Middle East

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

You cannot speak of U.S. policy with respect to any particular Arab regime without putting it in the context of Israel. Egypt and Mubarak are "allies" of the United States only in exchange for being a bulwark against Arab League opposition to Israel. Meanwhile, each and every authoritarian Arab regime stokes the fires of passion for the Palestinian cause on the streets of their own countries (and in Iran, too) precisely because so long as people in the Arab world have this issue before them, they can be easily manipulated to avoid confronting the roots of their own oppression -- namely, their own dictators (and, in many cases, the U.S. government that backs, to greater or lesser degrees, those regimes).

Solve the Palestinian "problem" and these Arab regimes will collapse like houses of cards.

And lest anyone get the wrong impression of my view of Israel, this Jew (yes, I am Jewish) believes it has no legitimate claim to exist as a country, and that
Zionism (the political ideology) is, in fact, the main progenitor of anti-Semitism
in the world today.

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property?

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

[randolph]

He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil!

Golda Meir.

If the Arabs had no oil, they would still be herding sheep and being camel jockeys. Opposition to israel would have been minimal. Its oil that's made the Middle East a hot bed of policical turmoil. Would we have poured billions of dollars into the Middle East if there was no oil there?
We would have treated the area much as we have much of Africa and other areas without the resources we want.

[Trogdor]

To me, I say stay out of it. I say if the Egyptians want that guy out of there, I say go for it. And given the fact that the government cut off the internet (which the US government better not do if its citizens get angry) and are defying the curfew that has been set.....they are still telling the government to fuck off and want that guy out of there. This is history in the making, folks. People are always complaining about their government, these folks are actually doing something about it.

And I say let the Jews and the Muslims fight each other, and may the best side win....of Israel gets rubbed off the map, that's just too bad....I think Israel has been nothing but trouble since the beginning (I got nothing against the Jews, but when you're stuck in the middle of an Arab land and stick out like a sore thumb, someone's gonna take notice...which is the problem. Also, manly orthodox Jews I know said that the real holy land will be created by their own messiah) And you wanna keep the Middle East from getting insanely powerful from oil....then it's long overdue for something other than that overrated black crud for fuel, oil's to useful (though I am a huge believer of the avionic oil theory) to be burnt.

[Trogdor]

Did we ever realize that the cellphone, facebook and the internet would replace our foreign policy?
"Power to the people!"

Internet=access to knowledge=power.


If the day comes the American government cuts off or even just limits the internet, I hope the American public puts up one hell of a fight.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by randolph

Golda Meir.

If the Arabs had no oil, they would still be herding sheep and being camel jockeys. Opposition to israel would have been minimal. Its oil that's made the Middle East a hot bed of policical turmoil. Would we have poured billions of dollars into the Middle East if there was no oil there?
We would have treated the area much as we have much of Africa and other areas without the resources we want.

Oh yes? Africa, that great bastion of political stability...

Political tensions in the middle east have as much to do with the proxy wars as they do oil. The USA supported Saddam because he killed communists, they also supported the Shah in Iran for the same reason. The Shah was overthrown by a popular uprising, and so the US encouraged Saddam to go to war with them, this war helps the already dominant Islamist faction within Iran consolidate power and they crush the last of the socialists and other progressives that were part of the overthrow of the Shah, rewriting history calling the revolution, the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, Saddam is left penniless after fighting the USAs war for them, so he invades Kuwait for the oil wonga. In Afghanistan I'm sure you all know what went on there, I'm sure you all get a good chuckle like I do when you see The Living Daylights or Rambo 3, seeing Bond and Rambo hanging out with thier bestest buddies the Mujahideen. :P trying to use religious fanatics for a proxy war is probably the only thing dumber than propping up tinpot dictators.

Anyway, lets just hope that Tunisa and Egypt come out good from this and don't end up just getting new repressive rulers like Iran did after the Shah was overthrown.

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Oh yes? Africa, that great bastion of political stability...

Political tensions in the middle east have as much to do with the proxy wars as they do oil. The USA supported Saddam because he killed communists, they also supported the Shah in Iran for the same reason. The Shah was overthrown by a popular uprising, and so the US encouraged Saddam to go to war with them, this war helps the already dominant Islamist faction within Iran consolidate power and they crush the last of the socialists and other progressives that were part of the overthrow of the Shah, rewriting history calling the revolution, the Islamic Revolution. Meanwhile, Saddam is left penniless after fighting the USAs war for them, so he invades Kuwait for the oil wonga. In Afghanistan I'm sure you all know what went on there, I'm sure you all get a good chuckle like I do when you see The Living Daylights or Rambo 3, seeing Bond and Rambo hanging out with thier bestest buddies the Mujahideen. :P trying to use religious fanatics for a proxy war is probably the only thing dumber than propping up tinpot dictators.

Anyway, lets just hope that Tunisa and Egypt come out good from this and don't end up just getting new repressive rulers like Iran did after the Shah was overthrown.

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

Oh my god. Don't you know you shouldn't say these things because the USA is the greatest freest country in the world and therefore does no wrong? The USA (and England) totally have the right to exploit the citizens of the world and their resources.

[randolph]

Anna

p.s. neither Tunisia or Egypt are middle eastern, they are African.

Geographically true but politically they are well connected to the Middle East. Remember the Arab League and the United Arab Republic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by The Conquistador

C'mon smc! What is so wrong about the Jews having some beachfront property?

It's interesting that you bring up the effects that Israel and Zionism have had on the Middle East. It seems that before the emergence of the Hebrew state in the Middle East(pre-1940's), it was a pretty cool and adventureous place to visit. After reading the works of T.E. Lawrence and others who chronicled their trips to the Middle East, there was no mention of Jihadism, radical Islam, anti-Semitism or anti-western sentiment. It seems all that came about after the the foundation of Israel and was a response to the spread of Zionism in the region.

I am neither for nor against the Jews. This is purely my observation.

Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against Jews. It's the Zionists who deliberately confound the two because it serves their interests. Think of how much easier it is to win sympathy when you can cry "anti-Semite" at those who oppose Zionism, as opposed to if it was always clear that it was about colonialism and oppression.

Zionism is the main cause of anti-Semitism in the world today. And that statement comes from a Jew.

[randolph]

Well, the news from Washington amply demonstrates the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. Obama talked Democracy on his trip to the Middle east, now it's the "D" word. No body in Washington is talking Democracy. Everybody is holding their breath and hoping the uprisings will blow over and we can keep our authoritarian buddies happy. The uprisings are an early warning, our policies are doing nothing but encouraging radical Islam. We will ultimately pay a very high price for our hypocrisy.

[Enoch Root]

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

The explanation lies in the difference between democracy and what we have in the United States -- bourgeois democracy.

It is the democracy of the rich. Think about it:

-- We have so-called "universal suffrage," but there are all manner of qualifications and requirements for voting that are used to suppress democracy when it serves the interests of all or some of those who truly control the country. In the meanwhile, the system perpetuates the illusion of true democracy.

-- We have those in power deciding who can or cannot run for office (decisions exercised through ballot access rules that preclude the formation of alternatives that can challenge the parties owned by the rich).

-- There is a inexorable link, politically and financially, between those in power and those who disseminate information.

These are but a few of the "conditions" of our bourgeois democracy, which exists because those in power find it convenient as a means of retaining relative social peace. Have no illusions that it would remain should genuine challenges to the rule of the rich be mounted. Be it in the name of national security, or a terrorist threat, or some kind of "emergency," what few democratic rights we do enjoy will be taken away -- or at least, the attempt will be made -- in an effort to ensure the continuation of bourgeois rule.

[Enoch Root]

Brain food! Yummy.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

It is quite telling when a country that never ceases to claim it is democratic does not support democratic movements as in Egypt's case. That should be the default position of a free society.

To my earlier post in response to this should be added that the lack of genuine support for democratic movements such as in Egypt is precisely linked to the economic interests of the ruling rich in this country. "Democracy" elsewhere serves no useful purpose for them unless it is the only way to ensure the social stability that they need to exploit the resources of another country, or to ensure that another country plays its particular assigned role in a region, and so on. Dictatorships are no problem; they can always be excused for their "strategic" importance, for their "necessity to U.S. interests" (interests that, you can probably discern, are not really yours and mine).

[Enoch Root]

A second helping!

[Trogdor]

The Egyptian are not happy yet, they want that clown out now, not at the end of his term.