'Why do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.?'

[Texan]

Liberal Arab Columnist: 'Why do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.?'

In an article titled "Why Do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.," Zuheir Abdallah, columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, blames Arab fascism and Islamism for failing to achieve any accomplishments for the Arab world since 1948, leading to its backwardness today. The following are excerpts from the article: [1]

Arabs Should Remember They Invaded and Occupied Europe Before The Crusades
"Most Arabs hate the West, especially the U.S., for many reasons; some date back to the Crusades and the Andalusia period, and more recently, because of Palestine and Iraq. I don't intend to delve into this historical turmoil, but for the sake of history, the Arabs should remember that they invaded and occupied important parts of Europe hundreds of years before the Crusades wars.

"The West and the U.S. in particular, as a result of their growing financial and moral power since the 1950s, and just like any human force, dominates and colonizes... just like them the Assyrians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Tatars, the Ottomans and others did before them... But since the 1950s, both the dominating and dominated initiated an attempt to build a new world, where competition (which is part of human nature) gradually moved from the battlefields to the realm of creation, economy and trade. Sciences and inventions developed as never before, especially in the fields of space, communications and medicine, which led to the invention of computers, the Internet and satellites, and many medicines and antibiotics were discovered, overcoming many diseases and increasing humans' life expectancy. In general, the world went on a stable path of progress, as trade prospered (with the elimination of tariffs and the speed in transportation)."

Since 1948 The Arab World Has Regressed
"But despite this, the Arab world failed to ride the same wagon (except for the consumption part), ever since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948. Since then, under the pretext of liberating Palestine and destroying the occupation's agents, most Arab countries were taken over by not so intelligent and more tyrannical people (mostly from the military). Thus, the economic and scientific growth regressed and reached the bottom level, in comparison to the rest of the countries in the world (according to the last report of the UN)."

Arab Fascism and Fundamentalist Islam Have Nothing to Offer People
"Since 1948, the primitive Arab fascism was given free reign, and boosted by the backwards soldiers, from the officers to reactionary parties (sometimes self-dubbed progressive), and other times allied with fundamentalist Islam. It has nothing to offer to its people except empty slogans revolving around the themes of resistance and struggle, for no voice can be louder than that of the fight, and consequently, corruption spread, and this Arab fascism was constantly being defeated in its Don-Quixote-like-battles with any foreign force (except its people, as it always vanquished them).

"All around the world, extremist slogans and concepts are falling one after the other; but in the Arab world, they have reached such a level that many simple-minded people and ignorant persons were unfortunately brainwashed and turned into the fuel of this extremism. When discussing with many Arab citizens, even those claiming to be educated, about the reason for our backwardness, you get a preset answer to the effect that the West with the U.S. in particular are stopping the Arabs from progressing. If this hypothesis is true, then why did certain Arab and Islamic countries, such as Malaysia and Dubai [sic], manage to achieve progress (even if partially)?"

Arabs Reject Western Inventions, Only to Embrace them Later
"The West and the U.S. in particular achieved major accomplishments over the past century. As for us, Arabs and Muslims, we became at most consumers of these accomplishments and inventions; we reject them at first claiming they are designed to control us, then consume them fast and even hide it most of the time. The examples are many:

* The invention of radio transmission, then television then satellite channels, then electronic communications devices. Most Arabs misused these means, and used them as channels for religious extremism, political provocation, and transmission of erroneous information. The young generation spends long hours on the Internet to view pornographic pictures, mainly in the highly conservative societies, which foster frustration. Before the modern communication means (visual and audio), we had enlightened religious scholars such as Mohamad Abdu and Jamaleddine Al Afghani. After the confusion resulting from these means, we have Sheikhs like bin Laden, Al Dhawahiri and many others we watch and hear on the Arab satellite channels.

* The weapons were highly and unusually developed during the last century. From 1948 to this day, arms purchases in the Middle East occupied the first place among the countries in the world and reached between 1995 and 1997, about 38% from world purchases in comparison to 3% in South America, according to the U.S. State Department's report: "Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1998." Most of these purchases were made under the pretext of liberating Palestine and fighting the enemies. They were either used against the people or during the civil wars or to attack neighboring countries. As for Israel, it remains the most powerful in terms of arms.

* In the medical field, penicillin and antibiotics were discovered, which saved millions and billions of human lives from fatal diseases as typhoid and many children diseases. As a result, there was a disorder in the demographic balance of many developing countries, especially in the Arab countries, as birth rates considerably grew (sometimes encouraged by ignorant rulers), combined with a decrease in death rates, especially infantile. As a result, the yearly demographic increase varied between 3 and 5%, which means that the census in some Arab countries doubled every 16 years. Social, political and environmental problems ensued and governments and people couldn't confront them.

"These are few of the examples on the inventions and discoveries of the last centuries and how they were misused in the Arab world. Let us stop for a minute and ask ourselves, Arabs and most Muslims, what did we offer for ourselves and the rest of the world, since the beginning of the industrial revolution to this day, from human sciences and inventions or any other added value to civilization? Unfortunately, the answer is: almost nothing!!"

[ParraCida]

Why do arabs hate the west, and particulary the US.

Hmmm well lets think about that one, no it certainly could not have anything to do with the constant meddling of the US in their politics or be related to this thing called Israel. Yeah, it must be all that bull**** that guy wrote.

[Marilyn Manson]

I think it's pretty ridiculous to attempt to blame all the ills of The Arab world on some notion of total failure on the part of The Arabs themselves to 'wake up' to the progress off the world.

It's noticeable that, at least from what you posted, negative interference on the part of other powers is not mention as being a contributory factor anywhere. This is pretty bizzare an ommission, when you consider that most Arab countries have suffered from opressive regimes that were themselves installed or backed up by other powers.

It's ridiculous to consider 'Arabic Fascism' or whatever the devil you want to call it, a a purely internally-derived phenomena. This is grossly untrue. The Arab world was bequeathed a legacy of oppression, through The Ottoman period, to French and British Rule (Either through intermediaries, or directly.), through to the regimes that we have now, many of which were either directly or indirectly established by the west.

The monarchies that the west set up to administer the imperial and post-imperial settlement were justifiably seen as somehow 'tainted' by this, and Arabs were all to often manipulated by ideologues into supporting new dictatorships, which were supposedly 'Pan-Arabic', and offered to bring quick glory to the country, resulting in the various Arab-Israeli wars, etc. The west further compounded the situation by blunders such as Suez (With Israeli co-operation - lending to the idea that it was a 'western agent' within the region) which still gave the impression that the west still considered the area it's own.

The fact that the region was considered little more than a playground throughout the cold war period, with the Soviet Union and America vying for power hardly helped either. (There isa propoganda poster issued by The Iranian regime in the 80's portraying The USSR, USA, UK and Israel as essentially four parts of the same beast.) And, again, we have the same old story; extraneous powers propping up horribly opressive regimes, which only leads people into the arms of extremists and oppurtunists supposedly offeing a 'quick fix'.

Against this background, it's hardly surprising that most Arabs feel at least partly aggrieved against the west. Western poolicy towards the region has given it no chance to develop politically, even in terms of stability, and, subsequently, economically, or culturally. We are, of course, left with rampant social problems, and Islam being about the only viable political option for most people - with every other ideology being mauled or discredited by the west, what else do people realistically have to turn to?

The region has no history of democracy, but the west has done absolutely nothing to further it's progress there - on the contrary.

You simply can't expect people to build a good society on the basis of continuous, unstable, corrupt autocracies. it's not possible.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Texan
Liberal Arab Columnist: 'Why do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.?'

I'm sure he asked every Arab before writing this or at least carried out a demographically balanced survey.

In an article titled "Why Do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.," Zuheir Abdallah, columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, blames Arab fascism and Islamism for failing to achieve any accomplishments for the Arab world since 1948, leading to its backwardness today. The following are excerpts from the article: [1]

Oh I can see the headlines now here. Poor backwards Arabs live out their lifes while the West builds a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons. I mean didn't we all do so wonderfully in that space of time? I think we should note at this time that most of the Arabic/Islamic dictators were backed by either the USSR or the USA/NATO for about 40 years.

Arabs Should Remember They Invaded and Occupied Europe Before The Crusades
"Most Arabs hate the West, especially the U.S., for many reasons; some date back to the Crusades and the Andalusia period, and more recently, because of Palestine and Iraq. I don't intend to delve into this historical turmoil, but for the sake of history, the Arabs should remember that they invaded and occupied important parts of Europe hundreds of years before the Crusades wars.

THE ROMANS INVADED FIRST YOU ****ING CRETIN. STOP MAKING **** ARGUMENTS. (At this point anyone who attempts to call the Persians under Darius or Xerxes Arabs or Muslims will be summarily banned from the forums on grounds of general stupidity).

"The West and the U.S. in particular, as a result of their growing financial and moral power since the 1950s, and just like any human force, dominates and colonizes... just like them the Assyrians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Arabs, the Tatars, the Ottomans and others did before them... But since the 1950s, both the dominating and dominated initiated an attempt to build a new world, where competition (which is part of human nature) gradually moved from the battlefields to the realm of creation, economy and trade. Sciences and inventions developed as never before, especially in the fields of space, communications and medicine, which led to the invention of computers, the Internet and satellites, and many medicines and antibiotics were discovered, overcoming many diseases and increasing humans' life expectancy. In general, the world went on a stable path of progress, as trade prospered (with the elimination of tariffs and the speed in transportation)."

I like the first line here. I'm unsure what precisely for though. Is it because the growing moral power is disputed between almost all nations and the majority of the people? Perhaps it's due to the fact that when the Arab world stopped selling oil to the West in 1973 economic disaster (albeit probably temporarily) was only staved off by buying oil from the Russians. The global economy is inter-connected and while some parts are more important than others don't pretend the largest minority holds more power than all the rest added together. (It's not like most of Europe is on hugging terms with the West right now either).

Secondly I love the veritable litany of examples given here. It's moderately difficult to factually demolish an argument that is devoid of facts to be honest. To take one area, computers, the invention of these occured prior to the 1950s. To take another, medicine, improvements in medical science have been taking place since the Renaissance in Europe and earlier in China and the Arab world. There are various sources that can be provided here but I really couldn't be arsed considering the level of sheer rhetoric involved in this article.

Elimination of tariffs was such a ridiculous statement I almost fell off my chair laughing. There are very few tariffs in place against the Third World if they wish to export raw materials to our factories. However if they wish to sell us the finished product the tariffs are, when considered as a whole, in the region of 70% of the manufacturing price. Running any sort of a business under that sort of economic handicap is just pointless.

Since 1948 The Arab World Has Regressed
"But despite this, the Arab world failed to ride the same wagon (except for the consumption part), ever since the Palestinian Nakba in 1948. Since then, under the pretext of liberating Palestine and destroying the occupation's agents, most Arab countries were taken over by not so intelligent and more tyrannical people (mostly from the military). Thus, the economic and scientific growth regressed and reached the bottom level, in comparison to the rest of the countries in the world (according to the last report of the UN)."

Oh wonderful. More unsubstantiated facts and moronic ideas. Let's take a look shall we? Starting from the North we have Turkey (Islamic), best avoid their problems though as the US needed their support for placing IRBMs on the USSR's doorstep. Suffice it to say that if they had a "tyrannical government" it was backed by the USA.

Iran had that lovely Shah fellow that was installed by the British, Americans and Russians during WWII. Killed a couple of people that guy did. I suppose naming yourself the King of Kings and murdering anyone who disagrees with you while generally starving the lower half of the economic strata into submission is the sign of his enlightenment during his education in the West.

Iraq's government was (oh surprise surprise here) installed by the USA during the early 50s (correct me if I'm wrong here). Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan (slightly more recent that one), Egypt (same for them) all US allies and US backed governments for large portions of their history since the 1950s. As a matter of fact there is only one country I can think of that can be qualified as outside of US support for this period, namely Syria.

Most Arab countries were "liberated" under the pretext of food on the table actually. I'm a bit concerned here about my lack of historical knowledge. I've got Egypt in about 1950, Iran from the Shah and Iraq (although there really has to be a government in control for it to be a revolution isn't there) in the early 50s, but then I run out of countries in that region which had revolutions in this period. Oh dear back to the drawing board.

Economic and scientific growth regressed did it? That's got to be the single worst statement ever. I'll attempt to take it at face value (more for my own desperate hopes that this poor chap is sane than anything else). In real terms economic growth has progressed (you compare GDPs and rates of inflation here, maybe you can let that guy know this for his next factually devoid discourse on why there is plenty of oxygen on Mars). Relatively speaking it's progressed faster than that of Latin America, Africa, Southern and South-East Asia. As for scientific growth regressing I'd like for a general pointer towards the areas in which this happened. For scientific growth to have regressed after colonialism in the Arab world they'd actually have to be forgetting technologies and advances for god's sake. I really can't argue against an argument as unspecific as that one though.

Arab Fascism and Fundamentalist Islam Have Nothing to Offer People
"Since 1948, the primitive Arab fascism was given free reign, and boosted by the backwards soldiers, from the officers to reactionary parties (sometimes self-dubbed progressive), and other times allied with fundamentalist Islam. It has nothing to offer to its people except empty slogans revolving around the themes of resistance and struggle, for no voice can be louder than that of the fight, and consequently, corruption spread, and this Arab fascism was constantly being defeated in its Don-Quixote-like-battles with any foreign force (except its people, as it always vanquished them).

I would gladly pay for a single fact or example to argue against here. I'm slightly bemused by the fact that the headline of this piece is "Why do Arabs Hate the West" and in this paragraph he's informing us that most of the people are repressed by the governments in control. (Also if Arab fascism was constantly defeated in it's foreign battles why are so many Arab countries still under the control of these tyrants?) I suppose the fact that we armed and continue to arm most of these soldiers, and educated most of the tyrants (perhaps our above mentioned marvellous morality encouraged them) should be quickly passed over.

"All around the world, extremist slogans and concepts are falling one after the other; but in the Arab world, they have reached such a level that many simple-minded people and ignorant persons were unfortunately brainwashed and turned into the fuel of this extremism. When discussing with many Arab citizens, even those claiming to be educated, about the reason for our backwardness, you get a preset answer to the effect that the West with the U.S. in particular are stopping the Arabs from progressing. If this hypothesis is true, then why did certain Arab and Islamic countries, such as Malaysia and Dubai [sic], manage to achieve progress (even if partially)?"

Actually if you look at the USA you might find a place where they're growing as well. And oh my dear god we've got an example. Lord be praised something to argue against!

Malaysia first I suppose. Average income less than that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and approximately equal to that of Iran. I think comparing either Iraq or Lebanon to Malaysia might be a bit unfair right now don't you? I'm still unsure in what areas this march of progress is supposed to be analysed though so I'll end this by mentioning that there has been no wars involving Malaysia and (oh wonder of wonders) wars generally impede economic, technological and scientific progress.

Dubai (better known as the UAE) is a monarchical state ruled by seven men all of whom are absolute rulers of their own emirate. It's Islamic, fundamentalist and not democratic. It's per capita GDP is less than that of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (Bahrain and Qatar as well obviously but they're a bit small to merit significant discussion). In fact it's all the things that have been previously mentioned as holding back the Arab world.

Perhaps it'd be better if we stayed away from examples from now on eh.

Arabs Reject Western Inventions, Only to Embrace them Later
"The West and the U.S. in particular achieved major accomplishments over the past century. As for us, Arabs and Muslims, we became at most consumers of these accomplishments and inventions; we reject them at first claiming they are designed to control us, then consume them fast and even hide it most of the time. The examples are many:

Oh newsflash here. "Region ruled as a colony by other region and subjected to huge tariffs becomes consumer of other region's products". This guy could win a Nobel prize for pointless statements. Examples? I sense an approaching catastrophe.

* The invention of radio transmission, then television then satellite channels, then electronic communications devices. Most Arabs misused these means, and used them as channels for religious extremism, political provocation, and transmission of erroneous information. The young generation spends long hours on the Internet to view pornographic pictures, mainly in the highly conservative societies, which foster frustration. Before the modern communication means (visual and audio), we had enlightened religious scholars such as Mohamad Abdu and Jamaleddine Al Afghani. After the confusion resulting from these means, we have Sheikhs like bin Laden, Al Dhawahiri and many others we watch and hear on the Arab satellite channels.

I was worried I was going to have a fact to deal with here. Thank god we prevented that! I must admit I was stumped temporarily by the name Mohamad Abdu. I honestly hadn't heard of his religious teachings before. However after searching on the internet I've been reliably informed he's an Arab singer. On another note I love this quote
"The young generation spends long hours on the Internet to view pornographic pictures, mainly in the highly conservative societies, which foster frustration."
There's absolutely nothing I can say against this. He offers no proof, no statistics, no surveys. There is no casual link between the two elements mentioned. In fact it completely ignores that many young Arabs don't have access to the internet. I'm a bit fed up with reading this drivel though so I'll reply with an article I read this morning in the Independent on Sunday (if anyone in Britain reads this paper they can back me up). It was about the island of Pitcairn. A place totally lacking pornography, the Internet or in fact most technological advances over the past century. But for some uncertain reason most of the men stand charged of sexual assault. I wish this guy the best in his future career as Iraqi information minister,

* The weapons were highly and unusually developed during the last century. From 1948 to this day, arms purchases in the Middle East occupied the first place among the countries in the world and reached between 1995 and 1997, about 38% from world purchases in comparison to 3% in South America, according to the U.S. State Department's report: "Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers 1998." Most of these purchases were made under the pretext of liberating Palestine and fighting the enemies. They were either used against the people or during the civil wars or to attack neighboring countries. As for Israel, it remains the most powerful in terms of arms.

This just gets worse. Humour quota +5 Israel is the fourth highest arms importing country in the Middle East (I suppose it's the corrupt Islamic element forcing them into though). Top of the list is Saudi Arabia, number one US ally (bar Israel) in the period you mentioned. Most of these purchases were the result of arms races actually. Iran and Iraq leading up to the 1980-88 war. Saudi Arabia concerned about everyone. Syria worried about Israel sitting on her border armed with nuclear weapons. I love the double standards by the way, 'evil Arabs buy lots of weapons cos they want to kill the Israelis', 'Israelis have most weapons in the middle east, go them!'

* In the medical field, penicillin and antibiotics were discovered, which saved millions and billions of human lives from fatal diseases as typhoid and many children diseases. As a result, there was a disorder in the demographic balance of many developing countries, especially in the Arab countries, as birth rates considerably grew (sometimes encouraged by ignorant rulers), combined with a decrease in death rates, especially infantile. As a result, the yearly demographic increase varied between 3 and 5%, which means that the census in some Arab countries doubled every 16 years. Social, political and environmental problems ensued and governments and people couldn't confront them.

What a completely pointless argument. Population increases cause problems in Middle East. I suppose the European baby boom at exactly the same time was a completely different scenario. China's population grew massively as well, I believe it now has the fastest growing economy in the world. This is possibly one of the least well grounded arguments I've ever had the displeasure to reply to. More people=socio-economic disaster! Sheer genius Holmes.

"These are few of the examples on the inventions and discoveries of the last centuries and how they were misused in the Arab world. Let us stop for a minute and ask ourselves, Arabs and most Muslims, what did we offer for ourselves and the rest of the world, since the beginning of the industrial revolution to this day, from human sciences and inventions or any other added value to civilization? Unfortunately, the answer is: almost nothing!!"

**** off you ****ing cretin ****ing waste ****ing time in my ****ing life ****s sake.

[Embroglio]

Have any of you guys read Jihad vs McWorld?

[meglamaniac]

Well bugger me - a sensible and well thought out discusison on GD...

[Caesar2]

Why does the whole world hates the West, especially the US?

[Nusselt]

Originally posted by Caesar2
Why does the whole world hates the West, especially the US?

Why does the US hate the world?

[Jammers]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I'm still unsure in what areas this march of progress is supposed to be analysed though so I'll end this by mentioning that there has been no wars involving Malaysia and (oh wonder of wonders) wars generally impede economic, technological and scientific progress.

Except for that little incident with the communists.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Jammers
Except for that little incident with the communists.

Mea culpa on that point. However that's a significantly earlier period than when you're discussing most of the Middle East, 1960 as opposed to 70s/80s. Nor does it negate the fact that the real economic difference is rather insignificant.




PS I like the url, britains-smallwars.com HEH



PPS I think I'm allowed one slip of the mind eh?

[Queen DAX]

for those of you who are bored.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/mideast.htm

[Texan]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Why do arabs hate the west, and particulary the US.

Hmmm well lets think about that one, no it certainly could not have anything to do with the constant meddling of the US in their politics or be related to this thing called Israel. Yeah, it must be all that bull**** that guy wrote.

Last time I checked, the Netherlands was part of the west. Why do the Arabs hate you?

[Caesar2]

Originally posted by Nusselt
Why does the US hate the world?

The other way around

[Queen DAX]

http://www.chattanoogastate.edu/rotw/islam/istime.asp



also note in 1763 as well in 1839 then again in 1882- 1907 the British were first involved in the Mideast , before we " Americans" ever set foot on ground there.


We went there later to help The British, then we stayed to help Make Isreal stand on there own feet i belive that was in 1948,

Creation of the Jewish state of Israel, after which the Israeli forces inflict a devastating defeat on the five Arab armies who invade and 750,000 Palestinians leave the country

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm read the may 14 document " Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948"

this is about the Time whem the middle east officaly became anti "AMERICANS"

AFTER OUR PRESIDENT AT THE TIME ANNOUNCED WE "officaly see Israels Indepance and as there own STATE.

And Israel joined the UN.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Queen DAX
http://www.chattanoogastate.edu/rotw/islam/istime.asp



also note in 1763 as well in 1839 then again in 1882- 1907 the British were first involved in the Mideast , before we " Americans" ever set foot on ground there.


We went there later to help The British, then we stayed to help Make Isreal stand on there own feet i belive that was in 1948,

Creation of the Jewish state of Israel, after which the Israeli forces inflict a devastating defeat on the five Arab armies who invade and 750,000 Palestinians leave the country

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm read the may 14 document " Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948"

this is about the Time whem the middle east officaly became anti "AMERICANS"

AFTER OUR PRESIDENT AT THE TIME ANNOUNCED WE "officaly see Israels Indepance and as there own STATE.

And Israel joined the UN.

I hate to be bitterly cynical but the US did not become involved in the Middle East to help either the British or the Israelis. They became involved, as all countries do, to further their geopolitical strategic goals. Also I was wondering if I missed the memo in which the Middle East became anti-american. Must have been the fastest brain-washing ever eh.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nusselt
Why does the US hate the world?

the US doesn't hate the world. We look on most of the world with a sort of a smug (arrogant) condescension. We see most of the (non-western) countries in the world as places with horrible horrible institutions and horrible horrible leadership.

And I think that clearly we are right about that part.

'Hatred' is simply bad business. No country has ever improved its standard of living etc. while blaming its problems on someone else. Whether or not the US is to blame for their troubles, as long as they blame us those problems will never get solved. Sorry.

You could claim that the US could change its policies, enabling those countries to help themselves. But that's naivete talking. What does the US have to gain by changing its policies? Not a whole lot. "What about 9/11" being the obvious rebuttal; but that's a good case in point.

How did we respond to 9/11? By blaming Arab countries and telling them to change? No. We changed. How our airline industry works, how our national security is aranged, etc. Sure, we invaded Afghanistan and wiped out their government, but if you look at the dollar figures you'll see that that was really an afterthought. Afghanistan costed a few billion, domestic adjustments have (/will) cost more by orders of magnitude.

And what the **** is jonny talking about with 'the romans attacked first'?

PS: the middle east was very pro-american in the early 1950s when the US sided against the UK/France in the whole Egypt deal.

[Queen DAX]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I hate to be bitterly cynical but the US did not become involved in the Middle East to help either the British or the Israelis. They became involved, as all countries do, to further their geopolitical strategic goals. Also I was wondering if I missed the memo in which the Middle East became anti-american. Must have been the fastest brain-washing ever eh.

I use to have a Document that showed when the us was asked to help the Brits, on file im trying to find it now as we speak, Ofc everyone always has a angenda but my point was with the anti american sentiment out there based on action's of the last 20-30 years peopel should go back and read farther in there history books then to just follow some headline news.

And just a note on your brian- washing theory Just remember Hate Has to start from somewhere. It only magnifys over time.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis
And what the **** is jonny talking about with 'the romans attacked first'?

I was responding to the inane point raised that the Arabs invaded Europe before the crusades, ie some sort of childish they attacked first argument. I responded by saying that the Romans invaded the Arab world before this so any sort of dialogue along this line is pretty stupid for whoever wrote this article.

Originally posted by Queen Dax
I use to have a Document that showed when the us was asked to help the Brits, on file im trying to find it now as we speak, Ofc everyone always has a angenda but my point was with the anti american sentiment out there based on action's of the last 20-30 years peopel showuld go back and read father in there history books then to just follow some headline news.

And just a note on your brian- washing theory Just remember Hate Has to start from somewhere. It only magnifys over time.

Of course the British requested help once they weren't able to achieve all their goals, it's just common sense. I'm unsure what your next point is heh. And what? I was only joking about the brainwashing heh. Most cases of supposed brainwashing on this scale are nothing more than a series of key individuals following a convenient and attractive ideology.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I was responding to the inane point raised that the Arabs invaded Europe before the crusades, ie some sort of childish they attacked first argument. I responded by saying that the Romans invaded the Arab world before this so any sort of dialogue along this line is pretty stupid for whoever wrote this article.

i interpreted that part of the article as saying a) asking who attacked first is silly, and b) the crusades are not the reason for the anger anyway

which i found as a lone bit of accuracy in a sea of drivel.

but now i see where your response was coming from.

ta

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Anyone claiming to actually understand this conflict at this stage is suffering from delusions.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by acropolis
And I think that clearly we are right about that part.

It's a bit rich to divorce yourself from responsiblity for the state of the world when you've been one of the major operators in it for the last 50 years.

Originally posted by acropolis
Whether or not the US is to blame for their troubles, as long as they blame us those problems will never get solved. Sorry.

What, exactly do you suggest they do by themselves, that can make any discernable difference?

It's like saying to a German living under Nazism, "You know, terrible business you've got there. You better sort it out immediately."

The total simplcity of thought here is absolutely amazing, heh. You seem to think that disaffected people living under undemocratic governments just have to get their act together and make it go away.

Originally posted by acropolis
You could claim that the US could change its policies, enabling those countries to help themselves. But that's naivete talking. What does the US have to gain by changing its policies? Not a whole lot.

Why in god's name would increased democracy, a raised standard of living, and a more community-based international order not benefit everyone?

If you believe that this sort of selfish, blinkered short-termism in foreign policy is either useful or ultimately succesful, then you haven't studied international relations sufficently.

Oh, not to mention the completely deplorable logic behind "I'm only going to help you if I can get something out it!!!"

You can't run a succesful international order based on that sort of thinking. Christ, you can't even run a successful anything on that.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It's a bit rich to divorce yourself from responsiblity for the state of the world when you've been one of the major operators in it for the last 50 years.

I don't think I ever said anything realting to whether or not the US was 'responsible' (a word that i was more or less attacking throughout)

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
What, exactly do you suggest they do by themselves, that can make any discernable difference?

Develop good institutions and put good leaders in charge.

Think about how your country can improve despite foreign influences, not how foreign influences could help.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It's like saying to a German living under Nazism, "You know, terrible business you've got there. You better sort it out immediately."

If I'm remembering right, the Germans did vote the nazi party in. Saying that the people aren't responsible for who the people vote for seems a tad off to me.

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
The total simplcity of thought here is absolutely amazing, heh. You seem to think that disaffected people living under undemocratic governments just have to get their act together and make it go away.

It's worth a shot, no?

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Why in god's name would increased democracy, a raised standard of living, and a more community-based international order not benefit everyone?

If you believe that this sort of selfish, blinkered short-termism in foreign policy is either useful or ultimately succesful, then you haven't studied international relations sufficently.

Oh, not to mention the completely deplorable logic behind "I'm only going to help you if I can get something out it!!!"

You can't run a succesful international order based on that sort of thinking. Christ, you can't even run a successful anything on that.

'Personally' I am as deeply against "this sort of selfish, blinkered short-termism" (well-phrased that).

But my point is that depending on other countries not to adopt "selfish, blinkered short-termism" as their foreign policy is a fairly piss-poor long term strategy.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by acropolis
If I'm remembering right, the Germans did vote the nazi party in. Saying that the people aren't responsible for who the people vote for seems a tad off to me.

No they didn't. The NSDP never had anything remotely resembling a parliamentary majority early on. Later once they managed to fix a few plebiscites on various issues.

[Rommel]

Originally posted by acropolis


Develop good institutions and put good leaders in charge.

So why didn't the Iraqis get rid of Saddam a lot earlier? Because they were scared of him perhaps? And you've got Bush in charge so you can't talk, though Blair's not much better.

[Fifth_teletubbie]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
No they didn't.

Yes they did. The NSDAP became the second largest party in 1930 (SPD was the biggest), and the largest party in 1932.

The march 1933 elections can be considered the last 'real' election, in which the NSDAP was by far the largest.

The november 1933 election, in which Hitler got 97%, was of course a non-election.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
No they didn't. The NSDP never had anything remotely resembling a parliamentary majority early on. Later once they managed to fix a few plebiscites on various issues.

what did they have, 230 reichstag seats in 1932? certainly not a majority but a hell of a lot more than nay other party.

and they got those 230 by people voting for them.

Originally posted by Rommel
So why didn't the Iraqis get rid of Saddam a lot earlier?

Cuz they never had the privilege of reading my post, duh.

Originally posted by Rommel
And you've got Bush in charge so you can't talk, though Blair's not much better.

That's my point though.

Who's fault is it that we have Bush? Ours. when we vote Bush in and our unemployment rate doubles, do we tell kim jong-il that he needs to change his foreign policy to solve our unemployment?

And even though we did invade iraq, you couldn't say that we ever blamed him for our problems.

And that's another point too. Things like Bush happen. And because Bush happens, other countries really can't depend on us.

And another point. Institutions are more important than leaders. With good enough institutions, even completely crap leaders (i.e., Bush) can't truly ruin your country. Soon we'll find out if our institutions are 'good enough'.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Yes they did. The NSDAP became the second largest party in 1930 (SPD was the biggest), and the largest party in 1932.

OT : Largest plurality != Majority, but you know that.

[Nusselt]

just in case any of you rather dense people was wondering i didnt actually mean the world hates the US, i was just trying to make a point of how stupid the original and some of the subsequent statements were by doing a role reversal thing. I realise that sarcasm doesnt work well on the internet, but i mean really, mr acropolis i expected at least you to pick up on it

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It's a bit rich to divorce yourself from responsiblity for the state of the world when you've been one of the major operators in it for the last 50 years.

Richer than arbitrarily drawing the line at 50 years--about the time your own country stopped being a major operator?

I think one could argue that Britian is far more responsible for the present-day problems in the mideast than the US--creating countries and kings out of whole cloth, encouraging a Jewish homeland, etc.

What, exactly do you suggest they do by themselves, that can make any discernable difference?

It's like saying to a German living under Nazism, "You know, terrible business you've got there. You better sort it out immediately."

But that's pretty much all that most of the world was willing to do for the Iraqis though, wasn't it?

The total simplcity of thought here is absolutely amazing, heh. You seem to think that disaffected people living under undemocratic governments just have to get their act together and make it go away.

Well, it worked for us. Perhaps we were oppressed by incompetents, but still, it wasn't easy.

In any case, the US doesn't have the resources to depose all the evil dictators in the world. And if we don't, who else is going to step up to the plate? I don't see very many countries wanting to engage in regime changes.

Why in god's name would increased democracy, a raised standard of living, and a more community-based international order not benefit everyone?

If you believe that this sort of selfish, blinkered short-termism in foreign policy is either useful or ultimately succesful, then you haven't studied international relations sufficently.

Oh, not to mention the completely deplorable logic behind "I'm only going to help you if I can get something out it!!!"

I don't see anything wrong with a win-win proposition as applied to international politics.

You can't run a succesful international order based on that sort of thinking. Christ, you can't even run a successful anything on that.

I profoundly disagree. Altruism isn't a basis for foreign policy.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I think one could argue that Britian is far more responsible for the present-day problems in the mideast than the US--creating countries and kings out of whole cloth, encouraging a Jewish homeland, etc.

Absolutley.

To me though (and I know my views are hardly typical) it's utterly irrelevent as to "whose fault" it is.

The United States is still in a unique position, even once we've put aside "past crimes".

1. You can argue that they are contributing to various problems right now (I'm referring to military support for Israel, intervention in Iraq, etc). Let's ignore the past for a moment, let's just all try to stop making things worse.

2. The US has the greatest capacity on a great deal of levels (military, diplomatic, financial) and therefore is in the position of being able to assist in a variety of ways.

[Rommel]

Originally posted by acropolis


And another point. Institutions are more important than leaders. With good enough institutions, even completely crap leaders (i.e., Bush) can't truly ruin your country. Soon we'll find out if our institutions are 'good enough'.

Care to explain what you mean by "institutions"?

[Tempestuous]

Originally posted by Queen DAX
[url] We went there later to help The British, then we stayed to help Make Isreal stand on there own feet i belive that was in 1948,

Creation of the Jewish state of Israel, after which the Israeli forces inflict a devastating defeat on the five Arab armies who invade and 750,000 Palestinians leave the country

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm read the may 14 document " Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948"

this is about the Time whem the middle east officaly became anti "AMERICANS"

AFTER OUR PRESIDENT AT THE TIME ANNOUNCED WE "officaly see Israels Indepance and as there own STATE.

And Israel joined the UN.

Did you ever read into how the creation of the jewish state came about?

Oddly enough, i'd be slightly pissed off if 200k foreigners moved into my country, drew on a map with the support of the super powers at the time and said 'this bit is now our's, ta'.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Fifth_teletubbie
Yes they did. The NSDAP became the second largest party in 1930 (SPD was the biggest), and the largest party in 1932.

The march 1933 elections can be considered the last 'real' election, in which the NSDAP was by far the largest.

The november 1933 election, in which Hitler got 97%, was of course a non-election.

Two words for you. Parliamentary majority. I even wrote them in previous post directly after the words you quoted. CAN NOBODY READ ANYMORE? The post that I was replying to said that the Germans voted the Nazis in, ie they voted them into power. This did not happen. If the rest of the parties had so wished they could have formed a government without them. However I believe Von Papen and his cadre of idiots thought they could control Hitler. The rest, as they say, is history.

[Tempestuous]

Originally posted by acropolis

That's my point though.

Who's fault is it that we have Bush? Ours. when we vote Bush in and our unemployment rate doubles, do we tell kim jong-il that he needs to change his foreign policy to solve our unemployment?

And even though we did invade iraq, you couldn't say that we ever blamed him for our problems.

Kim jong-il could not solve america's unemployment problems by altering North korea's foreign policy, well not short of starting a war which required conscription on america's behalf. America is capable of solving other nations by altering its foreign policy, just because it wouldnt benefit america doesnt mean that it's very humane or considerate for them not to do it, it simply means america's government is being loyal to its voters so it gets re-elected.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Tempestuous
just because it wouldnt benefit america doesnt mean that it's very humane or considerate for them not to do it, it simply means america's government is being loyal to its voters so it gets re-elected.

It's debatable whether the American voters (different from the American citizenry, a sizable proportion of which don't vote) benefit particularly from imperialism (or imperialist like actions). Even if they do (from moderately higher standards of living) I doubt most people would support it.

The vested interests which fund political parties on the other hand...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

1. You can argue that they are contributing to various problems right now (I'm referring to military support for Israel, intervention in Iraq, etc). Let's ignore the past for a moment, let's just all try to stop making things worse.

Yeah the middle east would definitely be a lot more peaceful if America withdrew support from Israel.

[Mushroom]

Originally posted by Texan
Liberal Arab Columnist: 'Why do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.?'

In an article titled "Why Do Arabs Hate the West, Especially the U.S.," Zuheir Abdallah, columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat, blames Arab fascism and Islamism for failing to achieve any accomplishments for the Arab world since 1948, leading to its backwardness today.

Just wait for them to declare a fatwa on him for insulting the religion, to prove him right

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Absolutley.

To me though (and I know my views are hardly typical) it's utterly irrelevent as to "whose fault" it is.

Yes, but the tenor of this thread seemed to be 'who's to blame?'. I'm perfectly willing to concede the US has made it's own mistakes in the region and move on.

The United States is still in a unique position, even once we've put aside "past crimes".

1. You can argue that they are contributing to various problems right now (I'm referring to military support for Israel, intervention in Iraq, etc). Let's ignore the past for a moment, let's just all try to stop making things worse.

Well, I'm all in favor of that. But what actions are making things worse? And which are making them better? How? And for who? And for how long?

Iraq is a mess now, but it's still arguably better than it was and it has the potential to be a lot better than it was (and possibly worse too, of course). Would another decade of inspections/sanctions have produced a better outcome? Maybe your crystal ball is better than mine because I really don't know.

2. The US has the greatest capacity on a great deal of levels (military, diplomatic, financial) and therefore is in the position of being able to assist in a variety of ways.

Assist who, though? Anyone/everyone we assist has opponents who'll hate us for helping the "wrong" side. :/

Ultimately, I think the capacity of the US to solve other people's problems is very limited. Changing regimes is relatively easy, but controlling what happens afterwards is not. We can--maybe--drag the Palestinians and Israelis to the table; but they're the one's who have to coexist so they're the ones who have to come up with a deal they both can live with (if such a deal exists). Maybe we can "sweeten the pot" a bit with a few incentives. If we strongarm the Israelis into making concessions they wouldn't otherwise make, would that really help bring lasting peace? Or would it just sow the seeds for further conflict?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Yeah the middle east would definitely be a lot more peaceful if America withdrew support from Israel.

Who said anything about peace? Justice and Peace are two different things.

Anyway, it would (in the longer term) result in Israel having a healthier future. Their current policy will lead to their destruction, but they're free to do what they wish.

[W]

What the US (and yes, other western powers) does openly has never been that big a problem.

[Queen DAX]

Originally posted by Tempestuous
Did you ever read into how the creation of the jewish state came about?

Oddly enough, i'd be slightly pissed off if 200k foreigners moved into my country, drew on a map with the support of the super powers at the time and said 'this bit is now our's, ta'.

yes I have it is called The book of Genesis 16:18 through 16:21

il qoute for thos who havent read this

"on the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abrah saying"

"To your descendants. I have given this land from the River of Egypt to the great river Eupharetes- The Kenites, the Perizzites, The Rephaim, the Amorties, the Canaanites, the Girga****es and the Jebusites."


From this day on in history the land has been fought for, from the Palastines. ( note the start of the Holy and religious wars) to follow.

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by Queen DAX
"on the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abrah saying"

"To your descendants. I have given this land from the River of Egypt to the great river Eupharetes- The Kenites, the Perizzites, The Rephaim, the Amorties, the Canaanites, the Girga****es and the Jebusites."

Oh well that's alright then. If God gave it to them what is all the fuss about? It obviously belongs to them is written in a book and everything!!!!!!!!

[W]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
Oh well that's alright then. If God gave it to them what is all the fuss about? It obviously belongs to them is written in a book and everything!!!!!!!!

That's not what she's saying. She's refuting the "the state of israel came about recently, and tho it has as much right as any other state to exist, since it happened in modern times and not while we were still barbarians, it can be challenged" by pointing out that indeed it did start way back in history, before most other contemporary states in fact.

[HAL-9000]

Originally posted by W
That's not what she's saying. She's refuting the "the state of israel came about recently, and tho it has as much right as any other state to exist, since it happened in modern times and not while we were still barbarians, it can be challenged" by pointing out that indeed it did start way back in history, before most other contemporary states in fact.

I'm tired

[W]

Originally posted by HAL-9000
I'm tired

Go to bed?

[HAL-9000]

Too much effort

[zek132]

well that's a long post!

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by W
That's not what she's saying. She's refuting the "the state of israel came about recently, and tho it has as much right as any other state to exist, since it happened in modern times and not while we were still barbarians, it can be challenged" by pointing out that indeed it did start way back in history, before most other contemporary states in fact.

im not really sure, but i think by international law you lose all rights on any land after 100 years (thats why hongkong was given back to china at the time it was given back).
what do you think would happen if everyone would run around in the world and reclaim any land his/her ancestors once owned?

but anyway, the palestinans have just as much rights on that land as the israelis have, because gthey have been living there for centuries.

[W]

Originally posted by wu_trax
im not really sure, but i think by international law you lose all rights on any land after 100 years (thats why hongkong was given back to china at the time it was given back).
what do you think would happen if everyone would run around in the world and reclaim any land his/her ancestors once owned?

but anyway, the palestinans have just as much rights on that land as the israelis have, because gthey have been living there for centuries.

You're as stupid as HAL-9000. Actually stupider, since you're making the mistake AFTER I pointed the same mistake out to him.

I'm not saying the Jews have any right to the land, I'm not saying the Palestinians have any right to the land, and I'm not saying that either people don't have a right to the land.

That said, "international law" means simply what the other nations have agreed they will accept, and haven't really affected anything beyond making that clear. To say that Norwegians have no right to Norway since we've lived here more than a hundred years is a bit silly, no?

[wu_trax]

if there would be no Norwegians for a hundret years (and thus no state of Norway) there would be no such right.
yes, there was a state of israel 2000 years ago, but there wasnt for more than 1000 years. it is not the same state, so i dont see the point in mentioning it.