Any Serious Ideas on The Middle East?

[Peejay]

The first thing to do is pull the welfare states off the US financial aid list. Between Egypt and Israel, a full 2/3's of all US foreign aid is absorbed. We can't continue to complain about settlements and pay for them at the same time.

You can make any number of rational, logical arguments but the fact is, unless you're willing to dive into the dark religious agendas of all kinds of groups and attack religion, you aren't getting anywhere with this. The Dome of the Rock, the Temple Mount, the Jews, the Christians, the Masonic types, they all have agendas that are older by centuries than anything American. There are just too many idiots focused on a few acres in Israel and they'll gladly put us all into world war III just to see if anything would actually happen if the Temple was rebuilt. Over centurires, religious prophets have predicted all kinds of messiahs, second comings, etc. Know what has happened? Jack shit. People have lined up and waited, sold all their earthly belongings, taken to mass suicide, tortured innocents to death so they would confess to being spawns of satan. Fact is, the Muslims aren't anymore whacko than the Jews or the Christians. We haven't armed Israel to the teeth for any reasons of right or wrong, it's an age old religious struggle over a fucking spit of sand.

Where is that mushroom cloud pic? yeah....the whole fucking place. Christian fundies, Jews, Musilims...the whole sorry lot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You are insane, if Israel wanted to kill the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank they would all be dead.

No they wouldn't. Israel's leadership isn't so fanatical that it doesn't realize that doing so would lead to Israel's destruction.

And yet retards claim Israel is practicing Genocide. I believe even you have made that claim, I suggest you look the word up.

 

[Kalam]

You are insane, if Israel wanted to kill the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank they would all be dead.

No they wouldn't. Israel's leadership isn't so fanatical that it doesn't realize that doing so would lead to Israel's destruction.

I believe even you have made that claim, I suggest you look the word up.

I believe you're wrong. I suggest you look my posts up before accusing me of something.

 

[mash107]

Golly... we didn't have a Military presence in the Middle East when the Muslims FIRST waged war on the US... Hell we didn't even have much of a Military...

Conceding to Palestinian ("A policy of evenhandedness in the PALESTINIAN WAR ON ISRAEL) demands has never brought ANY OTHER REACTION FROM THE MUSLIMS THAN MORE IRRATIONAL VIOLENCE BY THE MUSLIMS...

Energy independence can only be accomplished by stripping the proceeds of the sale of oil FROM THE MUSLIMS.

You're sounding a lot like a Marxist right now. Stripping property from people? Never thought you'd say that.

Also, I never knew Muslims waged war on us prior to 1914. When and what was this? My history is a little bad around this time period.

Last I checked the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and also the Muslims helped the Turks in WW1.

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Any serious ideas?

A timetable for a military withdrawal needs to be drafted and followed. A policy of evenhandedness in the Arab-Israeli conflict needs to be pursued, and it needs to be made clear to every country that our relationship with each of them will be dependent on their government's treatment of its citizens and those under its control - no more favoritism. Consequently, Israel and most of the Gulf States would have to reform politically or risk losing one of their most important allies. Energy independence would obviously need to be made a priority to make this strategy feasible.

Golly... we didn't have a Military presence in the Middle East when the Muslims FIRST waged war on the US... Hell we didn't even have much of a Military...

Conceding to Palestinian ("A policy of evenhandedness in the PALESTINIAN WAR ON ISRAEL) demands has never brought ANY OTHER REACTION FROM THE MUSLIMS THAN MORE IRRATIONAL VIOLENCE BY THE MUSLIMS...

Energy independence can only be accomplished by stripping the proceeds of the sale of oil FROM THE MUSLIMS.

You're sounding a lot like a Marxist right now. Stripping property from people? Never thought you'd say that.

Also, I never knew Muslims waged war on us prior to 1914. When and what was this? My history is a little bad around this time period.

Well no one's perfect... but hey, I look at it this way... They waged war on us and they're gonna lose that war... "...to the victor goes the spoils..." The moral of that story is, those who are sitting on unspeakable fortunes should not wage war on their best client.

With regard to the Muslims first waging war on the US... it was one of the FIRST GWs most pressing problems...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're sounding a lot like a Marxist right now. Stripping property from people? Never thought you'd say that.

Also, I never knew Muslims waged war on us prior to 1914. When and what was this? My history is a little bad around this time period.

Last I checked the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and also the Muslims helped the Turks in WW1.

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

You may want to read a little History as to who the Barbary Pirates were.

 

[mash107]

Last I checked the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and also the Muslims helped the Turks in WW1.

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

You may want to read a little History as to who the Barbary Pirates were.

I will admit my knowledge of this is a bit hazy; but, overall, piracy is still not exclusive to Muslims nor is it warfare. Attributing this to a group of people is wholly unfair. It's akin to saying white men were responsible for Slavery.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You're sounding a lot like a Marxist right now. Stripping property from people? Never thought you'd say that.

Also, I never knew Muslims waged war on us prior to 1914. When and what was this? My history is a little bad around this time period.

Last I checked the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and also the Muslims helped the Turks in WW1.

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

Pirates are NOT CRIMINALS... Pirates are a scourge on humanity... Piracy is a form of terrorism... Piracy is a crime against humanity.

Piracy IS an Act of War and where piracy can be isolated to a sovereign nation, the act is a demonstration of war against what flag is offended.

The US considered the German sinking of the RMS Lusitania as an act of Piracy and used it as the basis of the US entering WW1...

Where any nation fails to recognize Priacy as an act of war and to destroy such as it would ANY OTHER THREAT TO ITS VERY SURVIVAL, that nation threatens the existance of ALL NATIONS.

Those who today, are attempting to legitimize Piracy by considering it criminality, threaten the very fiber of liberty by so doing.

 

[jillian]

First, we got along famously well with the Middle East throughout most of our nation's history. Prior to 1948, we were doing great with them. Oil was discovered in the Middle East, and U.S. Standard Oil got a lot of contracts with Arabia. Things were fine.

You cannot make a false statement, I am surprised nobody called you on this, there was no middle east, all you have done is made us focus on 1948, that is the wrong starting point for this discussion.

If we cant get beyond this point, there is no discussion

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

 

[Kalam]

Last I checked the Barbary Pirates were Muslim and also the Muslims helped the Turks in WW1.

Well, pirates are criminals, so that's not warfare between two nations. You can't declare war on criminals anymore than you can declare war on theft. All you can do is kill them if they try taking your property. Too bad the U.S. forbids ships from carrying weapons, huh? Seems like Somalian piracy would vanish just like Barbary piracy if ships carried weapons.

And yeah, I know the Ottoman Turks were predominately Muslim, hence why I said prior to 1914. The division of that land upon the Turks' defeat is what led to many of the dictatorships we have today, and the resulting anger.

Pirates are NOT CRIMINALS... Pirates are a scourge on humanity... Piracy is a form of terrorism... Piracy is a crime against humanity.

Piracy IS an Act of War and where piracy can be isolated to a sovereign nation, the act is a demonstration of war against what flag is offended.

The US considered the German sinking of the RMS Lusitania as an act of Piracy and used it as the basis of the US entering WW1...

Where any nation fails to recognize Priacy as an act of war and to destroy such as it would ANY OTHER THREAT TO ITS VERY SURVIVAL, that nation threatens the existance of ALL NATIONS.

Those who today, are attempting to legitimize Piracy by considering it criminality, threaten the very fiber of liberty by so doing.

That's fucking stupid. Piracy, by definition, is robbery or hijacking that occurs at sea. A political motivation or a desire to instill fear is not necessary as it is in "terrorism."

 

[mash107]

First, we got along famously well with the Middle East throughout most of our nation's history. Prior to 1948, we were doing great with them. Oil was discovered in the Middle East, and U.S. Standard Oil got a lot of contracts with Arabia. Things were fine.

You cannot make a false statement, I am surprised nobody called you on this, there was no middle east, all you have done is made us focus on 1948, that is the wrong starting point for this discussion.

If we cant get beyond this point, there is no discussion

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Golly... we didn't have a Military presence in the Middle East when the Muslims FIRST waged war on the US... Hell we didn't even have much of a Military...

The Barbary Pirates? The actions of North African thieves 300 years ago should influence our policies in the Middle East today? By extension of your logic, our closest ally should be Morocco. After all, they were the first foreign nation to recognize our government.

ROFLMNAO... isn't it wonderful how the advocates of terrorism must ALWAYS DISEMBLE AS THEIR PRIMARY TACTIC?

You said the US should withdraw from the Middle-east to appease the Muslim Terrorists... I simply noted that Muslim Terrorists weren't appeased when they initiated their first acts of war on the US ...

And NO... If there were no current examples of Muslims committing acts of war on the US, I wouldn't suggest that we look back beyond two centuries to wage war in Islam.

Of course given the present status of Islam waging war on the Western hemisphere, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to note their LONG HISTORY OF DOING SO and that that history PROVES that appeasing Muslims merely encourages them... the only means to combat Islam is to KILL sufficient numbers of Muslims that the survivors determine they'd
simply prefer to concede than fight.

Now I personally would LOVE IT, if the Muslims decided TONIGHT that they've had enough... but given that its the MUSLIMS that are the aggressors... the war will not stop UNTIL THEY DECIDE IT STOPS. Thus the solution is to stop screwing around and to do whatever is necessary to inflict enough pain on their sorry asses, that THEY DECIDE TO STOP.

Because there is no negotiating with them... they're liars and theives and their religion is a twisted means by which they rationalize their lies and their theft.

Conceding to Palestinian ("A policy of evenhandedness in the PALESTINIAN WAR ON ISRAEL) demands

You seem to be unable to comprehend basic English. "Evenhandedness" implies favoring neither side.

One doesn't treat evil as one treats good... being evenhanded with evil simply provides evil with the means to impart catastrophe... and Islam is pure evil...

has never brought ANY OTHER REACTION FROM THE MUSLIMS THAN MORE IRRATIONAL VIOLENCE BY THE MUSLIMS...

We've never pursued a policy of evenhandedness as long as we've involved ourselves in the conflict.

ROFL... ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT... The Palestinains have broken EVERY AGREEMENT WHICH THEY'VE EVER MADE... WITH EVERY CONCESSION COMES MORE TERRORISM AND MORE DEMANDS... there is no means to treat evil fairly; except to KILL IT...

Energy independence can only be accomplished by stripping the proceeds of the sale of oil FROM THE MUSLIMS.

Energy independence can be accomplished by relying on something other than oil, something that we can produce ourselves, for energy.

LOL... Ain't fantasy CONVENIENT? There is no such alternative and Islam declared war on US sis... thus THEY'RE THE ONES about to lose those spoils which WINNING WARS BRINGS...

Maybe next time, Islam will think twice before they wage war on their best customer... assuming Islam survives to think again.

BTW, most of "THE MUSLIMS(!!1!!!!1!11!)" don't live in the Middle East.

So what?

 

[jillian]

You cannot make a false statement, I am surprised nobody called you on this, there was no middle east, all you have done is made us focus on 1948, that is the wrong starting point for this discussion.

If we cant get beyond this point, there is no discussion

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

While I hate when i misspeak... of course it was wwI... but they also backed the nazi's in WWII....

but thanks for admitting you lied about our "peaceful relations" with the arab world.

 

[Kalam]

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

Umm... that's almost entirely wrong. Most of the Middle East was partitioned by colonial European powers after World War I, not World War II. Iraq gained independence in the early 30's. The UAE was formed after several sheikhdoms, who had created maritime peace treaties with the UK, decided to form a union after the expiration of those treaties (in the 1970's.) Their sheikhs had never been appointed by any foreign power. The formation of Iraq and the UAE had nothing to do with World War II or "Nazis." Your imagined history of the Middle East in which countries were "given" to the enemies of Nazi-supporting Arabs explains your undying devotion to Israel. Somebody's gotta kill those Nazi Muslims, right?

 

[Gunny]

ItsFairmont

Registered User
Member #18984
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 156
Thanks: 0
Thanked 21 Times in 15 Posts
Rep Power: 2

Quote: Originally Posted by Evangelical
I got disgusted when Reverend Wright began to use an impression he got from the Holy Spirit was that we should reflect upon ourselves in regards to 9/11. What a veiled claim that Bush did it or that our bad policies caused such hatred.

Muslims hate us because we're Christian. No other reason needs be given.



I disagree.

First, we got along famously well with the Middle East throughout most of our nation's history. Prior to 1948, we were doing great with them. Oil was discovered in the Middle East, and U.S. Standard Oil got a lot of contracts with Arabia. Things were fine.

Then came the creation of Israel (led by the British), and since we joined sides with Israel (not saying whether that was a good or bad decision), then the Middle East started becoming more hostile toward the USA.

Terrorist activities against the USA by extremist Muslims began after the first Persian Gulf War.

Saudi Arabia let us mobilize troops and equipment in their land along the Iraqi border because the Saudis were worried that Saddam would invade and because we needed the strategic placement in order to more easily get into Kuwait and Iraq to defeat Hussein's army.

After the war, we kept troops in Saudi Arabia, both out of national interest and per their request. Osama bin Laden, having defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan (with US help, since he was our ally), wanted the U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has the holiest city in Islam, and bin Laden (and many others) felt it was a travesty for U.S. troops to be in their holy land.

So, they started striking out at Americans (Kenya, Yemen, WTC twice), etc.


I'm of the firm belief that if we withdrew all our troops from the Middle East, and let the UN handle the Israel situation, then the Muslim world would leave us alone.


Consider this: The nation with the most Muslims is actually Indonesia. We get along with them fairly well.

India has the second largest population of Muslims, and they are a democracy.

The United States has 10,000,000 Muslims, many of whom live in your town, and they aren't attacking anybody.


The problem isn't Muslims. It's politics and empire, just like it's always been.

+++
[Above is from another thread.]

Agree the point about politics and empire. Sometimes I wonder how the world would have turned out if Wilson had been assinated instead of the Archduke.

But we are stuck with Israel. Frankly I would like nothing better than to walk away from that area but the genie is out of the bottle.

Does anyone have any (serious) ideas as to what our strategy for the middle east should be?

What all this boils down to is you think we should withdraw completely from the Middle East because Osama bin Laden thinks we shouldn't be there.

All I want to know is do you carry lunch money? And where do you live?

 

[jillian]

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

Umm... that's almost entirely wrong. Most of the Middle East was partitioned by colonial European powers after World War I, not World War II. Iraq gained independence in the early 30's. The UAE was formed after several sheikhdoms, who had created maritime peace treaties with the UK, decided to form a union after the expiration of those treaties (in the 1970's.) Their sheikhs had never been appointed by any foreign power. The formation of Iraq and the UAE had nothing to do with World War II or "Nazis." Your imagined history of the Middle East in which countries were "given" to the enemies of Nazi-supporting Arabs explains your undying devotion to Israel. Somebody's gotta kill those Nazi Muslims, right?

you intentionally ignore the post where I corrected what I wrote?

whatever floats your boat....

ijit...

you know, i think i dislike people who are that dishonest even more than I dislike anti-semetic, terrorist supporting trash.

 

[Neser Boha]

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

Umm... that's almost entirely wrong. Most of the Middle East was partitioned by colonial European powers after World War I, not World War II. Iraq gained independence in the early 30's. The UAE was formed after several sheikhdoms, who had created maritime peace treaties with the UK, decided to form a union after the expiration of those treaties (in the 1970's.) Their sheikhs had never been appointed by any foreign power. The formation of Iraq and the UAE had nothing to do with World War II or "Nazis." Your imagined history of the Middle East in which countries were "given" to the enemies of Nazi-supporting Arabs explains your undying devotion to Israel. Somebody's gotta kill those Nazi Muslims, right?

you intentionally ignore the post where I corrected what I wrote?

whatever floats your boat....

ijit...

you know, i think i dislike people who are that dishonest even more than I dislike anti-semetic, terrorist supporting trash.

This just makes me laugh!

Yeah Kalam! Didn't you notice where jillian admitted she 'misspoke'? That's her way of saying... "ooops, I just totally pulled that shit outta my ass!"

Talking about dishonesty...

 

[Kalam]

you intentionally ignore the post where I corrected what I wrote?

I began writing the post before yours was submitted. Unlike some, I take the time to ensure that the information I'm posting is correct before I use it in an argument.

That doesn't matter, however. Your post is incorrect even if it applies to World War I. What Arabs, outside of those given political power by the Ottomans, weren't opposed to the Ottoman Empire? Plus, as I said, the formation of the UAE had absolutely nothing to do with either war. Don't let history take a dump on your Nazi Muslim fantasies, though. Otherwise, you may have to invent some other rationalization for Israel's nonchalant destruction of civilian lives.

whatever floats your boat....

ijit...

you know, i think i dislike people who are that dishonest

Me too. There's this one annoying bitch who loves to accuse me of anti-Semitism. Thing is, she can't find any posts of mine suggesting that I harbor any enmity towards Jews or Judaism. So, when she finds herself unable to come up with any substantive arguments in defense of her favorite rogue state, her only recourse seems to be dishonestly accusing me of being a j00-hater.

even more than I dislike anti-semetic, terrorist supporting trash.

As far as people who can't spell "Semitic" are concerned... well... I don't hate them as much as I pity their inability to spell.

 

[mash107]

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

While I hate when i misspeak... of course it was wwI... but they also backed the nazi's in WWII....

but thanks for admitting you lied about our "peaceful relations" with the arab world.

Where did I lie? Read all my posts. I was trying to inquire why PI was saying Muslims first waged war on the U.S., and all I received was something about a bunch of criminal pirates.

If I recall correctly, most Middle Eastern states were neutral during WWII. Turkey was on the Allies side. Egypt and Saudi Arabia helped out the Allies, though officially neutral, while Iraq helped out the Axis. Whatever the case may be, it's improper to generalize an entire religion or race of people to be not worthy of all their inalienable rights. Each person is an individual and alone is accountable for his or her actions-- not that of his group.

 

[Gunny]

You cannot make a false statement, I am surprised nobody called you on this, there was no middle east, all you have done is made us focus on 1948, that is the wrong starting point for this discussion.

If we cant get beyond this point, there is no discussion

There was a middle east. But the statement is an extradordinary lie. one might remind him of the Arabs who fought with the nazis..... which is why, when they L-O-S-T because they backed the wrong horse, their land got cut up and divided by the victors.... and given to those Arabs who supported the Allies.

THAT is why there was an IRAQ, a UAE, etc....

There were Nazis in WWI? Never knew that....

Their land got cut up by the victors after collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

i

The land didn't get cut up after WWI. Only Transjordan got "cut up," meaning states that already existed within Transjordan became countries. Iraq, Iran and Transjordan were all British mandates following WWI.

Both Iran and Iraq tried to broker deals with the Nazis during WWII, as did the "Head Hoo-ya-in-Chief" of Jerusalem. The Axis powers occupied Lybia and most of Egypt for part of the war.

When WWII ended, the "Big Three" divided up the ME. Syria went to France, Iran the US, Transjordan and Iraq to the UK.

Only Saudi Arabia was a staunch US ally throughout WWII because King Saud was buddies with FDR.