

What about:

4) Creating Markets Whether under Western "control" or not, certainly capitalist expansion benefits from new countries who are now introduced to Western spending options.

Bill O'Rights · 07-27-2007, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

...certainly capitalist expansion benefits from new countries who are now introduced to Western spending options.

Paid for by...oil.

Baraka_Guru · 07-28-2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Quote:

Originally Posted by
aberkok

...certainly capitalist expansion benefits from new countries who are now introduced to Western spending options.

Paid for by...oil.

The Middle East is oil rich, not oil exclusive. Many regions have large manufacturing and services sectors. Iran, for example, derives 15% of its economy from the oil industry; this is rivaled by agriculture (14%), manufacturing (14%), and trade, restaurant, and hotel (14%). It's a big country, as are other regions of the Middle East. Oil isn't the be all and end all when it comes to expanding markets within the context of globalization (or economic integration, whatever you want to call it). As an example, Iran Khodro is the largest car manufacturer in the Middle East and currently makes over one million units a year. Also, 20% of Iran's land is arable, and they are big producers of wheat and barley. And, nearly 2% of the jobs pool is dedicated to running the tourism industry.

There is a lot of opportunity in Iran. As they shift from a largely government-owned to a privatized economy (i.e. they are a transition economy), there will be some very attractive things besides oil. There are over 70 million people there (more than double that of Canada) and the place is bigger than Spain, Sweden, and Germany combined.

The economy is more than just oil. And we may see such is the case when (or if) things settle in Iraq and integrated markets are set up in there.

irateplatypus · 07-30-2007, 07:20 PM

i've got a 4th though it's tenuously related to your 1st.

4) recognition of the failure of cold war diplomacy and dangers it created
think back to the 2000 election... i'm sure you'll remember then-Governor Bush making numerous stands against "nation building". those statements were intended to distance himself from the stalling progress in the balkan occupations. we can plainly see that the President has radically altered (that is to say... reversed) his policy after the undercurrent of fundamental islam finally made good on its decades of threats. It had ceased to be a backwater mid-east concern.

the cold war realpolitik of propping up middle-east dictatorships to match the similarly cruel regimes taking orders from moscow had radicalized segments of islamic societies. the iraq invasion was both a practical response to perceived WMD threat (as well as a number of other grievances spelled out in congressional and UN resolutions) as well as a recognition that a mid-east ruled by totalitarian regimes (islamic or secular) would continue to breed hatred towards the west and an unending stream of threats. the current situation was judged to be neither stable nor acceptable to US security.

i say that we're there because creating a tolerant islamic democracy in the region was (and is) seen to be the only way to cut al qaeda and similar organizations at their roots. the President could have sent a few cruise missiles into training camps, declared victory, and leaned on the strong economy to a happy finish. instead, is taking boldly and costly steps to irradicate the threat rather than defer or appease it. he is relying on the premise that a pluralistic democracy will lead to increased prosperity and removal of the conditions that make terrorism an attractive option.

i don't buy the cynical motivations most of you ascribe to the President. he may be misguided in his strategy's appeal in foreign lands, he may have underestimated its cost, he most certainly has difficulty in communicating his vision... but he is nothing if not an idealist. the man believes in western democracy and is convinced (right or wrong) that, given a fair chance, it will prevail against the totalitarianism offered by both the secular-strongmen and radical islamists with which it competes.

smooth · 07-31-2007, 05:40 AM

tecoyah,

When I look at a map, I see Afghanistan on one side of...and Iraq on the other side of...Iran.

Couple this with the realization that no discussion/thought about our foreign policy in the Middle East has been made without regard to energy sources: past, present, and future.

In regards to these two points, they actually *could* be legitimate reasons for the whole mess we find ourselves in currently. They are legit reasons that even the staunchest opposers to the war recognized...myself included. In all of my past posts, I never claimed that they weren't something to be concerned about. Yet, the ways in which our country was taken to war, that war is the most sensible way to achieve those two goals (deal with Iran and have a controlling interest in ME energy resources), and the fact the mess gives a reason to stay in the situation made me claim it was all wrong.

Humanitarismus · 08-10-2007, 01:58 PM

one of my old posts:

What I want to flesh out at this point is the youth bulge hypothesis.
But first I start with a citation from John Maynard Keynes from his great work "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF PEACE" (first published in 1920):

Quote:

„European Russia increased her population in a degree even greater than Germany-from less than 100,000,00 in 1890 to about 150,000,000 at the outbreak of war; and in the year immediately preceding 1914 the excess of births over deaths in Russia as a whole was at the prodigious rate of two millions per annum. This inordinate growth in the population of Russia, which has not been widely noticed in England, has been nevertheless one of the most significant facts of recent years. [...] and the disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part irs of autocracy.“ [Keynes, p. 14-15]

My conclusion is: what the USA tried in Vietnam or Iraq was nearly impossibile to realize, because both states had a enormus increase in population. A few examples:

population Iraq (2003): 24 millions
thereof <15 years old: 41% = 10 millions

population Afghanistan (2003): 27.8 millions
thereof <15 years old: 42% = 11.6 millions

population Iran (2003): 67 millions
thereof <15 years old: 32% = 21 millions

population China (2003): 1285 millions
thereof <15 years old: 24% = 310 millions

population USA (2003): 285 millions
thereof <15 years old: 21% = 59 millions

Ok, everybody knows today, that the Bush administration made so many avoidable mistakes, but even if a well designed plan for the democratization of the Iraq had existed, I think it had be a very difficult and dangerous way to democratize Iraq, because a country with a very high increase in population has a tendency to radicalize itself. the best example is the democracy of Iran. The problem ist not the enourmus increase in growth of a puplation; the problem is the high percentage of young men without a perspective. If the population of a country has a high increase, it is very difficult to provide all the new young men with jobs and a perspective. The population of the Iraq doubled in the last fifty years more than two times! In 1950 the Iraq had 5 million inhabitants, in 1980 13 millions and in 1991 19 millions. Today 25 millions! That is an annual increase of:

5mio*(1 + p/100)^56years = 0
p = ca. 2.916%

proof:
5mio*1.02916^56 years = 25 mio

I think that are dramatic numbers and if you now look at the unemployment rate of the iraq, which is today at ~ 28% and if you also take the high percantage of young men into account you understand the demographic boiling pot of Iraq. The demographic situation in Afghanistan is similar to that of Iraq. But now the youth bulge hypothesis:

Quote:

"Countries that experience youth bulges are more likely to experience domestic armed conflict than countries that do not."

A youth bulge is defined as:

Quote:

"That is to measure the size of youth cohorts (most commonly defined as those between 15 and 24 years)"

This hypothesis means, that the great problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on will arise within the next decades, because a high percentage of the population are now children and will join the youth cohorts within the next years... But on the opposite the European population will diminish within the next decades and also the USA will have not such an increase in population to station soldiers in that states to quite potential future conflicts. I think that is a very serious matter for the future of the western world and all people on both sides of the atlantic have to appreciate that very carefully.

If you want to know more about the youth bulge hypothesis, so read the following study: "The Devil in the Demographics: The Effect of Youth Bulges on Domestic Armed Conflict, 1950-2000"

Link:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet.../PDF/29740.pdf

I hope I could establish a lively discussion about the international strategy of the USA and Europe for the next decades.

EDIT
my calculation was wrong... now it is correct
Sources:
Heinsohn: Söhne und Weltmacht
Spiegel Online, Länderlexikon
Keynes: THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF PEACE
Urdal: The Devil in the Demographics: The Effect of Youth Bulges on Domestic Armed Conflict, 1950-2000

Willravel · 08-21-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Israel's Jewish problem in Tehran
20/08/2007 09:02:00 AM GMT

If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran?

By Jonathan Cook

Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the new Hitler. Or so Israeli officials have been declaring for months as they and their American allies try to persuade the doubters in Washington that an attack on Tehran is essential. And if the latest media reports are to be trusted, it looks like they may again be winning the battle for hearts and minds: Vice President Dick Cheney is said to be diverting the White House back on track to launch a military strike.  

Earlier this year Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's opposition leader and the man who appears to be styling himself scaremonger-in-chief, told us: "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs." Of Ahmadinejad, he said: "He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."”  

A few weeks ago, as Israel's military intelligence claimed -- as it has been doing regularly since the early 1990s -- that Iran is only a year or so away from the "point of no return" on developing a nuclear warhead. Netanyahu was at it again. "Iran could be the first undeterrable nuclear power," he warned, adding: "This is a Jewish problem like Hitler was a Jewish problem. The future of the Jewish people depends on the future of Israel."” 

But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims about a looming genocide from Iran. Israel's new president, Shimon peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp". And the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year: "[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire Jewish nation."”  

There is an interesting problem with selling Iran as "Nazi Germany". If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?  

What is the basis for Israel's dire forecasts -- the ideological scaffolding being erected, presumably, to justify an attack on Iran? Helpfully, as George Bush defended his Iraq policies last month, he reminded us yet again of the menace Iran supposedly poses: it is "threatening to wipe Israel off the map".  

This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was made of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that "the Zionist regime in Jerusalem would vanish from the page of time".  

He was not threatening to exterminate Jews or even Israel. He was comparing Israel's occupation of the Palestinians with other illegitimate systems of rule whose time had passed, including the Shahs who once ruled Iran, apartheid South Africa and the Soviet empire. Nonetheless, this erroneous translation has survived and prospered because Israel and her supporters have exploited it for their own crude propaganda purposes.  

In the meantime, the 25,000-strong Iranian Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel and traces its roots back 3,000 years. As one of several non-Muslim minorities in Iran, Jews there suffer discrimination, but they are certainly no worse off than the one million Palestinian citizens of Israel -- and far better off than Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.  

Iranian Jews have little influence on decision-making and are not allowed to hold senior posts in the army or bureaucracy. But they enjoy many freedoms. They have an elected representative in parliament, they practice their religion openly in synagogues, their charities are funded by the Jewish diaspora, and they can travel freely, including to Israel. In Tehran there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. Ahmadinejad's office recently made a donation to a Jewish hospital in Tehran.  

As Ciamak Moresadegh, an Iranian Jewish leader, observed: "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not."

Iran's leaders denounce Zionism, which they blame for fueling discrimination against the Palestinians, but they have also repeatedly avowed that they have no problem with Jews, Judaism or even the state of Israel. Ahmadinejad, caricatured as a merchant of genocide, has in fact called for "regime change" -- and then only in the sense that he believes a referendum should be held of all inhabitants of Israel and the occupied territories, including refugees from war, on the nature of the government.  

Despite the absence of any threat to Iran's Jews, the Israeli media recently reported that the Israeli government has been trying to find new ways to entice Iranian Jews to Israel. The Ma'ariv newspaper pointed out that previous schemes had found few takers. There was, noted the report, "a lack of desire on the part of thousands of Iranian Jews to leave". According to the New York-based Forward newspaper, a campaign to convince Iranian Jews to emigrate to Israel caused only 152 out of these 25,000 Jews to leave Iran between October 2005 and September 2006, and most of them were said to have emigrated for economic reasons, not political ones.  

To step up these efforts -- and presumably to avoid the embarrassing incongruence of claiming an imminent second Holocaust while thousands of Jews live happily in Tehran -- Israel is now backing a move by Jewish donors to guarantee every Iranian Jewish family $60,000 to settle in Israel, in addition to a host of existing financial incentives that are offered to Jewish immigrants, including loans and cheap mortgages.  

The announcement was met with scorn by the Society of Iranian Jews, which issued a statement that their national identity was not for sale. "The identity of Iranian Jews is not tradeable for any amount of money. Iranian Jews are among the most ancient Iranians. Iran's Jews love their Iranian identity and their culture, so threats and this immature political enticement will not achieve their aim of wiping out the identity of Iranian Jews."”  

However, this financial gesture may not only be unwelcome but self-fulfilling too, if past experience is the yardstick. Israel introduced a similar scheme a few years ago, when Argentina's economy plunged into deep recession, broadcasting an offer of $20,000 to every Jew who settled in Israel. Months later the Israeli media reported a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Argentina, only adding to the pressure on Jews there to leave. Of course, there was no mention of a possible causal connection between the attacks and Israel's proffered bribes to Jews to abandon their homeland as other Argentinians sank into poverty.  

But if financial enticements -- and a possible popular backlash -- fail to move Iranian Jews, there is good reason to fear that Israel may resort to other, more dubious ways of encouraging them to emigrate. That is certainly a path Israel has chosen before with other communities of Arab Jews, whom it has regarded either as a pool of potential spies and agents provocateurs to be used when needed or as "human dust", in the words of Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, to be recruited to Israel's "demographic battle" against the Palestinians.  

In "Operation Susannah" of 1954, for example, Israel recklessly recruited a group of Egyptian Jews to stage a series of explosions in Egypt in a bid to discourage Britain from withdrawing from the Suez Canal zone. When the plot came to light, it naturally cast a shadow of disloyalty over Egypt's wider Jewish community. Following Israel's invasion and occupation of Sinai two years later, the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled some 25,000 Egyptian Jews and, after others were imprisoned on suspicion of spying, the rest soon left.  

Even more notoriously, Israel went to greater lengths to ensure the exit of the Arab world’s largest Jewish population, in Iraq. In 1950 a series of bombs targeted on Jews in Baghdad forced a rapid exodus of some 130,000 Iraqi Jews to Israel, convinced that Arab extremists were behind the attacks. Only later did it emerge that the bombs had been planted by members of the Zionist underground, supported by the Israeli government.  

Now, Iran's Jews may find themselves treated in much the same manner -- as simple human fodder. Stories are growing of Israel exploiting the free movement between Iran and Israel enjoyed by Iranian Jews and their Israeli relatives to carry out spying operations on Iran's nuclear program. Such reports have come from sources such as the American journalist Seymour Hersh, citing U.S. government officials.  

The fallout from such actions is not difficult to predict. Besieged by the U.S. and the international community, Tehran is cracking down on dissent and minority groups, fearful that its own grip on power is shaky and that the well-publicized subversion being carried out by U.S. and Israeli agents is likely only to be stepped up. So far most officials in Tehran have been careful to avoid suggesting that Iran's Jews have double loyalties, as has the local Jewish community itself, both of them aware of Israel's interests in provoking such a confrontation. But as the strains increase, and Israel's need to prove Tehran's "genocidal" intent grows ever stronger, that policy may end up being forfeited -- and with it the future of Iran's Jews.  

More important than the welfare of Iranian Jewish families, it seems, is the value of Iranian Jews as a propaganda tool in Israel's battle to persuade the world that coexistence with the Muslim world is impossible. For those who want to engineer a clash of civilizations, the 3,000-year-old Jewish legacy in Iran is not something to be treasured, only another obstacle to war. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=25781

I believe the Israel possibility requires better and more objective study before any conclusions can be made. I know it's easy to think that Israel being hated is the same as jews being hated, it seems logical, but it's just not the case. Many people in the Middle East are able to realize that the actions of the Israeli government are not the acts of the jewish people. Sometime they're not even supported by a majority of the Israeli people (like the invasion of Lebanon in 2006). The reality is that the racism against jews is a lot less prevalent than the media would make us think.

dc_dux · 08-21-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The reality is that the racism against jews is a lot less prevalent than the media would make us think.

will...I guess that depends on what you mean by less prevalent.

In the US, the numbers may be relatively small, but hate crimes against Jews (69% of religious based hate crimes) is consistently higher than any other religious group, including Muslims
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/victims.htm

And antisemitism in Europe is at the highest level in many years:

In France, where official figures showed that antisemitic incidents had dropped dramatically between 2004 and 2005, antisemitic threats and acts increased by 6.6 percent in 2006. This came in a country where overall hate crimes declined 10 percent.

In the United Kingdom, antisemitic incidents also rose dramatically in 2006, with the highest annual toll since the collection of statistics started in 1984.

In Canada, B'nai Brith Canada's annual survey reported a 12.8 percent rise in antisemitic incidents over the previous year, to 935 incidents - the highest level ever reported

In Germany, police sources in late 2006 preliminarily reported a dramatic rise in extremist crimes by some 20 percent, although it was not confirmed that antisemitic crimes, a subset of extremist crimes, had also risen proportionately. Antisemitic incidents increased in both 2004 and 2005.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/disc...survey-antisem

seretogis · 08-21-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

And antisemitism in Europe is at the highest level in many years:

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the increasing amount of Muslim immigrants to Europe.

dc_dux · 08-21-2007, 07:20 PM

seretogis....antisemitism in Europe preceded any Jewish-Muslim or Israel-Palestine issue by hundreds of years.

I dont doubt that larger Muslim populations in Europe may contribute to the growing antisemitism, but the (re)emergence of extremists nationalists movements and neo-nazi movements are equally if not more responsible, targeting all minorities, including both Jews and Muslims.

Willravel · 08-21-2007, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the increasing amount of Muslim immigrants to Europe.

It's still flaming even if you have a smily face.

seretogis · 08-22-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's still flaming even if you have a smily face.

You seem to have issues with your intarweb terminology. While it was certainly a provocative point, it was hardly "flaming." Unless, of course, you're making a derogatory comment towards my sexuality.

Kadath · 08-22-2007, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

You seem to have issues with your intarweb terminology. While it was certainly a provocative point, it was hardly "flaming." Unless, of course, you're making a derogatory comment towards my sexuality.

I agree. will, the term you're looking for is "trolling."

seretogis · 08-22-2007, 06:09 AM

Quote:

The region has no interest for the most part in Democratic rule it would seem, and any attempt to force it will be met with opposition.

The amount of people who showed up for the new and improved slightly-less-rigged elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan disagrees with you. There are certainly groups clinging to the control-via-fear that they have over a populace, but the same is true here as well, though to a less militant extent.

mixedmedia · 08-22-2007, 08:25 AM

I think our motivations can be attributed to all of factors included in the OP and most of the other observations made on this thread. And, personally, I don't have a problem with any of them in theory.

The fatal flaw, so to speak, could have been in the hubris exhibited by our leadership that believed it could force a very diverse and prideful region of the planet into submission within the time constraints of two presidential terms.

Willravel · 08-22-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

I agree. will, the term you're looking for is "trolling."

Ah, you're right. I do get those confused from time to time. TY.

mixedmedia · 08-22-2007, 08:43 AM

*I'm not of the mind that it is trolling...nose-tweaking perhaps, but not trolling. seretogis did have a point to make with his comment, after all, and I don't think anyone here is innocent of being a little sarcastic from time to time. I think we can still carry on civilly. *

Willravel · 08-22-2007, 08:51 AM

Very well. And congrats again on supermod!

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the increasing amount of Muslim immigrants to Europe.

Actually, as has been said but bears reiteration because it's an important point, the anti-semitism thing in Europe happened long before people of Arabic decent or of the Muslim faith started migrating into Europe.

Not only that, but the big article above I posted helped to make the point that being Muslim or Arab does not necessarily mean that you bear any ill will towards the jewish people. Israel, sure, but that has nothing to do with the faith. That's about slowly pushing the Palestinians into the sea and destroying half of Lebanon. No one even knows how many cluster bombs lay waiting there.

07-27-2007, 04:48 AM	#1 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	3 possibilities.... Looking at what has been happening in the Middle East for the last few decades, I have tried to figure out why we, as the combined "western world" are even there in the first place. My conclusions leave three possible reasons, none of which work for me. 1) We hope to create stability through democracy in the region. While I personally see this the most acceptable reason I will list, it is also unrealistic and flawed. The region has no interest for the most part in Democratic rule it would seem, and any attempt to force it will be met with opposition. The very act of trying to subdue a people to create democracy is counter to the Ideal. 2) Isreal. The act of creating the Isreali state does not, in my opinion, create the responsibility to keep it alive. Obviously this action destabalized the region to the point of collapse in many ways. By continuing to protect a thing that most in the region have never fully accepted we alienate ourselves from accomplishing anything close to goals set out in item #1. 3) Oil This is the obvious choice for underlying reasoning for interference in the region. The western world relies on a steady supply of energy to fuel economic growth and individual prosperity. By maintaining a presence within the oil producing areas we not only remind others of our desire to maintain the flow of oil, we keep the veiled threat of military might within plain sight. Likely we deal with a very complex combination of the above factors. But none of them in any way meets my personal criteria, let alone justifies the incredible death and destruction brought about by western meddling.

07-27-2007, 05:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	What about: 4) Creating Markets Whether under Western "control" or not, certainly capitalist expansion benefits from new countries who are now introduced to Western spending options. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

07-30-2007, 07:20 PM	#5 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	i've got a 4th though it's tenuously related to your 1st. 4) recognition of the failure of cold war diplomacy and dangers it created think back to the 2000 election... i'm sure you'll remember then-Governor Bush making numerous stands against "nation building". those statements were intended to distance himself from the stalling progress in the balkan occupations. we can plainly see that the President has radically altered (that is to say... reversed) his policy after the undercurrent of fundamental islam finally made good on its decades of threats. It had ceased to be a backwater mid-east concern. the cold war realpolitik of propping up middle-east dictatorships to match the similarly cruel regimes taking orders from moscow had radicalized segments of islamic societies. the iraq invasion was both a practical response to perceived WMD threat (as well as a number of other grievances spelled out in congressional and UN resolutions) as well as a recognition that a mid-east ruled by totalitarian regimes (islamic or secular) would continue to breed hatred towards the west and an unending stream of threats. the current situation was judged to be neither stable nor acceptable to US security. i say that we're there because creating a tolerant islamic democracy in the region was (and is) seen to be the only way to cut al qaeda and similar organizations at their roots. the President could have sent a few cruise missiles into training camps, declared victory, and leaned on the strong economy to a happy finish. instead, is taking boldly and costly steps to irradicate the threat rather than defer or appease it. he is relying on the premise that a pluralistic democracy will lead to increased prosperity and removal of the conditions that make terrorism an attractive option. i don't buy the cynical motivations most of you ascribe to the President. he may be misguided in his strategy's appeal in foreign lands, he may have underestimated its cost, he most certainly has difficulty in communicating his vision... but he is nothing if not an idealist. the man believes in western democracy and is convinced (right or wrong) that, given a fair chance, it will prevail against the totalitarianism offered by both the secular-strongmen and radical islamists with which it competes. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

07-31-2007, 05:40 AM	#6 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	tecoyah, When I look at a map, I see Afghanistan on one side of...and Iraq on the other side of...Iran. Couple this with the realization that no discussion/thought about our foreign policy in the Middle East has been made without regard to energy sources: past, present, and future. In regards to these two points, they actually could be legitimate reasons for the whole mess we find ourselves in currently. They are legit reasons that even the staunchest opposers to the war recognized...myself included. In all of my past posts, I never claimed that they weren't something to be concerned about. Yet, the ways in which our country was taken to war, that war is the most sensible way to achieve those two goals (deal with Iran and have a controlling interest in ME energy resources), and the fact the mess gives a reason to stay in the situation made me claim it was all wrong. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

08-21-2007, 07:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	seretogis....antisemitism in Europe preceded any Jewish-Muslim or Israel-Palestine issue by hundreds of years. I dont doubt that larger Muslim populations in Europe may contribute to the growing antisemitism, but the (re)emergence of extremists nationalists movements and neo-nazi movements are equally if not more responsible, targeting all minorities, including both Jews and Muslims. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

08-22-2007, 08:25 AM	#16 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I think our motivations can be attributed to all of factors included in the OP and most of the other observations made on this thread. And, personally, I don't have a problem with any of them in theory. The fatal flaw, so to speak, could have been in the hubris exhibited by our leadership that believed it could force a very diverse and prideful region of the planet into submission within the time constraints of two presidential terms. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

08-22-2007, 08:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I'm not of the mind that it is trolling...nose-tweaking perhaps, but not trolling. seretogis did have a point to make with his comment, after all, and I don't think anyone here is innocent of being a little sarcastic from time to time. I think we can still carry on civilly. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce