Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:05pm PT
|
"And, I don't know anything about the "election" in 1953"
I do, Mosaddegh was overwhelmingly popular, no hint of a rigged election. He was however threatening to nationalize the Iranian oil fields....which is why the us and the brits set up a coup and installed the Shah.
You can stick "election" up your fat uninformed arse.
I'm really amazed that someone who's always pumping his own supposed smarts can be so completely wrong about such basic historical facts...I mean do you honestly believe that western countries have been a positive force for the people of the arab world?
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:18pm PT
|
Jeremy-
Now you've touched on the essential element of "our" meddling in the ME! It was, is, and will always be the oil.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:25pm PT
|
The Brittish wanted the the Iranian guy out in 1953, we merely helped.
The overthrow of Iran's democratically elected premier Mossadegh in 1953 was almost wholly orchestrated by the CIA, led by Kermit Roosevelt, with help from the English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat
But then, to Fatty, black is white.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:27pm PT
|
Wrong, A.C.!
The Iraqui oil was a large part of the Desert Storm operation 10 years ago, as was the interruption of oil from Kuwait.
Afghanistan is a critical corridor for pipeline construction to the Bay of Bengal from the Russian oil fields.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:33pm PT
|
Minor point A.C. since petroleum products are generally controlled by the same companies; BP, Conoco, Exxon, etc.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:38pm PT
|
Disagree Mr Crowley, there's really only one reason we do anything in the middle East, and that includes Iraq...although I'll give you Afghanistan.
As I posted last august....Aug 12, 2010 - 09:03am PT
Looks like the iraq war has finally produced the intended fruit. Oil companies from all the permanent member countries of the UN security council have now secured contracts to develop Iraqi oil resources.
Of course, as Elezarian, Fattrad etc were always quick to point out, the idea that the Iraq war was about oil is the stuff of wacko conspiracy nutjobs. Imperialism?...I'm sure the iraqi people will do very well out of those contracts...don't you think lads?
Just another thing that they were wrong about I suppose.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:44pm PT
|
Gawd, Crowley!
That Socialist screed is as left-liberal a slant as one could come up with!
To quote Margaret Thatcher: "Socialism will never succeed because sooner or later you run out of other people's money."
The Israelis are pissed off because they got the only land in the ME that didn't have any oil.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 30, 2011 - 11:49pm PT
|
The neo-cons like to promote Margaret Thatcher as a "success". Except that it was for the most part based on steadily-increasing oil and gas revenue during her term in office. She promoted neo-con economic and governance policies, and for the most part instituted centrist ones. But she paid for it with oil money. Had she not had that, the fluke of the Falklands War in 1982, and the luck of a feckless opposition, she would have been a one term prime minister.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 12:39am PT
|
I agree with Mighty Hiker on Thatcher. I was in England during the 1970's before the North Sea oil started flowing and they had to take out an IMF loan like any Third World country in order to survive. When the oil's gone, they will have similar problems. Resources and population count more than political slant.
As for Afghanistan, it has been recently discovered that they have huge mineral resources and the largest amount of rare earth metals outside of China, so don't expect us to leave there any time soon. In the meantime, thanks to the Taliban, we are trying to win the hearts and minds there and a lot of good work is being done with building health clinics and schools. In time, mining will replace poppy growing.
Empire is always a mixed bag. Some good, some bad. Just ask any two people from India whether the Brits did more good than bad and what the percentages of one versus the other would be, and you will get a really interesting discussion.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 12:41am PT
|
Just back in from checking the cows--calving time and as usual--coupled with bad weather.
Never said I ever agreed with the occupation policies of the Bush administration. They certainly were rapacious. Not what I would have done...
By the way Cheney isn't well liked in Wyoming, in spite of having a home here.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 12:56am PT
|
Rox-
Glad you're aboard tonight. Good picture!!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 03:09am PT
|
I've been away most of the day, so I'll respond to several posts all at once.
Why, John? Why this need to promulgate? When other forms of government try to export their system we call foul. And what does morality have to do with it, precisely? I've long pondered the very blurred line between religious fervor and patriotism, religion and politics. Here we see the two neatly merged.
Democracy is a voting system, its not a religion. There is no need to spread the word, no supreme directive. The spread of democracy is not a morality issue. Imposing American will on other countries - THAT is a morality issue.
DMT
Democracy difffers from all those other forms of government because, by definition, the government leaders come from the peoples' choices.
Resources and population count more than political slant.
Jan, I agree that's true where the different political slants vary only slightly. The differences between Blair, say, and Thatcher weren't all that great. The differences between Thatcher and Breshnev, for example, were exceedingly great. Those sorts of differences made a much larger difference in the prosperity of the western democracies and the relative poverty of the Communist countries than did resources and population.
Finally,
Jeremy, I think differntly from what you wrote. America finds the Near East vital to its interests becaus it controls a vast chunk of the world's petroleum reserves, and some of its most important trade routes. That said, I support democracy everywhere, and am opposed to American policy that props up autocrats. I realize that's naive, but so be it. As the events in Iran showed, and those in Egypt will, even the US cannot keep unpopular regimes in power indefinitely.
I admit, though, that our resources are finite, and that war is, essentially, the sanctioning of mass murder, so we should not go into it lightly.
As for Iraq, unless you believe the statistical liars, the deaths caused by our invasion pale in comparison to the deaths caused by the rule of the Baath party. I think the invasion of Iraq, given the intelligence available then, is defensible. I think the post-invasion policy -- and specifically the total lack of any plan for what to do after we deposed the Baathists -- was a disaster, and overall, may have done greater harm to the Iraqi people than Saddam himself perpetrated.
John
|
|
ahad aham
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 08:26am PT
|
it's been embarrassing to watch Obama and Clinton flip flop on the Egyptian popular revolts. One moment they are calling for human rights to be upheld, then in an about face they comment that the US still back mubarak's regime. These two points are mutually exclusive. Not surprising though in that this is the Israeli position. Haaretz is reporting that senior Israeli officials in the foreign ministry sent out memos on Saturday evening to US and other embassies asking for the continued support for mubarak. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-urges-world-to-curb-criticism-of-Egypt-s-mubarak-1.340238
I'm sure Israel's amen corner here is putting the pressure on the administration and obama and company must tread a fine line between support for a democratic peoples movement that will benefit some 80 million people. As usual we will see the desires of an influential minority of about 7 million people respected over the majority. It's actions like this that are so destructive to US foreign policy.
opposition calling for 1,000,000 strong on tuesday.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 10:07am PT
|
DT-
I agree and your viewpoint was celarly stated.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 10:30am PT
|
Egypt’s military is a stay at home force, not an expeditionary force like ours. In this capacity the military has regular daily contact with people there. This military builds roads and schools. It guards borders and national treasures. They have conscription and most every young person serves for a time (I read it is 4 years if you go in after high school, less if you go to college.) They have a core of professional officers and the leadership of this military is closely tied to the US.
Egypt’s military establishment has little to gain by propping up Mubarak and much to lose if Islamic radicals take over. Mubarak is likely out of the country by now, having been convinced it is better to run with some ill-gotten gains than face the facts on the ground.
What next is the big question. Ideally the military can keep the peace during the establishment of something resembling a secular democracy.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 10:58am PT
|
It should also be noted that the military in Egypt, and many other countries,
is populated by the good old patronage system. Bearing that in mind it
follows that while the soldiers probably sympathize with the protesters
they do have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. The same
applies to the police with the obvious differences that they are more
corrupted financially and morally. The other big difference is that in a
regime change the army has more job security.
On the issue of democracy I aver that there is the proverbial snowball's
chance in Cairo of anything even close to bona fide democracy being created
there regardless of who comes out on top. It will just be a different bunch
in charge of doling out government jobs and kicking the economic can down the
street. Egypt has far too many people for its very limited resources.
Somewhat paradoxically the Egyptian economy has actually been doing rather
well for the last year. GDP was up 5.2% for 2010 with industrial production
up 3.6%. I hope those protestors don't expect much of an improvement on that.
It ain't gonna happen!
|
|
KlimbingKafir
climber
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 11:41am PT
|
Hey guys,
I am a longtime lurker here and have been living in the Middle East for the last two year. The amount of bad and incorrect information being tossed around and presented as fact on this thread is quite staggering. Ahad aham knows what he is talking about.
The situation is far from good with the US being put in a particularly hard position. Mubarak is a bastard but hes our bastard... the real fear is who replaces him? Any type of Islamist party such as the Muslim Brotherhood would force Israel to react.
There are protests not only in Yemen but Jordan and rumors of protests in the Kurdish areas of Syria have prompted Bashar to shut off the internet.
Keep in mind the elephant in the room has been since 1948, Israel. Arabs have a much longer view of history than we Americans do and to them one hundred years is recent memory. Its all relative when you are praying in a mosque that was a Roman temple before the birth of Christ. The Arab (and Persian) world believe in the destruction of Israel. They believe the land was stolen and eventually they will prevail and the Jews "will disappear like sugar in tea" (quote from my taxi driver this morning).
A response from Israel could be a terrible mistake. This administration has been the least supportive of Israel in many years and without Western help (France perhaps?) there is little chance Israel could win a multi-front war. Rand Paul is shouting restraint. Obama doesn't want to start/escalate a major military conflict. To the north you have Lebanon, Hezbollah and Syria all waiting for the right moment, possibly allowing Iran to move through Syria and Lebanon to take the fight into Israel.
The general civil unrest I am sure is scaring the current batch of big men but shifting the anger towards Israel could be the unifying action to bring the Arab world together toward a common goal. More than they hate their dictators they hate what has been done to their Palestinian brothers.
Also, it is important to realize there are many many different groups that stand to gain or lose from various hypothetical scenarios. The Kurds have been fighting in Eastern Turkey for years now... just not reported in Western news at all. The fear in Syria is the Kurds capitalize on the unrest and establish a united Kurdistan while everyone is looking elsewhere...
Just some thoughts from my lunch break.
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 11:45am PT
|
thanks for
the insight
kafir.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Jan 31, 2011 - 12:49pm PT
|
This animosity towards the U.S. isn't anything new, either. It extends back further than 1948 when Truman sanctioned the state of Israel. It probably extends to Roosevelt's policy of total support for the British Empire and the seizure of Iraq during W.W. II, and beyond...
Fatty mentions "The Wind and the Lion," one of my favorite movies; the meddling in the FE began there, I suppose, with the adventure in Morocco. The animosity towards the Islamic peoples of North Africa goes back to the Barbary Pirates and the Barbary wars conducted by Jefferson. Predation was a way of life then, and I suppose we took a page from that book during the Bush I and subsequent administrations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!