You're repeating what they say about AMERICAN POLITICS. What do they know? Seriously. I know it's hard for you to think logically , but try it some time. They're obviously saying these things (if they're actually saying them) because they know partisan artards like yourself will fall, hook, line and sinker for it, further seperating this country.

YOU'RE the one "aiding and abetting" terrorists.

Off to Gitmo with ya!


Uhhhh... if you look around, people that talk about American policy in the ME don't get there talking points from terrorists. They usually get it from history.

You, on the other hand prefer, to listen to them.


LOL!

Then by all means, share it here so we can ALL view and commment on it.

P.S. I know what you're talking about.

If anyone is a fool with his head up his ass it is doggie boy. If he thinks the terrorists are going to tell the world who they really want to see in the white house he has been lapping up their horse crap with great gusto.

Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has pissed all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism[/b], so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (madrasas I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.

They use terror to attack our economy, the dead are just bonus propaganda. OBL also believes EVERY single word in the Koran...as does President Iadmitjihad.
If they were not INSANE, then listening, or speaking, or even threatening mutually assured destruction might stand a chance.

another point...AQ, by AQ's own admission, is bogged down in Iraq. If they have any requests of me, they can refer to the USMC.

Ask the Palestinians displaced by Israeli expansion into the occupied territories if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask the Palestinians and Lebanese killed by US-supplied weapons if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask the Iranians, whose democratically elected government was overthrown by a US/British-engineered coup in 1953 and replaced by the repressive regime of the Shah if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask all the Iraqis killed and repressed in Iraq in the 1980's when we were bolstering Saddam's regime if US policy is pro-Arab abd pro-Muslim.

Ask all the Iranians and Iraqis killed in the Iraq-Iran war when we were supplying Saddam with WMD precursors and military intelligence if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask all the people in repressive regimes we've helped stay in power like Saudi Arabia if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.

Ask everyone who has suffered as a direct result of the current fiasco in Iraq if US policy is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim.


Is the United States indeed the "Great Satan"? Of course not. Like all major powers, we act in what we perceive to be our self-interest. We make mistakes, quite often because we fail to understand the people and the foreign lands in which we intervene.

Part of understanding the political dynamics in the Middle East is knowing that tyrants and radicals will try to rally support by casting us as villains. We do ourselves no favors when we pursue policies that reinforce their characterization of us. We'll never be seen as an honest broker in the I/P conflict when we give Israel our unqualified support no matter what they do. We'll have no chance of projecting a better image when Arabs and Muslims see images of their civilians torn apart by US bombs and Muslim men at Abu Ghraib sexually humiliated by American service men and women. As long as our military occupies Arab/Muslim countries, much of the Arab/Muslim world will see us as the same breed of imperialists that have dominated and shamed them so often in their history.

That paragraph is based on the false premise that we have done nothing to add fuel to the fires directed at us. Such a premise is at best willfully blind to the historical record, and likely promoted by those who stand to benefit from our current interventionist policies in the region. The idea that changing such policies would amount to "appeasement" is completely bogus. It casts a pall of cowardice over any legitimate attempt to reassess the value of and motives behind interventionist policies that have significantly contributed to a perpetual "war on terror" that boosts radicalism and transfers ever larger sums of taxpayer money to the military industrial complex.

I suggest you both read my post rather than rely on your rhetoric.  You both rely on perception rather than reality, which pretty much supports my position.  It doesn't matter what the US does.  The content and argument will change since it is quite simply anti Americanism and not clearly content based.

By the way, Ron Paul is an idiot when he doesn't realize the same.  Either that or he thinks the people who believe him are idiots.

Had you read my post:



You two are doing the same.  Revolutionary Iran by the way has a far worse record than the Shah ever had.


Also addressed.

We don't reinforce it, I suggest you read the number of times the US has actively backed Arabs and even moderate Arabic powers.  That you your somewhat milabeled pap smear of Abu Gharib (the poster child) which in effect you use to literally justify every other Arab and oppressive regime with one small incident where the people by the way were duly punished and what they did was no where near the level provided by others.  The comparison pales when put against Iranian actions, Libyan assassinations, and Afghan depridations.  Imperialists?  A trite word used by wannabe isolationists who think "kumbayah" is just around the corner.  When you two actually, really, get out in the world and do some real, actual business, with these cultures.  Come talk to me.  Its one hell of a wake up call, I will tell you that.

I really hate it when people use the stupidest arguments to justify the greatest atrociites.  If you don't want to read my post, or can't or don't think you understand it, then say so, but please, dear god, spare us the mothers milk of rhetoric and self hand wringing.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (madrasas I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.


Pretty damn stupid statement and its ignorance pisses me off.  Not even relevant.  Military industrial complex?  My god, when will you people leave the 1950's behind.  The so called military industrial complex, which during the 1950's was perhaps an important 20% of the economy has shrunk to less than 4% of the gdp today.  Not only is it less important, it has less influence when compared to the just about any other industry.  Hell, Walmart alone has more employees than the US army does.  That alone makes your argument irrelevant to the point of being laughable.

Again, it doesn't matter what the US does, no matter where we pull away, because the static will still be there, the organizations that hate the US will still be there and the only change will be the content of the hatred.  As I have shown, the US by and large (not perfectly, but definately by and large) has indeed helped the Arab nations.  But of course based on you two and what I find to be a rhetorical isolationist policy that does nothing for the US and everything to enjoin chaos in the regions, US involvement in anything abroad is bad.  

I have made my points clearly, I have shown how the vast majority of US policy has indeed been favorable to the Arabic/Muslim nations, indeed, has benefitted them.  And you two state that all that work has simply failed to impress anyone.  You two have gone a long way towards proving my point.  It doesn't matter what the US does, the somewhat ignorant masses who escaped the eugenics program that osprey seems to want (did it ever occur to him that he wouldn't qualify in the brave new world), are easily manipulated and cannot see the content of large numbers of facts for the rhetoric of a few instances.

If I am a doctor that saves lives, but I happen to step on a fly, that does not make me a killer.

In effect, it doesn't matter what the US does, we follow our policy of self interest and support our allies.

So you want me to ask the populations?  In other words, you want me to see their perceptions in their controlled news media?  Or did you miss this part:



Or are you attempting to tell me the media aren't tightly controlled in most of those nations?


Perceptions versus fact.  Wonderful.  No wonder you guys are so bankrupt.  The US bolstered Saddam's regime to stop Iranian hegemony.  No one else was doing it and frankly, Iran was doing a pretty damn good job of undermining and destroying Saddam Hussein.  So tell me.  Do you actually believe that the Arabs in general wanted a Persian leadership in Iraq?  Are you two that ignorant of the cultures?

My god people, try to THINK for once in your lives.  I just can't believe you guys.