09-20-2006, 11:41 PM | #351 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
You really think that the 'moral interest' goes any farther than rhetoric, especially when you look back at our foriegn policy? We've backed more than our fair share of dictators and we continue to do so when we find it convenient to our interests. One needs only to look at Saudi Arabia. Realistically, we are in the Middle East because the ME has oil. That is NOT to say the war was fought over oil. But, I think everyone has to admit that no one would give a flying fuck about the ME if they had no oil. We wouldn't need to have friendly governments in the region, wouldn't need to ensure stability (then again, taking out Saddam kind of messed that up), etc.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
09-20-2006, 11:46 PM | #352 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Agree with your second point (more or less), but your first point has nothing to do with what I was saying. What I am saying is not that we claim a moral interest, but that we HAVE a moral interest, regardless of what anybody says. |
|
09-20-2006, 11:53 PM | #353 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Quote:
Whose morals are we talking about here? What we are doing in the Middle East goes completely against my morals. Face it, we really could care less about their well-being. As long as they keep selling us cheap oil, that's all that matters. That's always been our stance towards the Middle East. If we are so concerned with peace and prosperity, why don't we leave these nations alone to deal with their own problems instead of sticking our nose in and screwing things up? And why are we only concerned with the Middle East? Why does Africa get the cold shoulder? Or the rest of Asia? Last edited by Jonathan Ezarik : 09-21-2006 at 11:15 AM. Reason: Fixed a typo |
|
09-21-2006, 05:07 AM | #354 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
I would say that is an overstatement of "As long as they keep trading fairly." |
|
09-21-2006, 09:38 AM | #355 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
Speak for yourself. |
|
09-21-2006, 10:38 AM | #356 | ||||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
The reply above was to a statement made about Muslims in general. Yes, I do believe, in general, on average Muslims care about the economic differences (of course!) and do want our 42" HDTVs (or fully stocked grocery selling all sorts of foodstuff at reasonable prices). This is obvious to me. Quote:
You're right that the West has repressed these ME countries. The West has repressed Malaysia (Muslim), China (Buddist), India (Hindu et al), South Africa (?), other sub-Saharan African countries (?). Do these countries blame the West for their problems? The answer is yes to a certain degree and scale, but not to the extent we get from the ME. So the question is why not? Probably a combination of factors (1) economic prosperity (or the vision of it) (2) education (3) lack of religious figures inciting it (4) et al/ Quote:
I do not believe we helped install Saddam. We did help him fight in the Iran/Iraq war. Your last sentence is interesting and I would like to explore that more. Before doing so, can you define what 'government that suits their needs' would be? Quote:
If (and unfortunately not the case) there was peace in post war Iraq, this paragraph is moot. |
||||
09-21-2006, 11:18 AM | #357 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
|
09-21-2006, 11:26 AM | #358 |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Do you speak for the rest of the US when you say "We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity"? The only time I have ever heard anyone mention something like this was once it became clear to everyone that Iraq didn't have WMDs and the administration was scrambling for ways to justify the invasion. |
09-21-2006, 11:50 AM | #359 | ||||||
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bossier City, LA
|
Quote:
It might be obvious to you, but it's wrong. You're looking at this from the wrong angle. Don't confuse our values with theirs. Their culture is completely different from ours, and until we realize that, nothing will ever change. Quote:
Have we repressed China, India, etc.? If so, not nearly to the scale ( ) of the ME. Have we orchestrated coups to overthrow popularly elected officials in China? Have we really interfered with India's affairs? On the other hand, look at Central and South America, where he have always imposed our will. There is quite a lot of animosity towards the US. Just look at Chavez. Quote:
Do you really consider Afghanistan a success? Quote:
"Concerned about Qassim's growing ties to Communists, the CIA gave assistance to the Ba'ath Party and other regime opponents.[4]Army officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_...#Rise_to_power Quote:
I don't know what form of government would best suit the Iraqi people, but the current government was written under the supervision of the US. Basically, the US told the Iraqis what kind of government was best for them and they had better follow along. Quote:
The administration was convinced that resistance would be minimal, right? So why were they handing out rebuilding contracts even before Saddam fell to American companies? If they were so convinced that they could trust Iraqis, why not give them business? Why were Americans flooding into Iraq before Saddam fell? |
||||||
09-21-2006, 11:51 AM | #360 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
I believe our nation has such a responsibility. It's a minority opinion, but in my case it's not a new one. |
|
09-21-2006, 12:03 PM | #361 | ||
High School Varsity
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Afghanistan has to count as a success (even considering the fuck-up at Tora Bora), and I doubt many would many challenge that. It remains to be seen whether the new government will hold; things have taken a bad turn lately. But the primary mission was to kill or capture Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and if I recall correctly it has been reported that 85% of them were killed or captured. The goal was to retaliate against those who had directly attacked the United States, and the mission was accomplished. Kudos. Quote:
This is partially correct. The CIA did help to bring the Ba'ath party to power in Iraq. They were, of course, worried that Iraq was going to go Commie, and that the Ba'athists could prevent that. At the time Saddam wasn't running the show. Then, as you noted, the US did provide support during the Iran/Iraq war, including authorizing the sale WMD's to Iraq. Similar things happened throughout the Middle East during the Cold War... It was a playbox for the CIA and the Soviets to fight their proxy wars. In the final analysis these actions may or may not have been necessary to the successful conclusion of the Cold War, but even they were justified in that sense, there were a lot of people who were badly used by both sides in the Cold War, and a lot of injuries were inflicted that have not been forgotten. |
||
09-21-2006, 12:23 PM | #362 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
This is all paraphrasing and apologize if I miss some nuances, but basically ... Clinton said that GWB should not try to 'allow' torture in general by removing restrictions (ex. on torture). In the best case scenario (ex. the hypothetical scenarios of impending attacks etc), setup a specific law for that on a case by case basis. He used the example of AQ #2. If we picked him up and we believe he knew things, 'bang him up' to get the information after GWB specifically signs off on it. If it was that important to 'bang up' AQ #2, then its important enough for GWB to be accountable for it. I like this compromise. Use it if you absolutely need to, but know that you will be accountable for it. |
|
09-21-2006, 12:48 PM | #363 | |||||||||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
I'm still trying to understand why something obvious to me is not obvious to you. Its not because you believe I am referring only to Muslim extremists. Do you believe I think 'on average Muslims only care about ...'. I naturally don't mean 'only', I really mean they 'care'. Quote:
Quote:
I'm pretty sure Panama, El Savador, Mexico historically held alot of animosity but they have worked past it and now tolerate/like us. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Edward64 : 09-21-2006 at 01:05 PM. |
|||||||||
09-21-2006, 01:05 PM | #364 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
If we have a 'moral interest', we sure as Hell don't act upon it. I like the idea of trying to spread democracy to the ME, but when we embrace Saudi Arabia that whole argument rings hollow.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
09-21-2006, 02:06 PM | #365 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
I don't disagree with this. Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is incredibly embarrasing. |
|
09-21-2006, 05:22 PM | #366 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Quote:
Why is our current relationship with Saudi Arabia embarrassing? My initial thoughts are: I don't view them any more or less moral than any other consitutional (or is it parlimentary) monarchy or benevolent dictatorship. |
|
09-21-2006, 09:16 PM | #367 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: New Mexico
|
Quote:
It is illegal to be Jewish in Saudi Arabia. They have done as much as any state in the region to exacerbate the various tensions. But they, by which I mean the royal Saudi family, pretend to be our friends, so we tolerate them. |
|
09-21-2006, 10:08 PM | #368 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Well, I don't consider our relationship with Saudi Arabia to be embarrassing (that was st. cronin's view). But I'm more of a realist in international relations terms. HOWEVER, our relationship with Saudi Arabia IS embarrasing if you decide the goal of US foriegn policy is to spread democracy by any means possible, including force (ie, neo-conservatism). Consider Saudi Arabia is not anything close to a democracy and won't be for a looooong time, embracing them while campaigning for democracy just serves to undermine any moral claim that we are interested in spreading democracy. Also, morally speaking, Saudi Arabia has an abysmal human and civil rights record as it concerns its citizens and guest workers. Also it is a theocracy (all citizens must be Muslim and it runs itself according to the Quran [or at least it's interpretation of the Quran] and Sharia). Values antithetical to stated American ones.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
09-24-2006, 01:42 PM | #369 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Speaking about Rushdie, the Sunday AJC had a quote from him
Quote:
I know the phrase "permanent outrage" is simplistic but rings true for me. |
|
10-09-2006, 07:41 AM | #370 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Back in Houston!
|
Well, I'm not sure how I feel about this. At least it's a non-violent way to deal with the problem but clearly the gulf is widening between the two sides.
Quote:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/53595 SI
__________________
Houston Hippopotami, III.3: 20th Anniversary Thread - All former HT players are encouraged to check it out! Janos: "Only America could produce an imbecile of your caliber!" Freakazoid: "That's because we make lots of things better than other people!" |
|
10-09-2006, 08:52 AM | #371 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Jan 2006
|
Quote:
Tell our Canadian soldiers that are coming under attack almost daily that Afghanistan has been a success. The Taliban is flooding back into Afghanistan in the Kandahar area and is more active that ever. Mission not accomplished. Kudos. Last edited by Oilers9911 : 10-09-2006 at 08:53 AM. |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|