our freedom just as important as theirs

chewy

i often read posters sceptical of the irish anti-wars movement motivations

calling them anti-american etc....

but im sorta trying to get an idea in my head why wars involving america and the particular unilateral wars now being fought are protested more then say russias actions against chechnya

you often have peope saying why arn't you out there protesting against saddam or putin or even the ira...

but these actions by america and the organisations and idealogies behind them are protested more because they actually effect us here in ireland

immediately you respond how selfish, why didn't you protest against saddam huh?

just cos when he was in power his tyranny didnt effect you directly

but what america does effects the whole world as opposed to say whats happens in kosovo if, the recent trouble there terrible as it was didn't have an effect on my daily life

what i am trying to get across is that, the clampdown on civil liberites the air of threat and anxiety in the air, polaraistion of society over the issues and mistrust bread by americas actions and the media... the scuritiny of your personal info ,say on flights
do have effect on our life and that atleast 50% of the reason why people are more active when protesting against americas wars

apart from the hyprocrasy of the most democratic society on earth doing all this stuff

......

Memnoch

chewy - most ppl do protest against Saddam's tyranny and Russia's actions in Chechnya, however The russian's and saddams don't pretend to be benevelont liberators the way the american's do. Moreover, most of the people know and understand what Saddam did and the same goes for chechnya. However it seems that there are many people especially american's who are ignorant of even the most basic facts of the situation. And when you talk to them about it, it makes your blood boil, to hear them make statements out of blind ignorance with callous disregard for human life, while at the same time hypocritically championing themselves as the true saviours of the "civilised" way of life

that being said, I agree with a lot of ur post with regards to WHY people are upset by america's actions

chill

A very enlightening post that I believe illustrates many European-type thinking.

...Essentially as long as international terrorts leave us alone then we're all right. Damn the Americans for doing anything against these poor mass murderers because it affects our precious lives... to hell with the victims of Al Quida all over the world... as long as it's not here in my neighbourhood then don't do anything to stop them. They'd never ever use a nuclear bomb or a dirty or bio bomb on innocent people in nice countries like ours...

Sadly this is the widespread attitude.... and won't change imho until something like the foiled bomb or bombs in London, goes off in Paris, London... even Dublin and Frankfurt or wherever.... Thank God the Americans don't believe in sitting back and doing nothing..!

Memnoch

chill - just out of curiosity, may I ask where you are from? and whats your main source of news? which channel?

chewy

...Essentially as long as international terrorts leave us alone then we're all right.

ya see i think that there isn't as much of a threat as we're made to believe, alright you jsut had a massive catastrophy in madrid but terrorism isnt' what you should be worreid about when you wake in the morning

"Damn the Americans for doing anything against these poor mass murderers because it affects our precious lives... to hell with the victims of Al Quida all over the world... as long as it's not here in my neighbourhood then don't do anything to stop them. "

ya see i believe that right wingers of america and elsewhere are the main cause of the terrorsim that there is, so simply going around arrest those guys won't do anything to diminsish that threat.

we should worry about our civil liberties and how terrorism is beung used as exucse to crack dwon on those who would disagree with america et al

"chewy - most ppl do protest against Saddam's tyranny and Russia's actions in Chechnya, "
most of us don't agree with russia policy to chechnya but they was never a protest with 100,000 people out the streets as far as i know, it wasn't as big an issue.... and people would say that is because it wasnt an oppurtunity to anti-american

halkar

If you lift almost every stone that says terrorist on them you will find US is under it. One must ask why these people are so against US that they can even sacrifice their lives for their whatever the cause might be. No one born terrorist, it is the society that they live in makes them so and those societies most and unfortunately Muslims of this world that they just don't want and like the way US wants them to live.
Look at the Middle East and support of US to Israel while ignoring the rest as they wish and showing their iron fist if anyone raises voices. US has the power and influence to do anything they wish in the region and this is just creating more hate to US and anyone that supports them in the region.

vorbis

Memnoch so if the US just came out and said they want to take over the world then their actions would be ok by you :rolleyes:

halkar have you ever thought that some of these cultures are anti-American regardless. I think it goes further than Israel. I think there's a jealousy of America's influence over the world.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
Memnoch so if the US just came out and said they want to take over the world then their actions would be ok by you :rolleyes:

halkar have you ever thought that some of these cultures are anti-American regardless. I think it goes further than Israel. I think there's a jealousy of America's influence over the world.

Wow, where did you get that from? I'd love to hear your line of reasoning.... No it would not be ok, but it would be better, because then the majority of their would be fewer people who would be ignorant about America's actions and motivations in the middle east. THe thing is America can't really do this, thats why they fight the propaganda wars. When was the last time the US attacked someone that was militarily powerful? America talk a lot about brutal regimes etc etc etc, yet they foster great trade relations with China..... I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that the chinese would wipe the floor with any american army that tried to invade the country.

As regards to your second comment. Please tell me, WHY would these cultures be Anti-american? I've met several arabs, and my family lived there also, these guys are very friendly people generally. Yes they can be defensive about their religious beliefs, but thats their right. Halkar is right in that the majority of "terrorism" has arisen through Israel's actions in the middle east, and through America's intervention on Israel's behalf. I mean Israel doesn't allow weapon's inspectors to check its WMD but thats ok.... The US has veto'd something like 72 UN resolutions against israel. There are already serveral UN resolutions that declare Israel's actions illegal but the US's umbrella of protection invalidates their effectiveness.

I think one thing that people REALLY need to think long and hard about, is WHY, would someone go and blow themselves up? Would you do it? Suicide is the final act of desperation, and suicidal terrorism is the final act of desperate vengeance. Some one has to feel that they have absolutely no hope for the future in order to commit suicide, but in order to go and kill a lot of innocent people in the process, you must really be blinded by rage... tell me what could blind someone with such rage? Perhaps watching your society crumble around you? Perhaps having family who were innocent killed ?

Zombrex

Originally posted by vorbis
I think it goes further than Israel. I think there's a jealousy of America's influence over the world.

"Anti-american" muslims, or arabs or what ever, are not jealous of america, though Americans often dismiss them as being jealous.

They believe the US and the American way of living is corrupt, soul-less and evil. They believe that Americans tout corrupt capitalism and the persuit of self pleasure and excess that is an affront to God and that corrupts ones body, mind and soul. They believe that globisilation is the modern form of imperialism, and that through globisation the US hopes to convert the rest of the world to their corrupt way of living and thinking. To them America represents the embodyment of sin and sinful behavour, and that it hopes to spread around the world corrupting every last piece of earth.

I am not agreeing I am just explaining. It is just plain wrong to dismiss "anti-american" feeling in the rest of the world as just jealous of America.

They are no more jealous of the US and the American way of life, as US people were jealous of the USSR and communism in the Cold War.

vorbis

I'm sorry I don't have the same sympathy for suicide bombers. Its imo despicable and only made worse by the choosing of civilian targets and I hope all of them go straight to hell.

Wicknight that was only my opinion. You may be right. Still though that attitude does get fanatical in a lot of those countries. I hope that they find it ironic that capitalism is responsible for their wealth. (selling oil to the west)

The russian's and saddams don't pretend to be benevelont liberators the way the american's do. Moreover, most of the people know and understand what Saddam did and the same goes for chechnya.

seems to suggest menmoch that if the country states its intentions "honestly" then thats not too bad.

chewy

and the honesty, that an over simplification of the issues

america proclaims itself as _the_ example of democracy... but it is highly corrupt...
no countries are without corruption... point it its corruption effects the restof the world everyday

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
I'm sorry I don't have the same sympathy for suicide bombers. Its imo despicable and only made worse by the choosing of civilian targets and I hope all of them go straight to hell.

Your viewpoint is decidedly obtuse here. I'm not asking you to have SYMPATHY for them. I'm asking you to try and understand if you can manage to think for a fraction of a second with an open mind, the rationale behind their actions. Tell me, would you become a suicide bomber? No? Then why do these people do it? If we cannot understand the cause we cannot solve the problem. The people who understand the cause, understand, that America's heavy handed interventions and blowing everything up in sight is not going to make the situation any better but rather worsen it. Iraq is a case in point. Iraq never really supported terrorism, bin laden hated saddam and vice versa. But now Saddam is gone, the majority shia population are fanatically religious, US murder of civillians and destruction around the country is leading to increased sympathy and fascilitating al queda to take root in iraq. Every innocent that is killed by america their surviving relatives will become "terrorists", and who would blame them? Would you not want vengeance if your family was killed and there was nothing you could do about it?

seems to suggest menmoch that if the country states its intentions "honestly" then thats not too bad.

no it does not suggest that in any way whatsoever. Let me simplify it for you. Saddam never pretended to be a benevolent dictator, his actions were clear to the world and he was condemned for it. Pretty much everyone realises this. Bush however pretends to be a benevolent do gooder. If he openly said that he was after iraqi oil, and he was invading iraq because he could, this would not make it any less "wrong", but more people would no, ignorance would be reduced, and more people would confront the situation, and it would end. which is why the propaganda... now if u still can't understand this, I don't think i can simplify it further.

chewy

you both seem to be argueing the same point


thanks god this didn't turn into would you be a suicide bomber debate

Memnoch

Originally posted by chewy
you both seem to be argueing the same point


thanks god this didn't turn into would you be a suicide bomber debate

unforunately i had to resort to that to try and make him understand, that these are human beings, born like he is, or anyone else. Its easy to condemn the "terrorists" and paint them with teh "evil" brush, but if you want to fight terrorism, you have to fight its cause, not just its effects.

halkar

Originally posted by vorbis
...Wicknight that was only my opinion. You may be right. Still though that attitude does get fanatical in a lot of those countries. I hope that they find it ironic that capitalism is responsible for their wealth. (selling oil to the west)

You are wrong here, they don't need US to buy their oil, there are many countries in this world, look at your map. It is US that needs the oil from them and trying to steal if it can't get it own way. Their resources are drying day by day while they are still wasting their resources with their greed. Why is rest of the world happy enough to go around with 1 - 2L cars and americans has to go around with V6 V8s ? Their careless use of natural resources leaving them with nothing and they take it out on the rest of the world. Can you imagine what can happen if US didn't get needed oil? Do you really think they will have an economy to sit on their big cars and have their life style or whatever you call it?

As for your first comments about behing jealous, look at your map again and see where Middle East and US are , also look at your history books and read about Middle East, their life styles, their traditions and politics which goes 1000s of years old unlike US. While US trying to interfere with their political life they are also interfering with their social life and traditions. They are not jeolous of anything that US has, they don't want US interfering with their lives. After tell me when in history any Middle East country that attacked US because of their life styles? If you leave me alone and respect me for what I am, I leave you alone and respect you for what you are. Simple principle but unfortunately does not happen today. Tell me again who is jealous of who and what?
As for Israel debate, I will not go in to that matter as there are already other threads about it.

vorbis

selling oil to the WEST
I never said that the US was their only market halkar. My point was that it is the capitalism system supported by the US that has made them rich.

Also Memnoch I understand your point but still feel that you are heavily biased and view sucide bombing as a justifiable act. I don't simple as that.

Every innocent that is killed by america their surviving relatives will become "terrorists", and who would blame them?

Can you provide proof for this? Also I would blame them. Mainly for the targetting. Blowing up people who had nothing to do with your relatives death (contractors, iraqi police etc.) is pointless and not justifiable. Also Memnoch what do you suggest fighting its causes should mean?

halkar

Originally posted by vorbis
selling oil to the WEST
I never said that the US was their only market halkar. My point was that it is the capitalism system supported by the US that has made them rich.

Nope, it is their oil that made them rich, I don't think they care much about US capitalism. If they did, they wouldn't be in this state now, would they? And do you think if Saddam was still in power and doing as US told, Us would have invade them?

vorbis

oh dear. Without the capitalist system that exists today worldwide how would they be able to sell the oil. In the middle ages, if a big country wanted something from a small country, it tended to occupy it. The west imo does not occupy the oil nations of the middle east. Instead the capitalism model advocated by America is used to buy the oil. What I said was ironic was you saying they wanted nothing to do with the system that makes them rich. (i.e. they reject American values)

halkar

Yep, in the middle ages. That is gone now, don't you think so? Or maybe US is still in their middle ages. After all they have a lot to catch on.

Zombrex

Originally posted by vorbis
In the middle ages, if a big country wanted something from a small country, it tended to occupy it. The west imo does not occupy the oil nations of the middle east.

Oh the irony :rolleyes:

How many "oil nations" have been occupied in the last 100 years?

Originally posted by vorbis
What I said was ironic was you saying they wanted nothing to do with the system that makes them rich. (i.e. they reject American values)

Right there is part of the problem. You assume they want to be rich. They don't!

Part of the problem is that the fundamentalists believe that their countries have sold their souls to the devil in return for money and the American life style (which they see as corrupt and imoral).

pork99

Also part of the problem is Arab & Islamic societies difficulties in adjusting to the modern world. They have trouble making the same adjustments that, for example Japanese and other east Asian societies have made sucessfully in the last 150 years. This book explained it far more succinctly than I ever could.

dathi1

Damn the Americans for doing anything against these poor mass murderers because it affects our precious lives...

Americans killing the "evil doers" bringing democray to Iraq, and protecting us from terrorists. Yesterday in Falluja.

dathi1

Also part of the problem is Arab & Islamic societies difficulties in adjusting to the modern world.

With the help of successive British, French and US governments for the past 70 yrs. They had'nt a hope.

dathi1

Thank God the Americans don't believe in sitting back and doing nothing..!

...Yer dam right...they're just making sure that we do get hit by Islamic Fundamentalists by killing everything that moves in the middle east..Palestine, Lebanon..now Iraq. Gee...thanks..A plague on both yer houses. Al Quida and GW.

pork99

With the help of successive British, French and US governments for the past 70 yrs. They had'nt a hope.

yes of course they invented Islamic fundamentalism

dathi1

yes of course they invented Islamic fundamentalism

yes.they did by proxy...They backed up numerous dictators and established a Zionist state. The resullt?

chewy

the influence america has on the world
and before that the influence of all these colonial countries britain france created

(did ussr colonise or just expand and take over or has it actually been shrinking since the start of the modern age?? i dunno )

we all know france is as much to blame for creating the corrupt states in africa and middle east as the britain... and there "anti-war" stances as jsut being about diminishing americas influence...

isn't it only since ussr collapsed that america could move towards afghanistan and iraq .... the us has no-oe to balance it out

er bring on the chinese?

yeah islamic or communist states, its a strange thing capitalism is very attractive to these people its a hard thing to resist...

vorbis

Right there is part of the problem. You assume they want to be rich. They don't!

Wicknight have you been at the medecine cabinet. OPEC was formed with the express intention of maximising revenues from oil, hence the control over production in order to keep prices artificially high. Thats pure capitalism in terms of greed.

Oh the irony

since the second world war, what oil producing countries have been occupied? As in since they got their independence. Iraq is about the only one.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
Wicknight have you been at the medecine cabinet. OPEC was formed with the express intention of maximising revenues from oil, hence the control over production in order to keep prices artificially high. Thats pure capitalism in terms of greed.



since the second world war, what oil producing countries have been occupied? As in since they got their independence. Iraq is about the only one.

Iraq is the only country that has been "directly" occupied militarily...
but if you really want to know..

1) The Saudi arabian government, largely deffers to teh US, and the US helps keep this non-democratic fundamentalist government in power.
2) The US attempted to organise a coup in Venezuela, because their leader was trying to do something for his people..
3) Kuwait, after the "liberation" with a lot of US troops stationed there...
4) Afghanasthan, using 9/11 as an excuse the US decimated the country, so it could build its beautiful oil pipeline through it.
5) The Turkish government, another example of a not so wonderful regime supported by the US

need i go on?

The US government has a long history of putting in power and supporting (through the CIA) brutal regimes that oppress their people, while the USA plunders the countries natural resources giving a small cut along the way to the "puppets" in charge, keeping everyone happy.

vorbis

Memnoch none of them are occupied. The saudis had American bases. They still had their own sovereign governemnt. Alliances are not occupation. The US does not decide the saudi government. Kuwait is a sovereign state, it is not occupied. Again bases do not equal occupation. The turks are not occupied by the US. Afghanistan is but since when is it an oil producing country in the middle east (I could be wrong). Out of curiousity what resources are in Venezuala? The mentioning of it seems a bit out of place.

Memnoch

Originally posted by vorbis
Memnoch none of them are occupied. The saudis had American bases. They still had their own sovereign governemnt. Alliances are not occupation. The US does not decide the saudi government. Kuwait is a sovereign state, it is not occupied. Again bases do not equal occupation. The turks are not occupied by the US. Afghanistan is but since when is it an oil producing country in the middle east (I could be wrong). Out of curiousity what resources are in Venezuala? The mentioning of it seems a bit out of place.

sigh .... READ my post next time b4 responding please...

in case you didn't know, Venezuela is a big producer of OIL.

as for the other countries... re read my post...

chewy

have to back memoch up there thats good list of neo-imperalism

as for venezula look up the revolution will televised that film by the irish guys who were there during the coup

Zombrex

Originally posted by vorbis
Wicknight have you been at the medecine cabinet. ... Thats pure capitalism in terms of greed.

Er, I am pretty sure there are very few islamic fundamentalists on the OPEC board.

Originally posted by vorbis
since the second world war, what oil producing countries have been occupied? As in since they got their independence. Iraq is about the only one.

Since the WWII not many. As press coverage and independence ideas became greater it was harder for the western "demoncratic" countries to occupy other countries. Instead they used illegal back channels to help over throw unfriendly leaders and install puppet regines. I can give you a long list if you wish.

pork99

Originally posted by dathi1
With the help of successive British, French and US governments for the past 70 yrs. They had'nt a hope.

But at some point the world is asking: “Is Mr. Assad or Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family, or a Khadafy really an aberration—all rogues who hijacked Arab countries—or are they the logical expression of a tribal patriarchal society whose frequent tolerance of barbarism is in fact reflected in its leadership? Are the citizens of Fallujah the victims of Saddam, or did folk like this find their natural identity expressed in Saddam? Postcolonial theory and victimology argue that European colonialism, Zionism, and petrodollars wrecked the Middle East. But to believe that one must see India in shambles, Latin America under blanket autocracy, and an array of suicide bombers pouring out of Mexico or Nigeria. South Korea was a moonscape of war when oil began gushing out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia; why is it now exporting cars while the latter are exporting death? Apartheid was far worse than the Shah’s modernization program; yet why did South Africa renounce nuclear weapons while the Mullahs cheated on every UN protocol they could?

No, there is something peculiar to the Middle East that worries the world. The Arab world for years has promulgated a quite successful media image as perennial victims—proud folks, suffering under a series of foreign burdens, while nobly maintaining their grace and hospitality. Middle-Eastern Studies programs in the United States and Europe published an array of mostly dishonest accounts of Western culpability, sometimes Marxist, sometimes anti-Semitic that were found to be useful intellectual architecture for the edifice of panArabism, as if Palestinians or Iraqis shared the same oppressions, the same hopes, and the same ideals as downtrodden American people of color—part of a universal “other” deserving victim status and its attendant blanket moral exculpation. But the curtain has been lifted since 9-11 and the picture we see hourly now is not pretty.

The enemy of the Middle East is not the West so much as modernism itself and the humiliation that accrues when millions themselves are nursed by fantasies, hypocrisies, and conspiracies to explain their own failures. Quite simply, any society in which citizens owe their allegiance to the tribe rather than the nation, do not believe in democracy enough to institute it, shun female intellectual contributions, allow polygamy, insist on patriarchy, institutionalize religious persecution, ignore family planning, expect endemic corruption, tolerate honor killings, see no need to vote, and define knowledge as mastery of the Koran is deeply pathological.

When one adds to this depressing calculus that for all the protestations of Arab nationalism, Islamic purity and superiority, and whining about a decadent West, the entire region is infected with a burning desire for things Western—from cell phones and computers to videos and dialysis, you have all the ingredients for utter disaster and chaos. How after all in polite conversation can you explain to an Arab intellectual that the GDP of Jordan or Morocco has something to do with an array of men in the early afternoon stuffed into coffee shops spinning conspiracy tales, drinking coffee, and playing board games while Japanese, Germans, Chinese, and American women and men are into their sixth hour on the job? Or how do you explain that while Taiwanese are studying logarithms, Pakistanis are chanting from the Koran in Dark-Age madrassas? And how do you politely point out that while the New York Times and Guardian chastise their own elected officials, the Arab news in Damascus or Cairo is free only to do the same to us?

Victor Davis Hanson

Zaphod B

Not sure what you were attempting to accomplish by just copying and pasting Mr Davis Hanson's thoughts - especially since you just stuck them there without any kind of comment of your own, as if one man's opinion somehow serves as conclusive proof that your argument is correct. One man, i might add, who refers to Chomsky and those who would dare to take him seriously as "Wackos"... because obviously unlike Chomsky, clearly Hanson is totally objective and doesn't lean at all to the right eh...

Er so they cut heads off in the Middle East... it's deeply unpleasant but they did it in France up to (and including) 1977. France isn't generally considered to be in the Middle Ages these days (nice opportunity for sarcastic comments for all fans of Freedom Fries there). Plus lynchings and mutilations would surely never happen in America eh... oh, wait...
His argument consists almost solely of "They're stuck in the Middle Ages!" and he refuses to accept that there might be any cause for this that isn't the fault of the people of the Middle East. Again... what a "Fair and balanced" view.

I'm not saying everything the man says is wrong. I personally don't think we can go lay all the blame at the door of the West. But perhaps we could discuss this further if you actually comment on what he says rather than simply paste it.

pork99

Originally posted by Zaphod B

I'm not saying everything the man says is wrong. I personally don't think we can go lay all the blame at the door of the West. But perhaps we could discuss this further if you actually comment on what he says rather than simply paste it.

I could not state the case as eloquently myself.

I feel that the most articulate postings on this board are pro-Islamicist terrorist so I enlisted the help of Mr Davis Hanson to say what I believe to be the truth in an attempt to restore some balance.

Again I would not support all his stances. He is a bit too hawkish in other articles. The war against Islamic fundamentalism is a war which must be fought and won but it is a war which needs to be fought "smarter not harder".

For example I saw a programme on Channel 4 about American effort to combat al Quaeda in Yemen. They have imprisoned a lot of terrorist suspects and they got anti-al Quaeda Muslim clerics going into the prisons to argue against the fundamentalist reading of Islam. Just a small example.

The Americans put a lot faith in their carrier groups, stealth bombers, armoured divisions etc but theses weapons and these thing can still come in handy. However we could be in a conflict where these things are as useful as the Maginot line in WWII or cavalry in WW1. We're fighting a new type of war with the weapons appropriate for the last war or the war before that.

By analogy with WWII Iraq is probably an unnecessary front in this war like the campaigns in Norway in 1940 and Crete in 1941. However in those campaigns it would have been better if the "good guys" had won.

halkar

The war against Islamic fundamentalism? Who is in war? am I missing something Pork99? Last 2 wars wasn't because of Islamic fundamentalists. Or was there Christian fundamentalists then?

If you leave me alone I won't touch you. Simple fact of life. West are trying to slave these people, it is not up to you or me or anybody to judge the way they live. Why not first find the root of the problems and try dealing with them instead of going for crusades again?

Sand

The war against Islamic fundamentalism? Who is in war?

The Jihad that the Islamic fundamentalists are fighting against their enemies in Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, China, Indonesia,Morrocco, Turkey, Spain, and the United States of the top of my head.Some of the nations they are fighting are oppressive and cruel and others arent but they are all enemies of the Islamic fundamentalists. Dont act surprised.

If you leave me alone I won't touch you. Simple fact of life. West are trying to slave these people, it is not up to you or me or anybody to judge the way they live.

Actually the wests interests traditionally go as far as ensuring the oil supply continues and Israel is relatively protected. They have tended to follow the line of reasoning that so long as these two concerns are addressed then theyve no issue with whose in power in the middle east, they can work with all of them. Assad, Saddam, the shah of iran, the saudi royal family - all these have been allies of the west because they kept the oil flowing and could be discouraged from doing much more than talking big about Israel. Even the fundamentalists in Iran could have been American allies if they hadnt taken the US hostages and threated to cut of the oil supply. Look at Gaddaffi.

So youre right - in a way the west supported the slavery of the middle east to these dictators. They didnt care what went on, they probably comforted themselves that to intefere would be neo-imperialism, that it was what the Arabs really wanted, it wasnt for them to judge how the Arabs dealt with their free thinkers or pro-democracy types.

That cant be allowed to continue any longer - the Middle East is a disaster as a result of this policy and a prime recruiting ground for Islamic fundamentalists who are exporting their terror. Whether you support the overthrow of tyrants on principle or simply wish to protect the west out of pure self interest then it is clear the Middle East must be fixed. When religious leaders are screaming for the murder of westerners without any censure then it is very much for us to judge.

Why not first find the root of the problems and try dealing with them instead of going for crusades again?

The root cause are the regimes in place and the willingness of the west to deal with them. The destruction of Saddams regime is just, and it encourages other regimes in the region to reform before they too become seen as part of the problem - Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next. The Saudis in particular need to decide pretty quickly if theyre fundamentalists or in favour of western reforms such as greater freedoms, and at least an effort to bring in secularism and democracy.

dathi1

Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next.

BULL....Gaddafi was already making waves of reform with the west long before the Iraqi Invasion and Occupation. He's a wise opportunist who has turned his back on the so called Arab leadership...and who would blame him. He now has a grand view of setting up a new pan African economic zone with Libya at its core. So far as his support for Palestine hasn't wavered and he never liked sadam. He also like sadam has his yearly death quota on Islamic extremists. Same old Gaddafi

halkar

First of all it is not Jihad that is going on and don't mix the Jihad to terrorism. Both are different things. Jihad what might be coming but not what we see today.
What wouldn't suprise me is if the west doesn't get their act together and once in their history support these nations peoperly without discriminating for their religions, lives and respect them for what they are instead of using them just to pull the oil out of their lands so that their fancy SUVs and V8s can bring their kids to schools which are only few yards away.

Originally posted by Sand
......
The root cause are the regimes in place and the willingness of the west to deal with them. The destruction of Saddams regime is just, and it encourages other regimes in the region to reform before they too become seen as part of the problem - Gaddaffi has come in from the cold rather than be next. The Saudis in particular need to decide pretty quickly if theyre fundamentalists or in favour of western reforms such as greater freedoms, and at least an effort to bring in secularism and democracy.

Of course west have no issue with any power in the region as long as they bend over to west, if not they'll get a smack. Is this something that can be proud off? And why should they bend over? Irish fought to British for their independence too and many other countries did so in the course of their history. bending over is not easy when someone comes and tells you how to live your life. Destruction of Saddam did nothing in the region but I wouldn't suprise if it unites the region against US and their puppet state of Israel. Here is your root cause. While US lets Israel to have their nuclear facilities and supports and probably pays for it but if anyone else does in the region it is "no no you can't do that play the game right or else". And what Saudis does none of your and my bussiness. They are not coming and asking you to change your government, are they?