So why get rid of the Taliban, don’t give me the ‘they won’t tide over to US interests’ B.S because then you’d have to explain the Saudis, the Taliban repressed the population of Afghanistan and made it relatively stable, and numerous civilians have said this in Kabul etc, so why go to that trouble and rid of that stability when you could possibly make more in supporting and proping them up?
You don’t say… Iran has pipelines? The blasphemers! Hiding the gifts of Allah underground instead of transporting them by mule caravan to give openly recognition and praise to Allah’s greatness.
Off I am to issue a Fatwa and organize the Jihad to teach the satanic devils a lesson.
I knew it. I knew it. I should have used the words “Reds” or Commies” to reach out to your level.
I can ask the moderators to use a language I master to answer your posts. I’m sure you can give me a list of which languages you would prefer.
But you know what? This truly intelligent high-school-kid style remark of yours made me conclude that every second I spend on writing a post to you in no matter which language shall be a waste of my valuable time.
Hence you are also not worth the effort for me to post here a list of studies, articles, publications on the subject (and even in English so that I can be sure you can read them).
However, nothing prevents you to visit a library and educate yourself about the issue. At the same time you shall get educated about the fact that life - and especially the reality of life in political and diplomatic circles - is never as simple as your posts make clear that you believe it is.
(Nothing prevents you to open a thread on the subject either.)
Salaam. A
Well, this was an interesting thread, with an valid topic that might have lead to something good. Not anymore, though. Now it’s just a shit fight, and a boring one at that.
Not following your choice of language, threads like this would indeed be far better off without the demonstrated highschool-style interventions, hijacking the topic.
Salaam. A
Oh, well. Sorry if I offended, I just hate it when good threads go down due to petty animosities and propagandizing.
I think you had a good point initially, albeit one that was quite inflamatory, but your flamethrower responses to anyone who asked a question or disagreed didn’t bode well for conversation.
I can’t see what the hijack is, but enough has been quoted for me to see what’s going on. Ignore the hijacker. There’s plenty of bits of my hair in that particular brick wall and I’ve decided to just to knock it down and walk right through it. My blood pressure’s a lot lower. 
I still think that it would have been easier to go through the UN and lift the sanctions and start to do business with Saddam again if the US really wanted just oil. The Iraqi people need massive psychological intervention and to change the paranoid, helpless worldview most of them have been raised with, and I think the election is the best we can do right now. When they see Allawi wave goodbye and walk out of office for his successor, that will do more to win hearts and minds than anything else–they have never, ever seen anybody leave power voluntarily, poor things.
Do you think there’s a possibility that will happen? Allawi seems like Karzai - the only way an ‘interim’ Prime Minister / president makes sense to me is if they promise to step down when the real guy is selected. I think Allawi wants to keep power, to be honest…
I don’t know, good question. I have to find out if he’s running himself. I hope not (and FWIW, I like Karzai).
Changing major factors about the election will also mean changing the new Iraqi constitution, BTW. Would they have time for such a meeting before Jan. 30?
Well, I’ve been looking at articles in the Times like this one and 1) parties are running, not individuals, and 2) I see nothing in these articles to indicate Allawi is involved in a party and/or is interested in obtaining an office. I’ll keep looking.
Where do I say I was offended by your post?
I was talking about the type of immature posters who take every occasion to launch an attack on a word I use in a language I didn’t study. That alone is already a hijack of a thread.
Inflamatory? Writing the truth as answer to the question of the OP is “inflamatory” to you?
In my opinion you seek to place fault where there is none.
I repeatedly pointed out to the hijacker that this was not a thread dedicated to discuss the issue of pipeline contracts or whatever he wanted to go into (up to my use of the word “Russians” in his prepared attempt to play wiseguy on highschool level), following my true remark that it is an underlying reason for the US to get hold of Afghanistan.
Salaam. A
Mehitabel, since for you every Iraqi is mentally ill etc… : Why do you bother to try to come across as being able to discuss anything regarding Iraq?
Salaam. A
Aldebaran -
I don’t want to discuss the ‘hijackers’ of this thread, I just want to discuss the OP. Do you, from your unique perspective of being both Arab and European, have anything supportive to add? Got any suggestions on how to improve Arab-US relations, perhaps solutions that might actually get us somewhere in preventing more Iraqi deaths short of bankrupting the US?
catch-22 trying to please Arabs, rather than doing what is right, trying to please only leads to appeasement.
Like I said:
The US electorate had its occasion to show at the very least that they do not support the actions of their government.
Instead they showed that they DO support them and give them an other mandate.
I followed the election night (it was night here) live on different TV channels. Hence I know how many didn’t want to have Bush back andI knew that long before already.
Do you think the Arab street made that effort?
Do you think they see anything else then the US supporting massively Bush?
Do you think they read/hear comments from all over the world and come to a balanced opinion about the division in the US electorate?
What they see is Bush back to business. It doesn’t even matter that many have no opinion on Kerry or that they see Kerry as only an other one with the typical US agenda = probably not much different then Bush. They see the US popul
They see the US population rewarding a president who has no respect for Muslim life.
A man who has no respect for international law
A man who lies, cheats,invades, let situations like Guatanamo and the horrors in Iraq happen.
Above that: A man who talked about "crusade"and who talks about being inspired by God. (and both these things combined are among the most stupid things Bush has send as “message” to the Muslim world).
I see no way this US presidency/administration can everr repair what it has done and in my view “you ain’t seen nothing yet”, indeed.
The same, less loaded because of absence of the influence of the Islamic religion, mind culture, sensitivities, is how the results of this election is perceived by people in the EU (at least the circles I frequent. Which is also spread among several nationalities).
Bush is the typical arrogant US cowboy, dumb but macho and thinking he is the Law (of the world, in his case).
Now if you want to talk about politics (both Arab and EU) we have a more diverse picture, yet still the same aversion for Bush and disgust because of the results of the election.
Powell at NATO asking for more EU comittment (in terms of troops) in Iraq got as result the promise to increase to 300 soldiers the 60 who are now involved. Not what I would call a sign of willingness to help cowboy Bush with resolving his self sought problems. Germany France, Belgium, Spain, Greece categorically refuse still to send one single soldier to Iraq.
When Powell leaves and Condleeza Rice takes his place it can only become worse.
I’m already looking forward to witness the arrogance of Bush when he visits the EU in February.
If that would have been Kerry, you would have seen an other attitude towards the demands of Powell already now.
Not that there was that much trust in Kerry on forehand. Just to see someone else then Bush as next US president would have been already an important factor.
I don’t think there was ever a US president who was able to get that much despised internationally (and especially when that counts even among the US allies) then Bush.
Salaam. A
You got a better idea?
You come up with countless critisisms of the American military, US administration and its allies, US lifestyle and its social environment, yet remain silent on issues concerning Arab regimes, Arab militants, militant Islam, the social environment etc, I wanna hear from you a better idea or strategy for dealing with the Middle East without making the situation worse.
And because you’re such an Einstein on this subject, it should be easy for you.
So lets hear it.
Sitting on our asses isn’t gonna get the US anywhere on terrorism, although I didn’t agree with the invasion, trying to implement some change where waiting for it to happen would of taken generations would of been more of a disaster, a good example ,you don’t just let a tumour grow, you try and cut it out and devise ways of trying to stop it growing again.
trying to keep the status quo is ridiculous when it clearly isn’t working. Nice examples are Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. But then again after the invasion there at least approaching the idea that changing some of their repressive policies are a good idea.
Because he is, and this is what ingratiates you, the fact you cannot do a damn thing.
Heh. Coincidentally, Thomas Friedman of the NY Times makes the same point I was trying to in his column today.
Yes. I too am astonished at the gulf between the Iraqi-Americans I know–secular, open-minded, entrepreneurial–and the overly-religious, fearful, self-destructive people they came from back home.
Mass psychosis. Yes, yes, I know not ALL Iraqis are like that, but many of them are. And it’s one of the problems in winning hearts and minds–some of the minds are broken. I don’t know how we can deal with this except to integrate Iraq more and more into the world Saddam tried to shield them from.
And Ryan_Liam, you mean well but I hope you’re not holding your breath. Been there, done that, along with many many others.
Look, it’s simple - I asked if you have anything positive to offer. Twice.
Twice you have responded with tirades about how bad Bush is, and how stupid Americans are for electing him, how terrible the American military machine is, how many Arabs have died as a result of it, how illegal the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are, and how any other voice (i.e. Kerry) is so totally marginalized that no one can hear it and the Americans as a people are too stupid to elect him anyways.
I don’t really disagree with too much of that, to be honest. But I have also come to the realization that it isn’t helpful and certainly doesn’t make for a debate - people on both sides are just too passionate. But we are where we are. Is there anything you can think of, other than throwing up your hands in horror at the situation, that we can work with in the existing structure to make it better?
For instance, would it be helpful if mainstream (i.e. Moderate) Muslims cast out the fundamentalists among them? If the moderate Islamics put ‘skin in the game’ and offered to take over policing activities in Afghanistan or Iraq?
This isn’t a one-way street, where America does all the bad stuff and everyone else sits and watches. Everyone has a voice - care to use yours for something positive?
And? Does that mean that I need to invent something positive when there is none just to please you?
Wrong and strange out of context/besides the point comment you give there.
Read my posts in this thread instead of thinking about what they are not.
My posts in this thread give my observations of:
- The common = non-political, non-intellectual, non-business circles = general Arab interpretations and reactions.
- The common = non-political, non-intellectual, non-business circles = general EU citizens interpretations and reactions. I point out that they are more moderate because of the absence of influence by what adds to the Arab reaction (being Muslim, being Arab = background, reasoning and culture of the ME).
- A few remarks on how the reaction is in intellectual/business circles in the Arab world, pointing out a significant shift towards mistrust of and staggering difficulties with (and this at my personal level also) the USA under this administration.
- A few notes about the reactions at government/diplomatic level both in the Arab and the EU and on an even more international level: NAVO/UN circles.
I couldn’t be less passionate. I describe the truth of the situation as I observe it internationally.
It would be beneficial for the US if the US citizens would make the effort to become interested to get insight and understanding of the rest of the world. That could even have led to a more balanced view on the man they re-elected while being wilfully blind.
Why don’t you come with a proposition?
So you imagine I hide them in my basements, finance their training and ammunition and all my connections do the same, or what is this insinuating?
There was already a member on this board spreading the good news that I am a recruiter of terrorists. More specific: I am only for that reason on the SDMB.( Really on itself already a shining example of intelligent observation, seen the overwhelming presence of Muslims around here.)
One is already enough, thank you.
Why? Because they are Muslims?
You want Muslims to get blown themselves in the air in order to have the US soldiers flying home = the Muslims can get themselves killed to secure the US economical/geo-strategic interests in Islamic nations the US invaded and messed up?
Actually, the rest of the international community is far more involved in Afghanistan then the USA, after the US bombed a devastated nation back to the stone age.
At least the US had in that case a mandate from the UN. I did not agree with the use of military violence at all. That did not stop me to do what I was in a position to do at the time. Yet it eally comes as no surprise that the general mindset in the USA prefers to cultivate and entertain the idea that the US needed nobody but the US to get the US bombers over Afghanistan.
Still busy in Afghanistan, the US choosed to invade Iraq against the will of the UN.
The US said repeatedly it would only listen to its own voice.
The UN was not only declared superficial and “outdated”.
The UN had for the US no role to play at all. Not before, not during not after the invasion. No surprise that the US can clean it up now on its own, is it?
If they succeed they have nothing done to ask credit or reward for. You break it, you pay it. That does not change that the owner still owns it.
The problem with the US is that they are always most ready to break it, that they next expect others to pay for it and clean it up and that in the end they still want to act as if they are the owners, including ownership of the owners themselves.
And then you ask someone who is at the owner’s end to come up with “something positive”?
Do you really believe the US shall ever give up its military bases in this region, including the ones that are now planted in Iraq (and I don’t even want to think about their locations), as long as the US has economical and hence strategic interests there?
But you want “the Muslims” go risk their lives to secure the US capitalistic interests in yet an other Islamic nation that is ruled by a US puppet government.
That shall in your view put an end to the grievances among the Islamic populations in the region and hence stop them from flocking to the Lunatics who preach Jihad.
I can only say: It is always nice for people to have a dream.
Salaam. A