| 
Posted Oct 23, 2002 by Researcher 203508
The middle east crisis, and all the fall out we are now dealing with, is pretty much entirely a Western invention.
If Britain had been less ruthless in their dealings in the area prior to 1950 and if America had not persued a bloody interventionist policy in the area ever since perhaps we might see some chance of peace.
One thing seems certain, the people of the area have been stretched to breaking point and continued intervention can only enflame the whole sitiuation, rather than bombing yet another soft target in the region perhaps we should think about reparations for the suffering caused by US policy.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Oct 24, 2002 by Tas
this is so stupid!!
i hate it
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by Researcher 203508
not sure if that is an agreement or a rejection of the point?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 25, 2002 by tacsatduck- beware the <sheep> lie
well mabye both 
(  )
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 26, 2002 by Rita
Those reparations might be considered as compensation for United States imperial policy all over the world but especially within it's own claimed territorial borders.
If you want to understand what is happening in the Middle East now, simply review the history of the American Frontier in the 19th century.
The current problems of the Middle East are attributable to the European Crusades and the 16th century colonialism that arose from them as well as the intervention of America under the aegis of Globalization.
The Euroamericans have much to answer for and little reason to characterize the current interventions as in any sense defensive. If they simply leave the people of the Middle East alone, they will have no cause whatever for complaint.
Of course that would mean depending of their own resources for a change to fuel their so-called economies, but that's going to have to be done sooner or later in any case. There simply isn't enough petroleum anywhere to support the current levels of Euroamerican greed.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 27, 2002 by Blizita
<If Britain had been less ruthless in their dealings in the area prior to 1950 and if America had not persued a bloody interventionist policy in the area ever since perhaps we might see some chance of peace.>
Hmm... History has shown us that the people of the Middle East have been gleefully slaughtering eachother since the beginning of recorded history. The only reason for the relitive lack of interstate violence down there is that they have a new target (namely the west) to deal with. There has been absolutly nothing to show that if we all of the sudden leave that all will be at peace. In fact, there is more evidence that violence will escalate to the bloodiest yet. (Iran\Iraq war, Iraq vs. Kuwait, the whole India\Pakistan thing and I'm sure there are others) So, in other words, in a slightly twisted way, the West's intervention may have caused more peace that the middle east has seen in a long while.
<The Euroamericans have much to answer for and little reason to characterize the current interventions as in any sense defensive. If they simply leave the people of the Middle East alone, they will have no cause whatever for complaint.>
If we look back in history we see that, while I do admit that the crusades were for the most part unnessicary, had Europe not gone down there, they would have probably brought a war to europe. Either way, after a bit, both sides eventually (if momentarily) benifited from the exchange, The west got a fresh infusion of tech. and the East got a very large market to trade their goods to. On a side note, what happened to the Ottoman Turks is that they got involved in a Distinctally European conflict (WW1) and found themselves on the losing side.
America, while they were undoughtably involved om the Middle East before, they really didn't get really involved till the cold war, most notably throught the Truman Doctrine, (i.e. giving economic and military aid to "at risk" countries to prevent the spread of communism). If you think that the "EuroAmericans" have really messed things up down there? Try to imagine what the Soviets would have done.
To sum all this up, it's naïve of us to assume that all would be peaceful if all forigners left the Middle East. And that also, the "EuroAmericans" are not to be blamed for all of the violence in the middle east.
Also, it appears that globalism is under attack here. There is no way (especially in this age) that a country can survive without trading, exporting, importing, establishing a ties to other countries. To do otherwise would be Isolationism. Such a policy has made Empires crumble and inevitably destroys any society that try it.
I'm out of steam.
Blizita   
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 27, 2002 by Rita
Globalism has little to do with trade and much to do with domination. Otherwise, there is little profit in it. It is colonialism retreaded and colonialism has never been necessary, merely expedient for those unable to share among themselves.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by nonxistenz
why does both leaders of america and britian think they are the only ones who can make a rightful decision and seem to believe that the rest of the worlds leaders aren't born with a fully develop, functional brain!
If america and briatain are allowed to make there own decisions within there countries, whats so wrong with other leaders being allowed to do the same!
Countries should fight and resolve their own battles instead of turning to self-god believing leaderes who can't run their own countries but dive at the chance to resolve other countries conflicts, for them!
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by tacsatduck- beware the <sheep> lie
hmmm interesting...
I would like to point out one thing.."why does both leaders of america and britian think they are the only ones who can make a rightful decision"...many of the same things that the US and Britain have been pressing for in other contires and pointing out in these contries (not all of the things they are saying) are parts of what the UN is founded on and are in the charter that 191 contiries around the world are suposed to be standing behind (including the contires that most of us are talking about)so to say that these ideas are against world opinion is a little  if you ask me if it was why would they all agree to these things in the first place?
( )
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by the third man(temporary armistice)n strike)
Lenin called it Realpolitik - the politics of reality. It is no good harping on about the Crusades or Britain's 19th century foreign policy. The fact of the matter is Israel is the big boy on the block. Its army and air force are the second most powerful on Earth. If Israel wanted to they could expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and nobody could or would try to stop them. So laying down the law to Israel is pointless. Any lasting peace must come from the Palestinians realising that their brother Arabs have deserted them, that's if they were ever with them in the first place, and they must get the best deal they can.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by Rita
Israel is an American colony. It couldn't exist otherwise. The majority of the settlers on the West Bank are Americans. This was probably intensional on the part of the Israeli government.
Israel, therefore, is little different from the petty kingdoms of the medieval Outremer. It will probably collapse as soon as the United States finds it expedient to withdraw support.
In any case, I doubt Israel has the second most powerful armed forces in the world, not by any stretch of the imagination, and it probably wouldn't have survived the 1973 war had the United States not rearmed it. Zionists in America and their supporters keep Israel going. That shouldn't be a surprise.
That's the "real politik".
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by the third man(temporary armistice)n strike)
I think you over estimate the power of five million American Jews. What has changed Israeli attitudes most in the last few years has been the arrival of Jews from the former Soviet Union. As a rule: right-wing, militant and aggressively expansionist.They fell right into the grateful lap of Yitzhak Shamir. As for West Bank Settlers, the religious Zealots who get the camera action are often American educated but not American. Benjamin Netanyahu was edicated in the US for example. But, an Israeli on the West Bank is more likely to be a Yuppie from Tel Aviv who has bought the land legitimately than an ultra-orthodox zealot.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by Rita
I think you underestimate the power of American Jews. The former Soviets may serve as cannon fodder but the Americans serve as hostages to Israeli interests, so to speak. And few of them are ultra-orthodox. One of the ironies of modern Israel is that the ultra-orthodox await the Messiah for redemption and don't consider the secular government legitimate for that purpose.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by the third man(temporary armistice)n strike)
No Israeli is ever "cannon fodder".
|
| | |
| |
Posted Oct 28, 2002 by Rita
Dream on! &;P
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
