what is the meaning of this war? - Page 2

April 22, 2008, 2:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old snake

what are you talking about?

the middle east isn't extremely complicated. most of the countrys in thhe middle east hates war and don't like to begin the attack. but they were forced to enter the war and fight to portect there country.

most of them live by this statement

" So long as we remain loyal to our countries to the end "

Pan-Arabism failed. Middle eastern countries aren't the best of friends.

Also have you heard of the Arab-Israeli conflict? It is still ongoing.
Lebanon is completely fucked. You have Marionite Christians, Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims all competing for power. Not to mention Hezbollah, who aren't political, they are also part of Lebanon.

You are from Saudi, which is the Uncle Tom of middle eastern countries.

Also the middle east was, until the end of WW1, part of the Ottoman empire, so they don't have much experience of independence.

Plus you have Sunni and Shia Muslims who don't get along. Iraq for example. Furthermore Jews and Arabs don't get along.

That is an extremely simplified version, so take my word for it, it is very complicated.

Also Sino-Vietnamese relations aren't all that great, they had a war during the end of the 70s. Their relationship is better now, but I would't say that they are all that great.

April 22, 2008, 3:08 PM

uncle tom what are you talking about?saudi arabia is a country that thinks about the other people thay always have and thay will always think about them

April 22, 2008, 3:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old snake

uncle tom what are you talking about?saudi arabia is a country that thinks about the other people thay always have and thay will always think about them

Uncle tom is an analogy.
Saudi is the most US friendly of the Arabic states.
Please spare me your 'we are so nice stuff'.
All countries are relatively selfish, don't be naive enough to presume that Saudi isn't.
That being said, they aren't exactly best buddies with the US, they(OPEC) refused to supply the US with more Oil.

April 22, 2008, 3:18 PM

at least it gives something it is better than some countries that always take and never give anyway i think that i am going out of the topic

April 22, 2008, 3:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old snake

at least it gives something it is better than some countries that always take and never give

Okay, this isn't gang up and say nasty stuff about Saudi Arabia time. I think we're just trying to point out that Saudi Arabia is by far one of the most western-friendly countries in the middle east. And while it's true that they are a large oil exporter, it's not out of the love of charity. They get BIG money for their oil.

Also, I would disagree with you that the middle east is simple. It's a very complex area, which makes it extremely interesting.

April 22, 2008, 3:38 PM

as what i said before

If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat?

this war is just a destraction to hide something from us.

April 22, 2008, 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old snake

as what i said before

If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat?

this war is just a destraction to hide something from us.

Oh boy. Okay, the Iraq War was not a retaliation for the 9/11 attack. The United States, after 9/11, sent troops to Afghanistan (and bombed Afghanistan) and drove the Taliban out of power. I would say that was the reaction to the 9/11 attacks. It's not surprising that the United States is unable to locate Osama bin Laden. The man has a vast and complex underground social/political network and millions of dollars at his disposal. Additionally, the caves that the government believes he is hiding in are almost inaccessible to the US army. That said, what if the United States DOES capture him? So what? Does that mean Al Qaeda is just going to disappear? Of course not. Someone else will take his place.

Saddam Hussein, actually, was in the American press long before 9/11. I remember being in grade school and hearing about UN inspectors going to Iraq to look for WMDs. And Saddam most definitely liked to pretend that he had them, which was a terrible political miscalculation. I'm not quite sure I follow Bush's path of logic (I'm not sure ANYONE does), but I think 9/11 brought sudden attention to the middle east, and Saddam was suddenly viewed as a threat to America. Truthfully, the United States wasn't sure if he had WMDs or not. And it wasn't a gamble that Bush wanted to take, I guess. The United States had JUST been attacked, and there was a dictator who was claiming to have WMDs. Iraq was viewed as a threat to national security. Also, ignorance, I think, played a part in it. Sadly, the United States government didn't understand middle eastern politics. I remember hearing that Saddam was funding Islamist extremists (pffft....yeah okay). In any case, he was viewed as a potential threat that needed to be taken out.

The Iraq war isn't a cover for anything. Please spare us the weird conspiracy theory. It all boils down to the fact that Bush is incompetant and ignorant of middle eastern politics and history.

April 22, 2008, 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Hm, it seems to me that the Iraq War began in 2003. And well, it also seems like in 2003, Bush approved economic sanctions against Mugabe. I can't say much about the UK, because I don't know very much about UK politics. I also don't know too much about Zimbabwe, other than what is happening at the moment. However, was Mugabe violating human rights when you claim the UK was friendly with him? I don't think so. While he was never a beacon for democracy or acceptance, this violence seems like a relatively new development. You can't expect leaders to predict the future.

Ah, China. First, a correction (and I have no clue where you got this idea): North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Burma are not satellite countries. They are their own countries, and they are not currently under China's control. Having a similar political system and being close allies is NOT the same as being a satellite nation. Okay, so, China is not what I would call a model of human rights. However, the government has not targeted a particular ethnic group and turned its weapons on its own people (as Saddam did). And I wouldn't exactly call the United States and China's relations friendly. It's tolerant, at best. They have clashed on numerous occassions, and there has been a lot of political finger pointing. I would say that the two countries need each other economically, but are not very good political allies. I would also disagree with your assessment of the political climate in Asia. It is not at all like Germany in the 1930s. China shows no aggression towards its neighboring countries (one could argue the case with Tibet, but Tibet is a whole other issue...). In fact, China is strong allies with many neighboring countries. In the 1930s, Germany was both economically devastated (China isn't) and aggressive towards neighboring states (again, China isn't). In fact, after a lot of western persuation and pressure, China is slowly becoming better in the area of human rights.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is a US ally. And while they have terrible women's rights, I wouldn't equate terrible women's rights with human rights violations, at least not on the same level as what happened under Saddam. Sad to say, but you pick and choose your battles. I think Iraq had worse human rights violations.

I'm under no illusions about the Iraq War. I know that the US didn't go into Iraq because Saddam was committing crimes against humanity. It was just a very convenient (and heroic) explanation after the fact. And yes, it was so that people would be more supportive of the war. However, I do think that Islamist extremism is something that needs to be addressed (aka: stopped). I know it's wrong to denounce political ideologies, because everyone has their own opinion, but I'm going to go ahead and do it. Islamist extremism is wrong. It perverts the religion of Islam and relies heavily on violence. It contradicts itself. It's a terrible thing. I would argue that its a reaction to shitty political and social conditions in large parts of the middle east and to the failed westernization that occured in the 20s.

Mugabe was known to be committing human rights violations, by 2003, though not as badly as he is now. Again, I was probably wrong about the satellite nation thing, but my point was that they are all under alot of Chinese influence, and, for the most part, dealing with them means dealing with China too. If China wants to push them about, it has the political clout to do so, and western military intervention in any of those countries without China's approval could mean World War III. That said, it doesn't seem to be using much of that might either way, except of course in Tibet, which it has annexed as part of its territory. True, however, that the situation in China is improving gradually.

And I wasn't thinking that you were under any illusions, that point just had to be made, that most wars are not actually on moral grounds, that "moral intervention" is just used as an excuse in most cases.

Also, I agree completely with Islamic extremism being wrong. Islam, a supposedly peaceful religion, is at odds with fundamentalists and extremists (not neccessarily the same thing), who take things too far, go to extremes, and advocate religious violence, hatred, and sharia law, in contrary to modern values. However, the majority of peaceful muslims suffer because of the actions of certain factions. For the record, I have nothing against Islam or any other major religions.
I think what is wrong is that Islam and "terrorism" have both become related scapegoats. However, again, that's just how things are.

I think that a major war is not far off, but one can only speculate at the possibilities.

April 22, 2008, 5:08 PM

I think that the iraq war is a mark of a begining of a new era. This new era isn't about being smart. it is about being stronge.