Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:How so?
Why is the devastation be wreaked in the middle east any less important than the devastation wreaked by 9/11?

We're Western, therefore any violence in a non-Western country is less important than violence in a Western country.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:How so?
Why is the devastation be wreaked in the middle east any less important than the devastation wreaked by 9/11?

We're Western, therefore any violence in a non-Western country is less important than violence in a Western country.

Atleast dogma continues to be honest . Im still impressed.

Emperors Faithful wrote:How so?
Why is the devastation be wreaked in the middle east any less important than the devastation wreaked by 9/11?

By pure body count the violence done in the middle east is around 3,000 times more important than 9/11. But who said anything about it being less important?

But only looking at violence committed is deceptive, because it ignores everything else the organisation stands for and achieves. Yes, governments do crappy things and sometimes undertake pointless wars that get a load of people killed, but they also do a hell of a lot of good. On the other hand AQ blows up civilians somehow* hoping to achieve to worldwide dominance.

But to just to clarify, are you actually arguing that AQ is no worse than, say, the US government? Because frankly that's ridiculous, and I'm certain that's not really the point you're trying to make.



*Somehow... AQ seem to have a serious case of underpants gnome logic.
Step 1) Kill innocent people.
Step 2) ????
Step 3) Caliphate!

Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.

As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?

I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)

And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.

To quote Bill Maher from his previous show politically incorrect:

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

I agree with what he said there. Some of these attacks do kill civilians. Where as we call it collateral damage, the people we affect will call us terrorists. Not to defend what the religious extremists have done as they too have done some despicable things.

thehod wrote:"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

Hmmmm.... someone needs a cheeseburger check...



Okay then, imagine using a trebuchet being called cowardly (more likely to be called totally mad) nowadays, maybe if you were fighting goats or something, never mind that though.... welcome to the future . Warbots have already arrived.

Emperors Faithful, you aren't following what I'm saying. Just... read a little more carefully please.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.

First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.

Second up, with a change of names your statement is true, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is incorrect, so you pointing out a situation where an organisation was once considered freedom fighters but then considered terrorists doesn't establish anything.

Instead, I'm saying the claim is inane. It places some kind of equivalency between forces that operate with wholly different methods and wholly different aims on the same level of morality. While it is important to recognise the failings of modern Western militaries, it is plainly ludicrous to pretend they are no better or worse than a group like the Taliban.

As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?

What are you talking about? I said AQ wanted a caliphate, that is an explicit stated aim. Support for such a thing among the general population has nothing to do with it being an aim of AQ, and nothing to do with it being a stupidly impossible thing for AQ to ever achieve.

I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)

Charlie Wilson's War is an excellent movie, but if you want a more complete story, and more detail on the extent of American failure to rebuild in Afghanisan, you need to read the book. It also does a better job of showing the horrors of the Soviet occupation, and in doing so showed how odd it was for so many of the US involved to treat the operation as a playing piece in the greater Cold War.

And yes, I understand how parts of the world might be angry at the Americans, but that doesn't make terrorism acceptable. And it also assumes that dubious US foreign policy is the primary cause of resentment. If poor treatment of Muslims was the primary cause, why didn't the planes fly into Moscow? Russian operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya make the Americans look like saints.

No, AQ and its objectives must be seen first and foremost in the context of the Islamic world, not the Western world. The US is the primary target not because of their foreign policy, but because they represent such a threat to the ultra-conservative segments of Islam. The people leaving Islamic countries to live in the secular West and adopting more liberal views are the real threat. The US is hated not because of what it has done wrong, but because of what it has done right.

And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.

Yes, but it means it is disingenuous to judge it on it's military alone. Whereas the AQ can be seen as a purely terrorist organisation and summed up by its terrorist acts, it would make no sense to judge the US government by its military operations alone. To use your own example, Soviet Russia, judged purely on its military could be called a tactically inefficient, strategically ultra-efficient, brutal organisation. But you would miss the impractical enforcement of ideology, the political repression, the purges and paranoia, the immense bureaucracy and about 90% of the factors that made Soviet Russia what it was.

Your post is very well put sebster. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it. Very well done, but I would have said that regardless of my feelings towards it.

sebster wrote:
First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.

Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.

thehod wrote:To quote Bill Maher from his previous show politically incorrect:

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly".

I agree with what he said there. Some of these attacks do kill civilians. Where as we call it collateral damage, the people we affect will call us terrorists. Not to defend what the religious extremists have done as they too have done some despicable things.

There's a lot of truth in Ghandi's statement 'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?'

But there's a middle position, we don't have to accept equivalence between terrorist groups or the infallibility and moral purity of the West. We can recognise that we do screw up, we do get things wrong, and we do do immoral things, but that doesn't make us the same as groups who blow up civilian targets as a poorly defined step along a path to instituting an oppressive theocracy.

Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.

dogma wrote:Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.

That's splitting hairs to some extent isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Your post is very well put sebster. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it. Very well done, but I would have said that regardless of my feelings towards it.

Cheers, mate.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.

The term Mujahideen is not exclusive to Afghani natives. Its the plural form of Mujahid, which is a term that applies to anyone involved in a Jihad.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:Its actually neither. Both the Taliban and AQ have their roots in the various bands of Mujaheddin that opposed the Soviet Union, but neither of those groups existed at the time.

That's splitting hairs to some extent isn't it?

Maybe, but that's only way that you could claim that AQ didn't resist Soviet aggression in Afghanistan.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well, the Taliban is a direct result of the Mujahideen, which was made up of Afghan citizens. Al Qaeda came from a different beast, it came out of the Maktab al-Khidamat, which aided the Mujahideen, but was decidedly made up of foreigners who came to fight Russians, just so they could fight Russians, versus Afghans who were defending their homeland.

The term Mujahideen is not exclusive to Afghani natives. Its the plural form of Mujahid, which is a term that applies to anyone involved in a Jihad.

True it is not exclusive to Afhans, but nonetheless, the foreigners were the basis of Al Qaeda, not the Afghans, hence the Maktab al-Khidamat. Basically it came down to: "Yes, let us all go kill those infidel Russians in the name of Allah!" Years later, "No more Russians to kill...Let us now kill everyone who we don't like! And while we are at it, who wants a Caliphate?"

sebster wrote:Emperors Faithful, you aren't following what I'm saying. Just... read a little more carefully please.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, sebster, AQ were certainly not called terrorists when they resisted the russians invading.

First up, that would be the Taliban, not AQ.

Second up, with a change of names your statement is true, but it doesn't contradict what I'm saying. I'm not saying the statement 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' is incorrect, so you pointing out a situation where an organisation was once considered freedom fighters but then considered terrorists doesn't establish anything.

Instead, I'm saying the claim is inane. It places some kind of equivalency between forces that operate with wholly different methods and wholly different aims on the same level of morality. While it is important to recognise the failings of modern Western militaries, it is plainly ludicrous to pretend they are no better or worse than a group like the Taliban.

As for the logic, how do we know which people want a caliphate and which don't? Certainly not those in power or polotics, as they would be the first to go, but would the farmhands or street merchants mind a return to the old ways?

What are you talking about? I said AQ wanted a caliphate, that is an explicit stated aim. Support for such a thing among the general population has nothing to do with it being an aim of AQ, and nothing to do with it being a stupidly impossible thing for AQ to ever achieve.

I certainly don't trust the intentions of the AQ or Taliban, but I can sympathise with the anger they feel towards America.
(Watch Charlie Wilsons Private War, not the MOST accurate but still intriguing.)

Charlie Wilson's War is an excellent movie, but if you want a more complete story, and more detail on the extent of American failure to rebuild in Afghanisan, you need to read the book. It also does a better job of showing the horrors of the Soviet occupation, and in doing so showed how odd it was for so many of the US involved to treat the operation as a playing piece in the greater Cold War.

And yes, I understand how parts of the world might be angry at the Americans, but that doesn't make terrorism acceptable. And it also assumes that dubious US foreign policy is the primary cause of resentment. If poor treatment of Muslims was the primary cause, why didn't the planes fly into Moscow? Russian operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya make the Americans look like saints.

No, AQ and its objectives must be seen first and foremost in the context of the Islamic world, not the Western world. The US is the primary target not because of their foreign policy, but because they represent such a threat to the ultra-conservative segments of Islam. The people leaving Islamic countries to live in the secular West and adopting more liberal views are the real threat. The US is hated not because of what it has done wrong, but because of what it has done right.

And remember simply by being a government, does not make it any better than a terrorist. Nazi germany was a government, as was Soviet Russia.

Yes, but it means it is disingenuous to judge it on it's military alone. Whereas the AQ can be seen as a purely terrorist organisation and summed up by its terrorist acts, it would make no sense to judge the US government by its military operations alone. To use your own example, Soviet Russia, judged purely on its military could be called a tactically inefficient, strategically ultra-efficient, brutal organisation. But you would miss the impractical enforcement of ideology, the political repression, the purges and paranoia, the immense bureaucracy and about 90% of the factors that made Soviet Russia what it was.

I understand what your argument sebster (ingennuous?), and I will be getting my hands on that book if I can, but just a few things.

1) I was asking as to what popular opinion is in regards to Sharia law and/or a Caliphate in the Middle East.

2) How is America no better or worse (different?) than the Taliban.

3) The planes didn't fly into Moscow becuase in thier eyes, Russia was beaten long ago. Honestly, it's not a threat at the moment. America is the problem. (to them)

From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.

I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.

If Korea have oil instead of kimchi lettuce , they would be destroyed / taken over years ago.
Freedom? human right? child exploitation ? If such a place need to be enforced , its China. Oh i forgot , not as easy as stealing candy from a baby this time...

This is why no one in the world supports american actions .
Because everyone else know USA only wages war against countries USA can benefit from. Which is alright , all human is like that
but they go extra mile claiming to be bringer of justice and peace.

To add salt on the wound , they claim terrorist attack because " they are jealous of US , our freedom " <-- The world is laughing , have been laughing.
I know i know , now Obama is here you all pushed it onto Bush . Scape Goat....

For gods sake.....

Well actually, britain was/is doing very well with a little place called Freetown. They could have just dumped the free slaves wherever, but they went to great efforts to ensure there was a sort of home for them. Not realy in it for the profit.

I agree with that statement about America though. Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
True it is not exclusive to Afhans, but nonetheless, the foreigners were the basis of Al Qaeda, not the Afghans, hence the Maktab al-Khidamat. Basically it came down to: "Yes, let us all go kill those infidel Russians in the name of Allah!" Years later, "No more Russians to kill...Let us now kill everyone who we don't like! And while we are at it, who wants a Caliphate?"

I wasn't trying to claim AQ as an Afghan organization, just making the point that they grew out of the resistance (native or otherwise) in Afghanistan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.

I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.

Don't forget the legacy of Imperialism (something which also feeds the hatred of Israel). For many people in the Middle East the problem isn't America, the problem is the West. America just so happens to be the most powerful Western nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote: Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.

A discernible reason to risk the lives of soldiers.

Note the fact that we haven't invaded Venezuela. There's more to our foreign policy than the security of crude.

Exactly, but from what I gathered 'America' and 'The West' are pretty much synonomous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What's with the last bit?
Stopping genocide (which everyone refused to recognise it as) is not a good enough reason?
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?

Yeah, its kind of a 'here be dragons' approach to the world. Not shocking really, most people never acquire the education necessary to differentiate between groups of people on the other side of the world.

'here be dragons'? Please...elaborate. (EF prepares himself for onslaught of fire-breathing beasts)

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I understand what your argument sebster (ingennuous?), and I will be getting my hands on that book if I can, but just a few things.

1) I was asking as to what popular opinion is in regards to Sharia law and/or a Caliphate in the Middle East.

The support for Sharia law is far greater than it is for a Caliphate, although it is not as strong as many Westerners think. I have some friends from the Middle East, mostly Egypt and Turkey, and they are decidedly against both. Support for both Sharia law and a Caliphate is very weak in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Israel (Which is a ME country), and Jordan, and there is still some debate as to how strong the support is for these two in Lebanon, but it is impossible to tell in its current state. Support for Sharia law is at least somewhat popular in most of the rest of the ME countries, but the Caliphate idea is still widely disdained. The reason for that is the evolution of modern nation states and the sharp divisions between Sunni, Shiite, Suffi, etc. The Caliphate would have to unite all the divisions in Islam and erase all national identity, which it would not be able to do.

Emperors Faithful wrote:2) How is America no better or worse (different?) than the Taliban.

Well for one, the US contributes more charity than any nation in the world, and that is only federal aid. The EU as a whole does top our number, but what is even greater is the private charity that is given away every year. The US is incredibly generous and it continually gives massive amounts of money and aid to the poor all over the world...although this doesn't mean we can't do more. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers

Emperors Faithful wrote:3) The planes didn't fly into Moscow becuase in thier eyes, Russia was beaten long ago. Honestly, it's not a threat at the moment. America is the problem. (to them)

While there is some truth to that, it isn't entirely true. It wasn't so much the issue of America being the threat, because it really hadn't been. There were no active deployments of our military, and the only military installations it had in the ME were in agreement with those countries. I think that the main reason behind the attacks on the US, instead of Russia for example, was because our image. Peter Jennings put it best, "There has been a lot of talk lately as to why members of Al Qaeda and other terrorists hate us. Some say because of our military, others say our religion, and still others say our prosperity. I think that in reality it is the image we present them. They are generally religious extremists who value a strict moral code and devotion to their god above all else. What do they see when they see America? Partially nude women on our beaches, sexual immorality in film, divorce, drugs, the list goes on and on. I don't think we should conform to their standards, but we should probably look at something closer to home as a sore point for these people, and not try to blame it on something else."

Emperors Faithful wrote:From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated Americans because of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppressed Muslims for many years.

We do support Israel quite a bit, but so does the UK, Germany, France, etc. This started out, for the US anyway, as a guilty support because of the Holocaust, but Zionism has firmly ingrained itself in the belief system of the Evangelical movement in the US. This has had no small impact on our Israeli policy...

Emperors Faithful wrote:2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from their oil and goods, before leaving them the scraps. They do not believe America has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.

Well if we don't buy it someone else will....

Emperors Faithful wrote:3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterward.

Not a bad point. The US government did this to many nations in the post-Soviet world. That doesn't mean they should start bombing us....

Emperors Faithful wrote:4) They are fearful of American pop culture seeping into their society, corrupting their youth and destroying their society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see America as a debauched, wasteful society and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.

I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS their view.

Fixed all your spelling problems BTW. America is just as debauched as any other Western nation. If they don't want it in their country they don't have to import our media. America is indeed wasteful, which I truly hate, and it does corrupt people. But they ultimately have to ask themselves, "Whose fault is it really?" It all comes down to personal responsibility in my book. There is always peer pressure to do this an that, but it really comes down to what you decide to do or not do....unless they have a gun to your head....

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What's with the last bit?
Stopping genocide (which everyone refused to recognise it as) is not a good enough reason?

No. We're not a global police force.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?

Its not nearly as important as you would believe. Oil is key to the internal policy choices of any state which possesses a large amount of it, and the price of crude can become a matter of contention between major producers (as it did with Iraq and Kuwait), but as a resource for acquisition it isn't overly crucial; especially for a nation with the reach of the United States. There's more than one oil field in the world.

Saddam burned the oil fields in order to drive up global oil prices (which Kuwait had been driving down through over-production), not to deny the US a strategic resource.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
From my time in the Middle East, everyone I talked to distrusted/hated americans becuase of 4 things.
1) They see them as the back up/driving force of Israel, a country that has oppresed muslims for many years.
2) They see Americans as 'taking what they can get' from thier oil and goods, before leaving them the scrappings. They do not believe america has it's interests in mind, or even gives a damn.
3) They feel betrayed at Americas policy regarding the Cold War, and it's cold abandonment afterwards.
4) They are fearful of american pop culture seeping into thier society, corrupting thier youth and destroying thier society. (Seeing folks wearing backwards baseball caps, drinking 7up and wearing dish-dashes at the same time is quite peculiar. They see america as a debuached, wasteful soceity and honestly from their point of view I don't blame them.

I'm not saying all this is true. But it IS thier view.

Don't forget the legacy of Imperialism (something which also feeds the hatred of Israel). For many people in the Middle East the problem isn't America, the problem is the West. America just so happens to be the most powerful Western nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote: Anyone watched Hotel Rwanda? Now...what ISN'T there in Rwanda? Oh, that's right...oil.

A discernible reason to risk the lives of soldiers.

Note the fact that we haven't invaded Venezuela. There's more to our foreign policy than the security of crude.

Agreed all the way around.

Emperors Faithful wrote:'here be dragons'? Please...elaborate. (EF prepares himself for onslaught of fire-breathing beasts)

Here's the Wikipedia entry. Its a comment on the tendency of people to simplify, and dramatize information as the distance between them and the original source increases.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
And i know there's more to forieng policy than just that, but it certainly is a BIG motivater. Why do you think Saddam burnt the oil fields?

Its not nearly as important as you would believe. Oil is key to the internal policy choices of any state which possesses a large amount of it, and the price of crude can become a matter of contention between major producers (as it did with Iraq and Kuwait), but as a resource for acquisition it isn't overly crucial; especially for a nation with the reach of the United States. There's more than one oil field in the world.

Saddam burned the oil fields in order to drive up global oil prices (which Kuwait had been driving down through over-production), not to deny the US a strategic resource.

Most of the world also fails to realize that there is much more oil in and around the US and Canada than is actually admitted. A friend of mine's Dad is a scientist for Boeing and also does work for NASA, and he was telling me that the oil we have all along our coasts, in the northern Midwest and especially Alaska is mind boggling. He wasn't sure, since he is more involved in the rocket science (He is quite literally a rocket scientist), but he had heard from co-workers that the estimates by both governments puts the US and Canada as having the largest amounts of proven oil reserves of any nation or region on the planet.

1) about the Caliphate, thanks for claryfiying that, but what about the less educated, the more rural areas? Surely they would be more inclined to go with Sharia Law and the like?

2) I know, I wasn't actually arguing that America was worse. It just didn't seem that sebsters argument was clear.

3) ...it sounds like you're...agreeing with me?

As for the reasons:
1) USA is the 'da boss'. Everyone (moat) in ME sees America at the top. So that's where they instantly think their problem s stem from.

2) Not helpful to be honest.

3) Give 'em guns and no schools...what didya expect? That you could just forget about them?

4) They are afraid of the future generation being corrupted and gradually accepting it. There is personal responsibility, but not ENTIRELY. It won't help if billboards with naked women and broadcasting channels talknig trash keep sprouting up.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
3) ...it sounds like you're...agreeing with me?

Yes it does happen. I am not some crazed neo-con, despite popular opinion.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
What's with the last bit?
Stopping genocide (which everyone refused to recognise it as) is not a good enough reason?

No. We're not a global police force.

But we ARE ready to pounce on anything that will make us richer? Regardless of the human tragedy?

JEB_Stuart wrote:...but the Caliphate idea is still widely disdained. The reason for that is the evolution of modern nation states and the sharp divisions between Sunni, Shiite, Suffi, etc. The Caliphate would have to unite all the divisions in Islam and erase all national identity, which it would not be able to do.

It also doesn't help that the last surviving Caliphate was banned in its country of origin.

Though it wouldn't necessarily need to erase all national identity. Not even the Ottomans did that.

JEB_Stuart wrote:While there is some truth to that, it isn't entirely true. It wasn't so much the issue of America being the threat, because it really hadn't been. There were no active deployments of our military, and the only military installations it had in the ME were in agreement with those countries.

Their governments, anyway. The presence of military bases on the Arabian Peninsula has always been a touchy matter there.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
We do support Israel quite a bit, but so does the UK, Germany, France, etc. This started out, for the US anyway, as a guilty support because of the Holocaust, but Zionism has firmly ingrained itself in the belief system of the Evangelical movement in the US. This has had no small impact on our Israeli policy...

It was also a convenient way to oppose Soviet influence in the region during the Cold War; an association that has long coattails. Though any rashness regarding Iran is likely to shorten them quite a bit.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Not a bad point. The US government did this to many nations in the post-Soviet world. That doesn't mean they should start bombing us....

Wars have been started for lesser reasons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote: A friend of mine's Dad is a scientist for Boeing and also does work for NASA, and he was telling me that the oil we have all along our coasts, in the northern Midwest and especially Alaska is mind boggling. He wasn't sure, since he is more involved in the rocket science (He is quite literally a rocket scientist), but he had heard from co-workers that the estimates by both governments puts the US and Canada as having the largest amounts of proven oil reserves of any nation or region on the planet.

Canada is has the 2nd largest accumulation of oil in the world, right behind Saudi Arabia. The US is 12th. Though I don't think our proven reserves are in excess of those in the ME. His co-workers may have been including unconventional oil resources, which don't fit into the proven category as they aren't generally thought of as fir for extraction (though that's changing).