Entire Middle East Not Worth the Bones of a Single US Marine

DiamondHearts said:
I believe mr. waters does have a point.

In this post-9/11 era it is acceptable to the American masses to compare Arab and Islamic people as the anti-thesis of the West and the Western culture, yet to do this is to pray on the ignorance of populace.

This is our biggest problem, we have a huge problem with PR. Thanks hypewaters for trying to correct the great amount of damage done against our people. I am just sad that not everyone can see this.

May I ask mr. dixon if you are familiar with any Arab or Muslim people in your personal life. I hope we might be able to have a friendly conversation.
Click to expand...

Sure, I know (knew) a dozen westernized (even christianized) arabs, I do admit they are just generic as we are (except religion in some cases and stronger family ties). However, to claim that Arab "values" are the same as american is little bit too much. Yeah, we live in the unification age of consumerism, but it's not uniform yet.
 
"It could be as important (one got to live somehow), but one thing is "important" and another "to turn around". There - it's important, here it's "turn around" even if it's not that important anymore. Yeah, I greatly doubt that Arabs charge their grown children rent, or do they?"

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your meaning, dixonmassey. Would you please say it another way?

"we live in the unification age of consumerism"

Many, including Americans I know, are moving past that.
 
To make it clear, my friend, what values exactly are we discussing?

I believe that Arab and Muslim people have alot in common with American people, especially universal believes of peace, compassion, brotherhood, and love for freedom.

Also, there have been Christians living in Arabia for centuries, Muslims and Christians get along well in the Middle East.
 
I've read a book about Detroit before and shortly after Americans took it over from French. The way of life of these two WESTERN people was strikingly different. French - relaxed, not in a hurry, live and let live (Indians), profit is important but up to the point, less economically "productive". American - business is above all, everything and everybody is the mere resourse to make $, everything in a way of making $ should be removed (Indians), etc., etc.,

Those were similar civilizationwise, religionwise people. You, on the other hand, claim that no differences in a way of life and values exists between people of different religions, different state of societary development (more traditional Arab, and more atomized civil societies of the West), different economical principles (it's still, if not deadly sin, but something not to be proud about, to charge an interest on a loan in Muslim countries). I greatly doubt that Arab families in Yemen anxiously await the moment when their child will hit 18 to push him out of a house (or charge rent), buy an RV and enjoy what is left of life. Are there retirement (nursing) homes (communities) in Yemen? Is there social security, medicare, etc.? If not, how do they live without? The place of women is also the same across the pond? I could continue, but significant differences do exist despite ongoing unification into the global amorphous mass of consuming wage-slaves and less fortunate.
 
Last edited:
The US and UK's meddling in Iraq reminds me of the parable, "Take the log out of your own eye, before attempting to remove the speck in your neighbour's eye."
 
Exctly, tablariddim

And dixonmassey, you're obviously confusing consumerism with values. Once you look beneath superficialities, you'll understand. Can a "primitive" Yemeni enjoy the increasingly-elusive "American dream?" Of course. Can a whitebread American enjoy life in a vanishing, remote, Yemen? I did.

I don't mean to single you out when I say that you share a dangerous arrogance with many Americans, who assume that our consumer society is invulnerable, and that it somehow validates our "American values" as unique and superior. This is a dangerous illusion.

Just as when Native Americans were feeling secure about the unchanging nature of their societies at the coming of the Europeans, new winds of change are blowing now. The global footing that American affluence was built upon over a half-century ago is shifting fast. Some are seeking to mislead us into believing our misfortunes are the work of foreign scapegoats.

You'll understand events much better if you lose the misguided notion that Arabs or Muslims have values so alien to our own. I'm here to tell you, as are any Arabs whom you can get to know personally, that the concept that "they" think differently than you is a vicious lie expressly designed to trick you into betraying the values we all share.
 
Thanks, Ghost, you have clearly expressed what would be the unanimous sentiment of the world, if Lord Sik-Us' sick fantasy was carried out. An identical response will surely result in the event of an endless counterinsurgency, that ultimately can only inspire all remaining subjects of the occupation to become insurgents, right down to the last man, woman, or child still breathing atop "our" oil reserves.
 
Lord Sithis said:
I wonder how much napalm is needed to turn iraq and particullarly Iran TO GLASS
Click to expand...

There is a problem with that.

Napalm can reach a burning temperature of 900-1,300°C °C. That's the old stuff used in Korea and such.

A glass furnace for glassblowing operates at 1400-1600 °C.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2002/SaiLee.shtml
Hence no amount of napalm will turn iraq or particularly Iran into Glass.

However, super-napalm burns at 1,500-2,000°C. That's more like it.
http://www.vietnamese-american.org/b2.html

However, burning an area with napalm is not the same as heating the inside of a furnace. Sand is transducing the heat and so if the air. The maximum temperature will therefore not be maintained for very long at the boundary where sand meets air.

Also note that you made several spelling errors. Please return to your nearest elementary school for re-education.
 
I'm sure he'd much rather a trip to a North Korean gulag. I hear the re-education is second to none. Of course, it would be a mind opening cultural experience and I'm sure it might even change his world view :)
 
madanthonywayne said:
The US is trying to change the face of the middle east, to bring democracy to a region that heretofore has known only tyrany. We're condemned by the Sunni's, the Shia's, the Iranians, the Saudi's, and our own media. Our attempt to bring democracy to the middle east is described as imperialism. All we see on TV is death and destruction and images of Muslims denouncing the US.

What is the result of all this? A growing resentment of Muslims in general and a sense that bringing democracy to Muslims is not worth the loss of any US soldiers.
Click to expand...

You and I disagree on a lot of things, but I agree with this post except some of the above quoted text.

The reason why democracy will not succeed in the Middle East is the people don't want it.

That's the point of a democracy, is it not? You can't impose or force democracy on a people that don't want it. The people have to want it themselves. When they want it, they will go to the ends of the earth to fight for it (like the American colonies did and like in Georgia's Rose Revolution).

It is one reason why America's attempt to have a democracy in Iraq was doomed to fail from the start, barring a miracle.

In the long run, Iraq will be a democracy, but first it needs to shake off the religious schism between the Sunnis and Shias. That rift is completely dragging down almost every aspect of Iraqi society, including the (oil) economy, domestic security, services, revenue transfers, etc... . Until they can peacefully sit down with each other and have rational discussions, we shouldn't even bring up the idea of democracy.
 
terryoh said:
The reason why democracy will not succeed in the Middle East is the people don't want it.
Click to expand...

What evidence or logical reasoning do you have to support that assertion? Is it just because there's a few radical Iraqi individuals who are blowing other Iraqis up?

Baron Max
 
Hey, i dont mean Genocide, i just am saying that a sudden evacuation of all the citizens of Iraq or Iran could seriously reduce the number of places terrorists are. they would be in ghost towns, after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders, who would probably come out more. maybe i should have specialized. Im not saying line them up and shoot them. But if we evacuated the population in a few days, that would shorten the time to find terrorists and topple Iran's leader, who is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons.
 
O and thanks for pointing out the spelling errors. I do support the war, but not total Genocide. If the people are out of the country, and the terrorists are in the country, would destruction of the terrorist held areas be bad if we just rebuild it for the people later?
 
"after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders"

Please be serious. If you have even rudimentary perception, you know that people don't appreciate forced relocations, and you know that refugee camps are desperate places and breeding-grounds for terrorism.

"Iran's leader... is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons."

What specifically are you talking about?

"If the people are out of the country, and the terrorists are in the country, would destruction of the terrorist held areas be bad if we just rebuild it for the people later?"

OK it seems that either you aren't being sincere, or you have a lot to learn about the world, Lord Sithis.
 
Lord Sithis said:
Hey, i dont mean Genocide, i just am saying that a sudden evacuation of all the citizens of Iraq or Iran could seriously reduce the number of places terrorists are. they would be in ghost towns, after we move the people of Iraq and Iran out, then find the terrorists and the leaders, who would probably come out more. maybe i should have specialized. Im not saying line them up and shoot them. But if we evacuated the population in a few days, that would shorten the time to find terrorists and topple Iran's leader, who is sending terrorists armor peircing weapons.
Click to expand...

The best way to solve such a complex problem is to first change the American attitude. Not all problems need to be solved through force. What we see in Iraq is the particular result of a policy which is based on force and military methods.

Why don't we just accept peace with the Islamic world, eliminate the reasons for the rage of those fighting America. Let's end occupation, and let's stop acting like Islam is a devil religion. Perhaps if you treat the people of Iraq and Iran as human beings, they won't be so pissed off with America.
 
Equitable relations have worked before, and it's completely reasonable to expect that they will work again.
 
DiamondHearts said:
Why don't we just accept peace with the Islamic world, eliminate the reasons for the rage of those fighting America. Let's end occupation, and let's stop acting like Islam is a devil religion. Perhaps if you treat the people of Iraq and Iran as human beings, they won't be so pissed off with America.
Click to expand...
DiamondHearts, haven't seen you in a while. Welcome back.

Anyway, I'd say we're treating the people of Iraq like people already. We're spending billions of dollars and thousands of our soldier's lives to protect them from the extreemists.

If we pull out prematurely, it will mean we no longer consider Iraqis people. It will also mean we consider Islam a devil religion unworthy of our efforts. The people of the middle east "not ready" for self government.

That's the point I'm trying to make. We are there because we are treating the Iraqis as people. After decades of cynical deals with despots, Bush decided the time was right to begin treating the Iraqis like people. He believed, perhaps wrongly, that the Iraqi people would embrace democracy if given the chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top