Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 85
  1. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I believe the context of this was in response to our invasion of Afghanistan to toss out the Taliban - I can't imagine they'd have anything better to say since they were tossed out on their butts and needed to find a way to rally the troops toward a common goal.
    The Taliban was tossed out on their butts? Has anyone notified them of this breaking-news development? What will happen to all the deals the Pakistanis have made with them?

    And the main reason we came to the defense of Kuwait was oil - can we agree on that?
    To follow-up on your second point ... This opens the discussion for why Iraq invaded Kuwait, as well as responsibly addressing the issue of the Iraq-Kuwait border and its implications on the petroleum market.
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That's what I said, except you're phrasing it without directly mentioning the fundamentalist clerics. These fundamentalists are driven by religion. I think you're missing that perspective here and in other posts. It has nothing to do with insults and egos. It's about a worldview that opposes secular government and allowing infidels to walk on holy ground. al Qaeda isn't primarily motivated by politics and oil. It's driven by a need to destroy the infidels. Peaceful coexistence is not compatible with their beliefs.
    So, samkim... Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct? If not, care to clarify?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    They won't. They'll just keep holding us hostage with their oil while using religion and fanatacism and the US and Israel as distractions from their own people that don't get to share in the bulk of oil generated wealth. In other words, keep em' poor, stupid, and pissed off at anyone but us while we reap the oil profits and buy another fleet of private Leer jets.
    I agree with all the pieces, but I am not convinced they all fit together as laid out. I think oil is the means to achieve their agenda. Their agenda is political and religious base. This is the cause, the oil money is the means. Again....just to clarify I am talking about radicals and those who support them.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sort of the point...I said that had we invested in alternative fuels 20 years ago and not let these oppressive regimes build their wealth with our money things could be very different today.
    Pretty easy statement to agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Now they have us by the economic nuts while they rake it in AND allow the fundamentalist to "change the subject" because it serves them all too well to not have their people noticing how poor they are and how rich their King is.
    Which is why our oil dependency is a national security measure.....and why it maybe a very real and violent problem if we became oil independent and stopped giving all of our money to them that they have become so accustomed to.

    This topic is blow back from our actions in the past....this is looking ahead to a very real possibility of severe blow back in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    But he became who he is and has been successful in his evil deeds in large part because of our middle east foreign policy. That does not mean he is right or allowed to or that we deserved it. But our policies in the middle east are a major reason for his movement's success and our policies over there are largely dictated by our insatiable appetite for their oil.
    This is a classic the enemy of our enemy is our friend only to find out 20 years later that they become a bigger enemy than the original one we wanted them to deal with. This has been repeated over and over again in history since ancient times. Hindsight would be a wonderful gift to have before you do something, don't you think?

    No matter even if we educated OBL and indoctrinated him with all the hatred of all the West and personally gave him his $300 million personal fortune and handed him the position of President of a major Mid Eastern country....we would still have to deal with him now today.


    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I believe the context of this was in response to our invasion of Afghanistan to toss out the Taliban - I can't imagine they'd have anything better to say since they were tossed out on their butts and needed to find a way to rally the troops toward a common goal.
    No actually, I have a post somewhere here on the forums that cites like 4-5 different Islamic leaders and clerics preaching the same thing, both before and after Afghanistan. With a few of them even preaching it here in mosques here in the US. The problem is that whenever I search the Off Topic Forums, it always seems to only pull posts from 2005 and before. I remember Shop responding to it when I posted it and amazed at the what they were saying with such hatred with violent intent against Democracy and those who support it. This is a very real issue among many radical Islamic orgs and leaders.

    EDIT: Added the following after posting.....
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Can we agree on that? And the main reason we came to the defense of Kuwait was oil - can we agree on that?
    Yes, but only as a piece of the puzzle, not the sole motivation. I think the three main factors for our motivations in the middle east are:

    1) Our support of any of our allies, which are numerous, that is threatened by a Middle Eastern country, with obviously Israel only being one of them, but that seems to pop up in many people's mind first and sometimes exclusively.

    2) Gov support of terrorist orgs. This goes right along with gov's will and means of developing WMDs. This can be listed separately as well, but since it is so intertwined and the dangers so closely linked together, I put them in one single point.

    3) Oil. This is a major a item for the stability and security of our country. Our whole economy is based on being able to get it at reasonable price. Our economy will fail without it. And until we become oil independent it will continue to be a factor in any decision with the Middle East with any Administration from any political party.
    If we look at the policies 20 plus years ago (aka around 1985 and before), I would also add the Cold War. This was a HUGE motivating factor (some very real concerns and some concerns that added blinders on those making decisions as not to realize the possible long term effects their decisions might have). This played out in all regions in the world, including the Middle East....aka supporting OBL against the Russians in Afghanistan is only one example.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 05/22/2007 at 11:16 AM.
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    So, samkim... Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct? If not, care to clarify?
    ... Bueller ...
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And the main reason we came to the defense of Kuwait was oil - can we agree on that?
    The devastation from the Iran-Iraq war, which finally ended in 1988, also set the stage for the Gulf War of 1990-91. The eight-year war had crippled the Iraqi economy and left Saddam’s government deeply in debt.

    Having been egged on by the oil-rich sheikdoms to blunt the revolutionary zeal of Iran, Saddam felt betrayed when Kuwait wouldn’t write off Iraq’s debts and rejected a $10 billion loan. Beyond that, Saddam was furious with Kuwait for driving down world oil prices by overproducing and for slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields. Many Iraqis also considered Kuwait, historically, a part of Iraq.

    Before attacking Kuwait, however, Saddam consulted George H.W. Bush’s administration. First, the U.S. State Department informed Saddam that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” Then, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, “we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.”

    As Foreign Policy magazine observed, “the United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.” [Foreign Policy, Jan.-Feb. 2003]

    While Glaspie’s strange diplomacy drew some congressional and press attention during the previous Gulf crisis, the full context of George H.W. Bush’s relationship with Saddam – which might help explain why the Iraqi dictator so disastrously misread the U.S. signals – has never been made explained.
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/022703.html

    http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf which clearly states, as a matter of US policy via the formerly secret National Security Directive 26: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security”, signed on Oct. 2, 1989 by President George H.W. Bush.
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    That's what I said, except you're phrasing it without directly mentioning the fundamentalist clerics. These fundamentalists are driven by religion. I think you're missing that perspective here and in other posts. It has nothing to do with insults and egos. It's about a worldview that opposes secular government and allowing infidels to walk on holy ground. al Qaeda isn't primarily motivated by politics and oil. It's driven by a need to destroy the infidels. Peaceful coexistence is not compatible with their beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    So, samkim... Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct? If not, care to clarify?
    ... Bueller ...
  7. #67  
    For the sake of discussion, let's say that the "blowback" is a historical reality? Which policies or practices would you do differently? Please also articulate what different (better) outcome such could/would have been realized.
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    For the sake of discussion, let's say that the "blowback" is a historical reality? Which policies or practices would you do differently? Please also articulate what different (better) outcome such could/would have been realized.
    Deductive reasoning and a review here may assist you further. While you're studying the already known and historically established ...

    . . . Bueller . . .
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Deductive reasoning and a review here may assist you further. While you're studying the already known and historically established ...

    . . . Bueller . . .
    Did a review of your posts in this thread.....
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    This certainly crystalizes the idea that the US has no clue as to why it has enemies. Moreover, it defines the US's misunderstanding of others' values on nationalism. No big whoop, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Todays actions do not pay the price of poor policies of US-backed dictator-creation, assassinations, generalized murder, starvation, etc.

    If such forward-thinking actions had taken place through the past 50+ years, your point may have had validity. As presented, it lacks any merit.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    20 years? Are you that lacking of information or that assuming the viewing public will unknowingly buy your bullshyte?

    http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/sauditimeline.html
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    When you make remarks which are clearly known to be false, light has a way of making them look rather ugly. Take exception with this all you like, but those who are critical thinkers know better. The sheep you hope are following your lead simply don't matter. No harm.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    No photoshopping required to know what bedfellows they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Interjecting such thoughts into a conversation which requires taking ownership of 50+ years of poor-to-failed US policy is the definition of monday-morning quarterbacking at its most extreme. Don't bother with that irresponsible discussion tangent.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    US-backed nuclear Israel, to be specific.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Then you [and likely your children's children's children] can still be laughing when the US repeats its same grave errors in policy judgment on behalf of future generations.


    More definition of the void of understanding of what nationalism doesn't mean in the general muslim world. This is good when we can define what a lack of mental curiosity really means ... and costs.


    No one has.


    Pat Robertson hates us?
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Changing the basis of your point does not help your cause.


    I'm sorry you feel that way. Hardly sound judgment given historical facts, but you're entitled to be laughed at for your opinion.


    Sure he has. But finessed subtext is the name of America's cult.


    Probably, the very moment the US government understands and takes adult responsibility for the past 50+ years of muslim world pillage and plunder. Just a guess. Then again, it could be too little, too late. Ask your children's children's children what they can do to pay the price for the blindly-repeated sins of the father.


    Undeclared nuclear Israel?
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The religious right doesn't have to anoint US policy?



    To the same extent that you're a victim of US-backed societal manipulation.



    Yet, you run away from the direct response and operate laughable pot-shots thru 3rd parties. Typical.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Tom - With all the respect I can muster and in the kindest manner in which I can put it, get lost. Summation requires the elements presented to form a bottom-line. Were they your elements, Tom? No.


    Using ill-defined Muslim clerics as the root basis for your position of blame, samkim, leaves you with blaming the general muslim world. Care to clarify your position?
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ^ Just can't allow samkim to speak for himself?

    Your unfounded slander is noted.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The Taliban was tossed out on their butts? Has anyone notified them of this breaking-news development? What will happen to all the deals the Pakistanis have made with them?



    To follow-up on your second point ... This opens the discussion for why Iraq invaded Kuwait, as well as responsibly addressing the issue of the Iraq-Kuwait border and its implications on the petroleum market.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    So, samkim... Bottom-line: You find ultimate and sole blame with the general Muslim faith, correct? If not, care to clarify?
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ... Bueller ...
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/022703.html

    http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsd/nsd26.pdf which clearly states, as a matter of US policy via the formerly secret National Security Directive 26: "Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security”, signed on Oct. 2, 1989 by President George H.W. Bush.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    ... Bueller ...
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Deductive reasoning and a review here may assist you further. While you're studying the already known and historically established ...

    . . . Bueller . . .
    ...and deduced that you have no ideas to put forward.
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    ...and deduced that you have no ideas to put forward.
    Try a review of US foreign policy post-1947, beginning with Paperclip.

    I won't make the mistake of counting on your deductive reasoning skills again, but history hasn't changed.
  11. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #71  
    Shop - Have you gotten to the '50s yet, with our US government-sponsored coups and assassinations, international manipulated democratic elections, and butcher-dictator-support systems yet? Let me know how your history research is coming.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #72  
    Clearly, Shop, et al, have no interest in studying and learning from history. No genius is required to understand what their collective position leads to. Since we executed our past perfectly, why not repeat it, right?
  13. #73  
    My question was not regarding what was done, but on what you would do differently.

    To say one has learned from history, it is not sufficient to identify failures. One must also identify, or at least postulate, what should have been done instead.

    If you only know that a prior policy failed, but do not know why it failed, you are just as prone to repeat the past, even if using different practical means.
  14. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #74  
    Dominos only continue to fall due to the first one being tipped. Since Paperclip isn't comfortable for you, where would you suggest we begin?
  15. #75  
    Right where we are. Where do we go from here?
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Right where we are. Where do we go from here?
    "What is Past is Prologue" - William Shakespeare
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
       #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Right where we are. Where do we go from here?
    At the very moment the remainder of the world can irresponsibly, arrogantly, and flippantly dismiss US history, as you suggest, the US can also. Not a moment sooner, however.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps View Post
    Yep, those poor souls in the WTC had in coming. Man, woman and child. After all, the U.S. bombed Iraq. Though, how many of the hijackers were from Iraq?

    I guess now using this line of thought, all the families of the WTC victims have a right to go over to Saudi Arabia and start killing innocents.
    Not a single person suggested that and you know it.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    My bad. I googled it using their image search and should have checked it.

    Doesn't change my view on how cozy we are with the Saudi's though.
    Here, this should help a little too.








  20. #80  
    Better they are cozy with us that those other guys. Ben
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions