Let me ask you something Fred: How come the exact same people, in the exact same type of regime can be terrorists when they don't agree with you, and suddenly become God's gift to humanity when they do and vice-versa:
Example:
1- Yasser Arafat
2- Saddam Hussein
3- Moammar Kaddafi
--------------
I thought you would mention the Poeple's Mujahedeen. Never mind. But you are prefectly right: They are terrorist (ennemies) when they don't agree with us (and in the ME that means that they want to kill us), else they are friend. I don't see what so strange with that. Maybe you would like us to take as friend those who disagree with us?
If a person change his mind and start to agree with us there is no reason to stay at war with him. We are rather happy instead. Wouldn't you?
_____________
This is a part of the world where a great deal of wealth exists. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and everyone would do anything to get that piece of the pie, supporting dictators, supporting terrorists, supporting gangs....This is by no means restricted to those who you call terrorists, but to everyone, including the west.
----------
It's not that simple. In the West we have financial agencies rating countries for their "business friendliness". That includes, among mayne other factors, human right records because dictatorships are known for being usualy bad for business.
Such rating by agencies like Standard&Poors are closely followed by corporations and funds to decide whether to invest in a country or not. (Iaq's rating actualy is pretty low if not the lowest.)
You are right: we don't do that to "help the poors and the oppressed", we do that for business. The problem (in your theory) is that business as we see it needs personal and political freedom. For example US-based human groups have always been worried about Saoudi's strict macho sharia law because it didn't fit with our "business friendly standards" and precluded a certain level of risk given the large trade the US has with them.
For the same reason, supporting terrorists or dictators is not compatible with our business strategy. If some of our politicians (Bush, Chirac or whoever you like) did so, it was a mistake.
_____________
There are also the open markets. Do you know that reconstruction is a huge source of income? Who gets deals to rebuild when you invade? An Iraqi company, or a Lebanese company, or a Russian company? No my dear, the invaders do. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars. And do you know why? because there is no monitoring. The level of corruption is huuuuuge. And it is in the hand of a few elite and the invaders. Got it?
Which country's products flood the markets? Which countries gets priority to every business deal there is?
----------
I don't see what's wrong with that. The americans occupy iraq, it's normal that they promote their products there.
By contrast the russians opposed the war against Saddam. Why should they have any reconstruction contract now?
_____________
I do not mind you being here. If it hadn't been you, it would have been someone else. But to say you are angels on a mission to save the world!!! Come oooooonnn.......
---------
I never said we were angles. When did I say that?
_____________
You are as bad as the lot of them. You are slightly worse for one reason only: You were able to succeed (which is not a compliment). The others were no match. That is all.
Yes....You give money to the ME out of your own pockets Fred. So let me get this straight: You have enough money to build your countries, support your economy, go to wars that cost billions of dollars per year, and then still have enough to give trillions to people half-way accross the world- For Free- just out of the goodness of you hearts. Right Fred? Ever wondered how you can keep coming up with these funds Fred?
---------
I don't understand this question. What "goodness of our heart" has to do with trillions of dollars? I'm lost here.
===> Please write shorter sentences.
_______________
Bottom line, you can't have influence here unless you are willing to do whatever it takes to keep it.
Dear Fred, it is about economy, it is about controlling the world's biggest oil reserves, and nothing else. You want to make it look like you are on a mission to save the world, be my guests.
--------------
Controlling the oil reserves and watching what those who gets the money out of those reserves is the same.
I never said we tried to save the world. But we try to keep the business there profitable and to do so we have to monitor the area. In case of unrest, excessive dictatorship, local tribal wars, saber rattling by self-fanatized presidents or other worrisome events, we eventualy have to bring in troops and act militarily to protect our petroleum interrests.
If the world, or this part of the world is about to collapse it's the role of the oil lobby to save this part of the world.
________________
I doubt the West has this much interest in the people around here whereas ALL, and I mean ALL the regimes they support are dictators and are oppressive to their people. I doubt they are here to save the day whereas they sanction terrorists as long as these trerorists are on their side. If you really wanted to monitor where the money you so gracefully give goes, you could put conditions to open schools or hospitals or whatever. But, no. It is better to give it to a few corrupt leaders to do your bid instead.
---------
No, it isn't. As I said above, their rating would be far higher if the local politians were less corrupts and gave more money to schools, orphanages, hospitals etc.
And these rating by financial institutions are very serious and followed by investors. We give far less money when they don't open schools and hospitals than when they do. We give far less money when they oppress their own poeple than when they don't. Everybody would like to invest in China because it's the highest growth market you can imagine. just one problem: their human right records. But no one would worry investing in Norvegian, Swedan or Danish stocks since their human right record is stellar and their corruption level the lowest in the world.
Giving to a few corrupt leaders doesn't pay off and the business world knows it.
________________
What the west is doing now is simply what the west had done since forever: Colonialization. Only the 21st century style. You don't see anything wrong with it because you simply come from a history of colonialization. And you are treating people here the way people are always treated in "colonies". The only difference now? It is more subtle.
-------------
But you don't know what colonialization is. When the King of Belgium (I know this story because I'm belgian) funded with his own personal money, the exploration of Congo, he decided that the explorated terrirotories belonged to him as a private ownership.
Three quarters of the region known today as the "third world" was so owned by western monarchs, for whom state ownership and private ownership made little difference.
Now look at today: The only place where a western country is the administrative authority through occupation is Iraq. And this situation is wobbly to say the least.
The locals have much more power over their land than what the most powerful superforce today can project.
How come a small faction numbering a few hundreds poorly trained militiamen can have a balancing effect with a 160,000 hyper-modern force?
IMO that's far from colonializing.
_____________________
Reality is: The West is a PLAYER, not a referee, and they play as dirty as the rest of them. A little more it seems because they have succeeded in putting their hands on this wealth.
Here enjoy, a blog written by a soldier stationed in Iraq.
Quote:
Working with 1920s – A Sunni insurgent group we’ve been battling for months, responsible for the death of my friend and numerous attacks, agreed to fight Al Qaeda alongside us. Since then, they’ve grown into a much more organized, lethal force. They use this organization to steal cars and intimidate and torture the local population, or anyone they accuse of being linked to Al Qaeda. The Gestapo of the 21st century, sanctioned by the United States Army.
This is the reality of what the West does and who they fight with. FYI, Hizbullah does not terrorize the locals or steal cars. I have to thank Ahk for opening a thread about this blog on IAP
------------------
No, the west is not these "sunni insurgent groups". Last time I checked, "sunni insurgent groups" didn't qualify as "The West".
It's completely wrong to say that WE do what THEY do.
What is important is that they don't shot at american forces and that they help the americans in the hunt for al-qiada members.
Stealing cars and racketing the population is a relatively secondary problem, but the americans will eventualy ask these groups to stop such practice because it deters the fight against al-Qaida.
Now try to pretend you are a shiite in Lebanon but you are against Hezbullah. You'll see what happen. Consider yourself happy if you can keep your car or, should I say, if your car can keep her owner (alive) more than 24 hours.
______________________
Why is it when you stockpile weapons and make wars that kill a million person and displace millions, you still think humanity is safer with YOU having all the weapons Fred. When was the last time Iran killed 1 million people in less than 3 years?
--------------
Ok, ok, Iran "only" killed half a million in the Iran-iraq war.
But Iran never had nukes so far. When they will have nukes I'll tell you how many they have killed with them.
___________________
Israel "crossed the borders" and attacked Syria last week. Why didn't the UN react to this "act of war"? Would Syria be justified to have the same reaction Israel did when Hizbullah "crossed the borders" and kidnapped the soldiers? I bet it wouldn't right Fred? Only YOU have the right to have weapons. Only YOU have the right to decide who gets weapons. And Only YOU can kill with weapons and be justified. Right Freddie?
What a bunch of arrogant people you are!
----------------
What Israel does and what Syria does has nothing to do with "our right to have weapons" or anything connected with us (the West). Well, anyway, as you bring up the question, I would say that from OUR point of view, we and our friends are indeed the only ones to have the right to have weapons and that our ennemies don't have this right.
Syria and Iran however would say that it's the West and Israel who don't have the right to have weapons. Why should we allow those who will eventualy fight against us to get weapons? I think that all this is logic. Not arrogance.
