U.S. in the Middle East

[cawacko]

One of the things Osama and others said was behind the 9/11 attack and their general dislike/hatred of the U.S. was our presence in the Middle East. Hypothetically, let's say in several years we are able to remove ourselves as best as possible from the Middle East. We would have a negligible physical presence there.

Do you believe the attitudes of Osama and other Islamic Radicals would change toward the U.S. once we were off their soil? Do you think they would continue to try and attack us in America once we left the Middle East?

I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question I'm curious what people think.

[Cypress]

One of the things Osama and others said was behind the 9/11 attack and their general dislike/hatred of the U.S. was our presence in the Middle East. Hypothetically, let's say in several years we are able to remove ourselves as best as possible from the Middle East. We would have a negligible physical presence there.

Do you believe the attitudes of Osama and other Islamic Radicals would change toward the U.S. once we were off their soil? Do you think they would continue to try and attack us in America once we left the Middle East?

I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question I'm curious what people think.

Hypothetically, let's say in several years we are able to remove ourselves as best as possible from the Middle East. We would have a negligible physical presence there.

Do you believe the attitudes of Osama and other Islamic Radicals would change toward the U.S. once we were off their soil?


My opinion? No they won't stop attacking. Because it's not simply about our physcial presence (soldiers, military bases, etc) in arab lands that is inflammatory. It is also our political and economic control over them.

Al Qaeda is quite clear about this. The thing that is mostly pissing them off, is our support for authoritarian and pseudo-secular arab/muslim dictators: leaders and goverments that are considered corrupt and apostate to many arabs. The only way a lot of these regimes survive, is through our support. The whole reason Al Qeada came into existence, really, was to overthrow the apostate, unpopular authoritarian regimes dominating the arab world. They are viewed as puppets of the west, and that their only reason for existence is to make sure the West is getting relatively cheap (and secure) sources of oil. And in order to overthrow these regimes, american support has to be severed. By making us feel extreme pain, Al Qaeda assumes they can make us abandon support for these arab dictators.

[Cancel7]

Hmmm. Those are good points. I think that the US going back to being viewed as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine dispute, rather than as a partisan, would help as well. Not that we were ever really viewed as a real honest broker, when you think about it, all adminstrations are pro-Israel...none so much as this current one. That includes both the Reagan and Bush I adminstrations.

I don't know how you get peace in the mid-east without a settlement of that problem. But that's not the question, the question is how to stop them from attacking us.

I feel almost like, is it even worth answering? Who here thinks we are ever leaving the mid-east, under any adminstration, raise your hand. Now, who here believes that if they put a letter in their mailnbox addressed to Santa/North Pole, a fat man is going to bring you gifts?

[Cypress]

Good points on the palestinian issue Darla.

But, you know what I think? And this is based on reading I've done:

This jihad is not really about theocracy. OBL's goals are less theocratic than a lot of people imagine. Sure, he's a devout (and misguided) muslim. But really, it's all about oil. I know we always say that, about Bush: it's all about oil. Suprisingly, to OBL it's really all about oil too. For different reasons. So when some NeoCon says its about attacking our freedoms, or about exporting islam to north america, it's all B.S.


I think what OBL and al qaeda really want, is to severe the West's ties (and control) over arab oil. He views the apostate arab dictators, as merely the West's stooges and proxies, to keep oil relatively cheap, and to invest their petro dollars in the West -- rather than in their own countries. I understand, that bin ladin wants true Arab (read: muslim) control over their own resources - oil, really. And they can then control supply and charge a true market (or cartel) price for oil. They won't have to dance to the West's tune about where to set the oil price. And, importantly, they want to invest petro dollars in their own countries. As we know, right know the Saudi Princes send a lot of their petro dollars out of the country, into investments, mansions, and race horses in the west.


Anyway, that's what I think. And it's based on reading of highly qualified and credible experts, that I accept these conclusions.

[Cancel7]

Good points on the palestinian issue Darla.

But, you know what I think? And this is based on reading I've done:

This jihad is not really about theocracy. OBL's goals are less theocratic than a lot of people imagine. Sure, he's a devout (and misguided) muslim. But really, it's all about oil. I know we always say that, about Bush: it's all about oil. Suprisingly, to OBL it's really all about oil too. For different reasons. So when some NeoCon says its about attacking our freedoms, or about exporting islam to north america, it's all B.S.


I think what OBL and al qaeda really want, is to severe the West's ties (and control) over arab oil. He views the apostate arab dictators, as merely the West's stooges and proxies, to keep oil relatively cheap, and to invest their petro dollars in the West -- rather than in their own countries. I understand, that bin ladin wants true Arab (read: muslim) control over their own resources - oil, really. And they can then control supply and charge a true market (or cartel) price for oil. They won't have to dance to the West's tune about where to set the oil price. And, importantly, they want to invest petro dollars in their own countries. As we know, right know the Saudi Princes send a lot of their petro dollars out of the country, into investments, mansions, and race horses in the west.


Anyway, that's what I think. And it's based on reading of highly qualified and credible experts, that I accept these conclusions.

LOL. That is so amazing. Tariq Ali has this great book about fundamentalism that has Bush on the front cover in Muslim garb, and Bin Laden on the back cover in a suit in the oval office. I guess there is a lot of truth to the idea that they are two sides of the same coin.

I have to read that Palast book.

[Cypress]

LOL. That is so amazing. Tariq Ali has this great book about fundamentalism that has Bush on the front cover in Muslim garb, and Bin Laden on the back cover in a suit in the oval office. I guess there is a lot of truth to the idea that they are two sides of the same coin.

I have to read that Palast book.

Tariq Ali has this great book about fundamentalism that has Bush on the front cover in Muslim garb, and Bin Laden on the back cover in a suit in the oval office.

Wow, I haven't heard of that book.

Yes, the more informed and educated I get on this whole thing, the more I realize that the whole nature of the "war on terror", as it's been portrayed to the public, is WAY off the mark. I like your analogy of bush and OBL being ying and yang, or two sides of the same coin. Really, I think it does fundamentally comes down to who controls and profits from arab resouces (i.e., oil). And without passing judgement, I can see why a lot of arabs get pissed at the Saudi Royals, for investing their petro dollars in the West, rather than in their own country. In effect, sending their arab wealth over to prop up Citibank and Microsoft.

[Cancel7]

Tariq Ali has this great book about fundamentalism that has Bush on the front cover in Muslim garb, and Bin Laden on the back cover in a suit in the oval office.

Wow, I haven't heard of that book.

Yes, the more informed and educated I get on this whole thing, the more I realize that the whole nature of the "war on terror", as it's been portrayed to the public, is WAY off the mark. I like your analogy of bush and OBL being ying and yang, or two sides of the same coin. Really, I think it does fundamentally comes down to who controls and profits from arab resouces (i.e., oil). And without passing judgement, I can see why a lot of arabs get pissed at the Saudi Royals, for investing their petro dollars in the West, rather than in their own country. In effect, sending their arab wealth over to prop up Citibank and Microsoft.

Well, a lot of Americans get themselves all fumed up about Mexicans sending money back home to their families. So you would think they could understand Bin Laden's point, since they seem to have something in common there.

Yep. You never have to look far to find something that rightwingers and complete, mudereous, physcopaths have in common!

[Cypress]

Well, a lot of Americans get themselves all fumed up about Mexicans sending money back home to their families. So you would think they could understand Bin Laden's point, since they seem to have something in common there.

Yep. You never have to look far to find something that rightwingers and complete, mudereous, physcopaths have in common!

lol, indeed! The whole thing is far more complicated that liars in both political parties have fessed up to - particularly the GOP leadership. Ron Paul understands what's going on, at a fundamental level.

Would you recommend that Tariz Ali book? Sounds like you thought it was great.

Another great book, if you really want to understand Al Qaeda's goals and motivations, is that book by Michael Schuerer - have you read it? He's the guy from the CIA.

[Cancel7]

lol, indeed! The whole thing is far more complicated that liars in both political parties have fessed up to - particularly the GOP leadership. Ron Paul understands what's going on, at a fundamental level.

Would you recommend that Tariz Ali book? Sounds like you thought it was great.

Another great book, if you really want to understand Al Qaeda's goals and motivations, is that book by Michael Schuerer - have you read it? He's the guy from the CIA.

No I haven't read it. This is the first I've heard of it. Yep, the Ali book is great, I have a couple of his books, he's an editor at the London Review of Books, this guy is a heavyweight. Really smart.

Too bad we can't do some kind of a book swap. We both have a lot of books. I'm always dying to get into other people's books. It's this really weird thing about me.

[uscitizen]

Why do you think Hugo became a world threat and despised to the point of religious leaders calling for his assination ?
He had the audacity to nationalize his countrys oil industry !

The audacity of that man to think of his country's good while oil companies were losing potential profits. Purely grusome and ghastly.

[Cypress]

Why do you think Hugo became a world threat and despised to the point of religious leaders calling for his assination ?
He had the audacity to nationalize his countrys oil industry !

The audacity of that man to think of his country's good while oil companies were losing potential profits. Purely grusome and ghastly.

Of course Chavez pisses off Bu$shCo. primarily because of his policies on venezuelan oil and resources. Not becauuse he's any sort of security threat to the united states.

[uscitizen]

Chavez is a danger to our capitalistic way of life if he shows a better way....
He must not be allowed to show that his variety of socialistic capitalism can work.

[Damocles]

Chavez is a danger to our capitalistic way of life if he shows a better way....
He must not be allowed to show that his variety of socialistic capitalism can work.

That would depend entirely on what you define as "better". There are many truly poor in his nation, not American style two cars and three tvs poverty but real poverty, this hasn't been resolved by what he has done.

[Cypress]

Chavez is a danger to our capitalistic way of life if he shows a better way....
He must not be allowed to show that his variety of socialistic capitalism can work.

You know what I think? I don't think Bu$hCo. really cares one way or the other, if a foreign government is capitalist, communist, or democratic, or authoritarian. As long as american economic interests are protected and promoted, is all that really matters. We do business without complaint, with some of the most "non-capitalist" and authoritarian governments on the planet -- because WalMart, Exxon, and Microsoft are able to do business profitably in those places.

So I don't think it matters if Chavez is a capitalist, socialist, or dictator. The point is: will he, or won't he help promote, and protect american business interests?

[uscitizen]

That would depend entirely on what you define as "better". There are many truly poor in his nation, not American style two cars and three tvs poverty but real poverty, this hasn't been resolved by what he has done.

You have a poor understanding of the poor in your own country it would appear Damo....
I guess you can't help being a compassionate conservative though