So we picked a fight with the Moslem world. Why?

[Skidmore]

1. Greedy oil barons of the West and other coporatists were threatened by losing their wealth and need the Eastern oil fields to maintain their power.

2. The ME needs to be made safe for the only democracy that counts to AIPAC.

3. The Cold Warriors needed a new war to keep the defense industry booming and they don't know how to live in a world without war.

4. All of the above?

[bryant69]

1. All of the above and more

But each person pushing this course of action may have different motivations. And of course most of them don't see it as a war against the Muslim World. Others, like Ben Shapiro, clearly do.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com (look for the post called "We've Got the Whole World in our Hands" for info on Shapiro.

[PATRICK]

7. Need a competitor

In the current triumphalist capitalist model there is a need to polarize a phony competition ideology that is not real competition(look at our relationship to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, the home of terrorist, money and WMD) so that pyramid scam capitalism can have it all ways and keep the enemy(rising consumer classes) divided and in their place.

It is just that crude as far as the buck goes. The other sham enthusiasms
are just motivators for the middle managers of chaos. It all comes back to enslaving the world into an economic class system that uses human suffering and repression as enriching and controlling mechanisms. It matters little whether the players understand this few do, or see the atrocious harm and doom(none do) of such misplaced priorities. With actual personalities and ideas you could argue forcefully for other things, but what does it matter without the warped economy to serve it up?

Religion other than to money is a direct threat. The Islamic world seems a bit more content with spiritual things over material acquisitions than other religions and therefore something to fight for reasons opposite to another competitor- godless communism. That and racist geography and oil.

Surely in the number of criminals against humanity we can compete vigorously against vision besotted terrorists? Of course we can. Greatest nations on earth always do.

[cthrumatrix]

29. add the dollar in danger of no longer being the petro currency of choice

[Zenlitened]

2. Well, I'd argue there ARE religious crazies out there who do want to...

... destroy us precisely because we are Westerners.

That said, it makes no sense at all to give the crazies tools to incite other people against us, too.

Ya wanna disarm the terrorists? Support peace, prosperity and opportunity all over the world.

[atreides1]

3. But you forgot something

The religious crazies who call themselves Christians, that advocate the destruction of those in the East.

Do the terms End Times, Armageddon, Second Coming, ring any bells?

Those are not terms used by the religious crazies in the East, but they are used by the religious crazies in the West.

[Zenlitened]

4. Oh, believe me, I'm well aware of the fundie fuck-up whack-jobs...

... right here in what remains of the U.S.A.

They won't LET me forget them, not even for a day.

Thought I'd omit my customary rant, though, to avoid dragging the OP off-topic.

:hi:

[Skidmore]

9. Yes, they are used by both.

It doesn't matter which holy book you thump, fundamentalism is fundamentalism.

[Flavin]

11. But You Forgot Something Redux...

The west has supported and funded a long term invasion of the ME for over 50 years.... Israel.

Flavin

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Not!

The creation of Israel was not a "long term invasion."

[Colorado Blue]

21. That's a ridiculous and offensive statement. Israel is the

homeland of the Jewish people, wherein we are indigenous and have resided continuously for thousands of years.

Perhaps you'd like to describe the United States and Canada as the long term invasion of the North American continent?

[Doo_Revolution]

23. Look up the facts.

Israel's government is the home of zionism, and a completely self-serving above all belief system.

Not the people of jerusulem, but its military based governance.

[Colorado Blue]

28. WHAT? Israel is a democracy, multi-ethnic and multi-cultural.

She is also an established FACT, thus the continuous misuse of the world "zionism" is both outdated and offensive in this context.

"Zionism" was the movement of the Jewish people to establish and maintain a homeland - period. Now that Israel has been established one should refer to her as one would any other democratic nation-state. The continuous bigoted attempts to delegitimize her people or her purpose are becoming wearisome. But worse they are distracting us from discussing the REAL problems faced by the people of the Middle East, who are caught between two worlds, conflicting religious and social ideals, the industrial might of the west and pastoral economies of the east. Additionally they are confronting environmental problems, lack of water, lack of employment and opportunity, corrupt governments, burgeoning populations and war.

If you have ANY real empathy for the people of the Middle East, who are NOT all Arab, not all Muslim, not all one KIND of Muslim, and who all deserve a better life, please start focusing on THEM and lay off the big excuse for these problems: Israel.

Otherwise we'll be so busy demonizing one group of people we'll destroy them and never be able to help the rest.

[Doo_Revolution]

32. This is not about what you say it is.

*Zionism* used to be the establishment of Israel according to the history books.

It is, with no consent of the people, not any longer about that.

Now today this is what *Zionism* is.
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200409200836.asp

That is what it is and it is about overtaking the Middle East & its oil. Is Ariel Sharon democratic? No, and that country is not any kind of democracy anymore.

Have you heard of AIPAC at all?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com

[Jim Sagle]

35. Oh yes it is, and you goddamn well know it.

[Doo_Revolution]

36. No, it isn't. And you'd be wise to study it....

Things change over time, as do governments and they do so without anyone's blessing.

[Jim Sagle]

37. They have honest elections there, unlike here.

It's called Ohio. Check into it.

[pelsar]

47. elections.....

last i looked outside my window we still have freedom of the press, our knesset still has to be elected our prime minister has to fight to keep his seat..

sounds like a democracy to me....

[rman]

49. Yeah, and the US is a 'democracy' to...

[TomClash]

41. Well . . . not exactly

"The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews."
UNISPAL Home

League of Nations 30 July 1921, AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATION OF PALESTINE,during the period 1st JULY, 1920--30th JUNE, 1921.

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/349b02280a930813052565e90048ed1c!OpenDocument

[brindis_desala]

45. I have a theory on what happened in the Middle east post WWII

The Brits deliberately fostered Muslim extremism both to antagonize Israel and retard the Arabs to exploit their oil. Israel's mistake was not listening to Ben Gurion (and Einstein) but once the U.S. failed to denounce the British strategy which had nothing to do with fighting communism as Eisenhower supposed, it may have had no choice. But in pursuing the occupation Israel sold its soul. It's such a pity because the nascent Israel with its cooperative socialism was so inspiring. I weep for it, knowing what the West have done so cynically to destroy that. Even now nothing rankles more than seeing some young wingnut from Canarsie plop himself in the Holy Land for a week then promptly claim to speak for the Jews. AIPAC nonwithstanding the true friends of Israel are still Democrats as the last election proved.

[Jim Sagle]

34. Absolute garbage.

[TomClash]

42. I'm not too sure about "Invasion"

Emigration and, in some cases, deportation are more accurate words.

[Gyre]

14. This wasn't a religion-based divide

40+ years ago. Since then America and Britain decided to arm Israel with nukes, America to use our Security Counsel veto every single time to keep Israel from being censured by the UN, and fight the '67 war for them from the decks of the 6th Fleet.

The above combination of insults has, over time, been correctly interpreted by every Islamic nation as overt hostility towards them and their beliefs by America (aka Israel). Of course, Egypt sold out for $4 billion a year in direct support from the US, which additionally, acts as a damn small "fig leaf" for America when she's accused of favoring Israel.

Islamic radicals, being inherently weak militarily, target whatever appears to be vulnerable points in any country that has actively or passively assisted the political isolation of their home countries. Since Israel (the real focus of their anger) is militarily much tougher to attack than the more democratic and open "aider and abetter" countries, that tends to cause Islamic terrorism to appear to be focused on Christian countries. But the truth is that we're just proxy victims of Islamic anger at Israel. However, that is the last connection that AIPAC and Israel want you to make, and so they take out anybody with any power who utters that or any other related truth which impliedly would lead a target country to that conclusion.

Gyre

[Coastie for Truth]

18. Oil! Oil! Oil!

We have passed the "peak" of "Peak Oil" - we are burning oil faster then we are finding it.

1.) Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein
2) Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak by Kenneth S. Deffeyes,
3) Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage by Kenneth S. Deffeyes
4) Peak Oil Group on DU
5) Energy and Environment Forum on DU

We have an economy and a society that is as addicted to oil as a down out junkie is to crack - or as Bush is to his "Jim Beam and Coke"

1) The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century by James Howard Kunstler

PEAK OIL AND 9/11

Our "response" to Peak Oil has been a military response. One of many multiple causes of 9/11 was that we put US troops (including females) on the holy ground of Saudi Arabia to protect the oil from "terrorists" and Saddam Hussein.

Our response to Peak Oil has been ever closer relationships with the House of Saud and ceding ever more control of our Foreign Policy to "Big Oil." Another of the many multiple causes of 9/11 was that many in the region perceive that the US is exploiting (in the Karl Marx sense) the Arab proletariat by supporting Big Oil.

Again, as our our response to Peak Oil has been ever closer relationships with the House of Saud, it is only natural that another of the many multiple causes of 9/11 was that many in the region perceive that the US is backing the autocratic House of Saud.

All PEAK OIL

Ancient History of Petroleum Politics --

1) A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by F. William Eng dahl
2) Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East by John Kay

with a description of the "Sykes-Picot Agreement"


The Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 16, 1916 was a secret understanding between the governments of Britain and France defining their respective spheres of post-World War I influence and control in the Middle East and remains much of the common border between Syria and Iraq.

The agreement was negotiated in November 1915 by the French diplomat Georges-Picot and British Mark Sykes. Picot was far more experienced and managed to get much more than he was expecting for France.

Britain was allocated control of areas roughly comprising Jordan, Iraq and a small area around Haifa. France was allocated control of South-eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The controlling powers were left free to decide on state boundaries within these areas.

The area which subsequently came to be called Palestine was for international administration pending consultations with Russia and other powers. This area, subject to significant subsequent controversy, had the following borders:

* Southern: approximately mid way between Blah and Gaza, eastwards to the Dead Sea in a horizontal line, passing north of Beer sheba and south of He bron.
* Eastern: starting at the Dead Sea in the south it proceeded roughly due north along the river Jordan to Lake Tiberius and a few miles north of the lake.
* Northern: a line approximately west-northwest from the area just north of Lake Tiberius, passing barely south of Taft to met the sea approximately mid way between Haifa and Tyree.
* Western: the Mediterranean Sea.

This agreement is viewed by many as conflicting with the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence of 1915–1916. The conflicting agreements are the result of changing progress during the war, switching in the earlier correspondence from needing Arab help to subsequently trying to enlist the help of Jews in the United States in getting the US to join the First World War, in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration, 1917. The agreement had been made in secret. Sykes was also not affiliated with the Cairo office that had been corresponding with Sheriff Hussein bin Ali, and was not fully aware of what had been promised the Arabs.

The agreement was later expanded to include Italy and Russia. Russia was to receive Armenia and parts of Kurdistan while the Italians would get certain Aegean islands and a sphere of influence around Izmir in southwest Anatolia. The Italian presence in Anatolia as well as the division of the Arab lands was later formalized in the Treaty of Severus in 1920.

The Russian Revolution in 1917 led to Russia being denied its claims in the Ottoman Empire. At the same time Lenin released a copy of the confidential Sykes-Picot Agreement as well as other treaties causing great embarrassment among the allies and growing distrust among the Arabs.

Attempts to resolve the conflict were made at the San REM conference and in the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which stated the British position that Palestine was part of the excluded areas of "Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus".

The agreement's principal terms were reaffirmed by the inter-Allied San REM conference of 19–26 April 1920 and the ratification of the resulting League of Nations mandates by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement
The Sykes-Picot Agreement - which was by its explicit terms and conditions contrary to the "Balfour Declaration"
1) Was a product of the need by the UK and France to protect both oil and access - through the Suez Canal - to East Africa, the oil fields of the Middle East, and South Asia.
2) Really provided for a regime of weak warring tribal entities on the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean - so that the UK and France would be the "powers" and would not have their hegemony threatened.

[TomClash]

43. Pretty much the only reason for the Iraq War

is Oil along with defense contracts.

[Colorado Blue]

27. That is just dumb. The stress between the East and the

West, between Islam and Christianity and between ancient and modern, predates Israel by millenia.

The issues are so much greater and more complex than these oversimplistic conclusions; indeed I would even say bigoted conclusions. One grave danger is that we will be sidetracked into these blind alleys and neglect to address the far older, deeper and more serious differences that divide us from certain groups of people in the Middle East.

Further, any serious study of the relationship between Israel and Britain in particular will reveal the fact that the Brits did their damndest to prevent the establishment of Israel, blockaded the region before, during and after the Holocaust, disarmed Jewish fighters who'd supported them during WWII, threatened to side with the Arab armies (indeed, one was led by an Englishman) during the War of Independence in 1948, and armed the Arabs. After the War in 1948 the Brits refused to recognize the State of Israel for nine months.

The relationship between Israel and the US is equally complex albeit, since the late '60's, somewhat friendlier and more reliable. But the US is also dependent upon Arab oil and has screwed the Israelis more than once - notably, arming Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons during the '80's and playing into Saudi hands throughout all three Bush Administrations.

Neither of the two Great Powers "gave" Israel nukes. Both, however, have used her intelligence services and military power throughout the decades. Israel is as much a pawn as any of the Arab states, and in many ways far more vulnerable.

[lala_rawraw]

5. Because...

We needed a scapegoat, same family as last time, only the other side. Last time around, the Prescott Bush's of the world used Muslims to help the Nazi movement. This time around, Bush current is using Jews as a wedge to help scapegoat Muslims.

But even that is too simplistic. However, first I would suggest that you use the correct term to describe followers of the Koran: Muslims not Moslem. Second, I would encourage you to specify that AIPAC does not for Jews speak. Much like the Muslim Brotherhood does not for Muslims speak.

It is dangerous to allow these people to label everything and make it all very simple, neat, and organized. Jews = AIPAC or Israel is responsible for US policy, etc. I think you need to make a clarification or better word your argument on that point.

As for the oil barons, that is nothing new. But this goes beyond oil. This is Imperialism, which is nothing new, just more accessible given the 24/7 media. We have done this before and before there was US there was UK doing it alone.

Finally, the cold warriors could have continued to sell drugs. This is not about a war machine for "war" it is about exploiting resources for profit and as such, this started long before the cold war.

[Skidmore]

8. I use Moslem because the dialect of the language the

Moslem I was married to for 20 years pronounced the initial vowel sound more like a long "o" sound. To me that is a legitimate spelling and pronunciation of the word. Tomaytoe. Tomahtoe.

Second, tell AIPAC it does not speak for the Jewish people. It's membership sure seems to think it does.

Frankly, I believe this war is the result the alliance of the above groups. Everyone is scratching everyone else's back, politically and economically, and could care less about the fallout. Peace is not profitable. War provides the vehicle by which peoples and resources may be coopted and manipulated.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. I don't think so.

AIPAC doesn't claim to speak for us. It is others that conflate Jew and Israel, then get pissed when we call them on it.

[olacan]

6. wait a minute

look back in recent history at the number of attacks against Americans and other country's and see who was responsible. Unfortunately there is a segment of the Muslim world that have been using violence to make there point. Now before anyone gets there panties in a wad look back I said segment, not all.

[pelsar]

13. olacan...

your going to ruin a great conspiracy theory that puts the blame squarly on the US and israel.....or so the above threads so subtly and not so subtly indicate.

I mean like, you mean look at arab/islamic culture and hold it responsable for the actions of their own societies?

you mean like blame liberal societies for being liberal and attempting to balance liberal freedoms with limited resources?....and not blame facist dictatorship/theorcratic societies for producing populations that have no idea what civil rights are all and fight to keep out western ideals (like freedom of the press) from their societies?

i think your in the wrong forum/discussion group for that train of thought.....

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. As long as the military/induxtrial corporatists had the soviet union

as an excuse to maintain their overblown military procurement and armaments systems, the "attacks against Americans..." were considered a criminal matter. Only after the cash cow of communism collapsed was it upgraded to a threat against our national security. IOW, we had to have a new enemy. Notice how quickly we abandoned the fight against the people who actually carried out the 9/11 attacks, in favor of securing the Iraqi oil fields. If we had put a fraction of the money and manpower into catching BinLaden that we put into Iraq he'd have been finished years ago, but that would not have suited the purposes of the Halliburtons and KBRs of this country.

[rman]

48. There's a segment of US power that finances terrorism.

Listen to Sibel Edmonds and Indira Singh.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. Constant crisis and warfare are necessary

to reshape the US into a fascist oligarchy - there are powerful people in this country who do not respect or trust democracy, and who are determined to mold the country to their beliefs.

[seejanerun]

16. All of the above and

as a means of social control--of US citizens, that is.

[newyawker99]

20. Hi seejanerun!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Coastie for Truth]

19. See append 18

[pelsar]

24. and in 3 years?

so what happens to all these wonderful theories about the US dictatorship, take over the world.... blah blah blah. in 3 years when there are new elections?....and a new president takes over?..with his own people?

oh yea..there wont be elections because of...

btw what ever happend to the invasion of iran that was supposed to happen in june or july?

samething that happend to the elections that Bush was supposed to call off last year

and the draft that was supposed to be?

i think my tin foil hat is getting kind of weak with the constant batter...anybody got a new one for me?

oh yea..i have some shares in the zionist enterprise if anybody wants some. I admit I really do like being part of the most powerful group on the planet...but I also want to share the wealth

[Sterling]

33. .....

"so what happens to all these wonderful theories about the US dictatorship, take over the world.... blah blah blah. in 3 years when there are new elections?....and a new president takes over?..with his own people?"




Look at the people, see who's people they are, then we talk about continuity of the policies we are discussing.





"btw what ever happend to the invasion of iran that was supposed to happen in june or july?"




It looks like some sort of confrontation with Iran is coming, are you suggesting that one is not likely? What do you think is going to be done about Iran?




"samething that happend to the elections that Bush was supposed to call off last year"




Why call off an election you can easily fix?



"and the draft that was supposed to be?"



SO there will be no draft? You seem to think that since one has not happened yet there will not be one. It defies the reality of the prospects on the ground in Iraq and other area's.

[pelsar]

38. the future...

i cant read the future, so i refrain from making idiotic statements about: the us will attack in iran in june, draft is coming in march.....US will nuke .....etc etc etc.

the US forces are presently not in need of a draft in the present situation....the army is not looking to send more troops to iraq+ the training involved today to create a soldier is very unlike that of previous years, not suitible for the typical unmotiviated draftee.

i rather doubt the US will attack iran...if you knew something about the irans geography, population etc you would realize its would require leveling their cities. They will probably impload by themselves in the years to come as their students get fed up with their tyrannical/theocratic/fanatical/dictatorship that is ruling them......

the election process in the US involving the senate/govt create a govt that is at best temporary, this includes those who make policy. It limits the term for the presidency for a reason....and Bush shall no longer be president afterwards. That means all of his advisors will probably lose their jobs as is the tradition...and that kind of ruins all those wonderful "bush plans on ruling the world" conspiracies...that is called reality

its difficult to rule the world when you only have 3 years left to be president...and all your advisors go with you.....

[Sterling]

39. ....

I think most of us here understand that it's far bigger than Bush. It's actually the DLC types that do not understand this. It's not about "Bush" ruling the world it's about American oligarchs ruling the world.

They have a controlling interest in both political parties which assures that their policy needs will be met regardless of the turn over of DC office staff.
Lets be sure we don't put words in each others mouths ok? You are creating straw men to discuss this topic with by painting the opinions and perceptions of others in such an inaccurate way.

[pelsar]

46. thats something else entirely....

thats simply the ruling elite doing what ruling elites have been doing since time began..attempting to stay on top...be it the cave man keeping his women or the multi billionaire paying minumum wage or less (dem or rep)

But before you go and start claiming that the US elite is the worst of the worst wouldnt a look at history both the US and the world (and other countries) to put everything in to perspective?

how about we take a look at the elite of say Russia? iran? France?....lets compare...after all nothing exists in a vacuum.

(this thread however, gave me an entirely different impression)

[Sterling]

51. Interesting, more strawmen?

Why you would defend one of the worst aspects of human history is beyond me. Why you would defend the class system is something you should reflect on.

I was not aware that we were discussing the level of evil inherent in the ruling classes of different countries either. Your argument sounds like freeper logic. It reeks of "if you don't like America then leave".


Are American elites the worst of the worst? Probably not but they are bad enough and they are a more immediate problem when it concerns our own domestic problems.

At least you have conceded that our system is controlled by means that are beyond democratic. That was the discussion at hand. You asserted that policy would change when new suits moved into offices in DC. Most of us here can see beyond the scripted "CNN Crossfire" dynamic you seemed looked into in your first response. Now you claim that "it's just routine" that democracy is usurped as a matter of practice. The two "realities" don't mix.

Your attempt to distract and avoid has failed.

[pelsar]

52. wandered...

i think we wandered way off base here......anyway my assertion was not that ruling elites are a "good thing' but there is something that appears to be part of human nature. Even the famous kibbutzim which had incredibly strong socialistic ideals and sent everyone to the fields...had their "ruling class" and as the economies got more and more sophisticated and demanded more expertise..they stopped going to the fields..so if the question is "is the US system really democratic"...perhaps the real question what is a viable real alternative?

please note the emphsis on realistic: there are many small societies that exist today: be it he quakers, amish, etc and they all have some form of "elitism" that renders the ruling class as "special". I am neither defending nor promoting it... however I am recognizing it as an aspect of societies that exist today dispite efforts to eliminate it.


but as new "rulers do enter office" things do change: obviously the difference between bush and clinton as presidents is quite glaring......so my assertion that things do change remains true...its a matter of degrees. However neither of them, nor those past or future will change the fundementals of the US governing system. Such a change only occurs under extreme failure..which is not the case with the US system.

there was no attempt to "distract and avoid"...i do neither intentionally, discussions many times in both real life and on the internet "wander between subjects"...also a part of human nature.

[Sterling]

53. Some things change but not things that matter to the elite.

That is the bottom line. At this point elections in this country are little more than bread and circuses to appease the ignorant masses.

Keep in mind as humans evolve we seek to overcome the worst parts of our nature. Class system like Slavery is something that the human race should not be complacent about.

[Doo_Revolution]

22. All of the above......

The country, and the middle-east needed to be prepared to hand over its oil to the country's greatest liberator. Ariel Sharon and the AIPAC force of zionists.

[dogday]

25. O.I.L.

Oil
Isreal
Location

[Warren DeMontague]

26. Israel is a red herring. The only interest Bushco has in Israel is

for when Jeebus comes back. Then the Jews are screwed like the rest of us unbelievers.

I would stick with #1 & #3.

[Tinoire]

30. All of the above n/t

[Mr.Green93]

31. Because Islam is a threat to xthians

Fundies are frightened that Islam will be the worlds dominate religion.

[ApBai]

40. 5. None of the above.

9/11

[USA_1]

44. "we"???

"We" did not do any such thing.

Bush and his reich wing criminal conspirators did all of the above and worse. They started war for all of the reasons you cited.

But neither you nor I nor any member of DU did. So please be mindful of attributing Bush's crimes (however inadvertently) to anyone else.

[Sterling]

54. It is we.

Sorry it sucks but it is true. If you mean we as in DUers then most of us have been working against what has been done in our name. If you are talking about our party leaders for the most part they have helped Bush so it's not just Bush. When Bush is gone, even if somehow H. Clinton is elected you will see the same kind of policy on these kinds of issues.


It is done in our name even though we sincerely oppose it.

[kiki]

50. Can't have a "war without end"...

...if nobody wants to fight you.

[Rich Hunt]

55. good questions, but...

Isn't it really a fight with the Arab world?