# Middle East Report:



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Here is a brand new thread for all of us who have an interest in this pivotal area of the planet.

Some people here have Iranian girlfriends and are planning to visit the area sometime soon. A few may be related to someone from one of the other countries in the area. Macjava actually lives in Saudi Arabia...and regularly sends us updates from there.

This is very cool stuff. We all need to know more about the middle east, and discuss it with each other openly. What happens there affects ALL of us in a big way. 

And this is likely to become even more apparent to ALL of us in the coming months. Trust me on this.

Feel free to post any thoughts or observations you may have about the Middle East right here. Have you been there? Are you planning to go? Have any family members or friends living in the area? Any thoughts on what has happened in that area...or what WILL happen in the coming months or years?

Then please speak up. We are all listening.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Well it has been more then a week since Saudi Security Forces killed the local Al Qaeda leader and 3 of his followers in a city center shootout. The 4 bandits were at a gas and food bar taking on supplies when their car was spotted. Although young in age, the group certainly displayed a level of organized training as one of the 4 was killed on the roof of the food store where he was providing cover. 

The Crown Prince and Minister of Interior have released a statement announcing any terrorists that hand themselves over to the authorities in the next month will be forgiven and no criminal charges will be brought against them by the state. So far to date, we have had one taker. This does not include any charges that could be brought forward by the victims and their families. A part of the legal system in this part of the world includes something called "blood money". where a member of the victims family could ask for large sums of money and even the life of the guilty person or persons. 

Although there seems to be a certain calm since last weeks excitement, one is left wondering how long it will last.

In other news the British Gov. announced that it has sent its own security team to protect British diplomats here, and that a military force was ready in the event that some 35,000 British nationals have to be quickly pulled out. This news was followed by the Saudi Minister of Interior anouncing that foriegn citizens can carry firearms for protection and that companies can at their own discretion employ armed private security contractors. These moves obviously do not support Government claims that they are in control of the security situation here.

Having previously owned and used firearms for target practice and sport, I have never really thought of carrying one for protection before. To think that I would need a firearm complet with shoulder holster to go about my daily life is a very strange and allien thought. I have always felt as safe living in the Middle East as I do in Canada. Like most I am sure, I have never felt the need to carry any sort of weapon in Saudi or anywhere else for that matter, and I guess that is what makes the idea so strange to me. Isn't it funny how times have changed. 

On the one hand, you have horrific tails like the ones from the Oasis compound slaughter that make you wonder if a firearm might bring a better nights sleep.

And on the other hand, it can only be described as a weird feeling to think that the guy infront, behind and on both sides of you is likely packing heat on the drive into work.

Besides suggesting a quick exit which isn't a real option at the moment, I am interested to know your thoughts if any, on the above situation.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A "Year of living dangerously indeed". 

The situation is complex and I won't rehash old arguments but I do have some questions which you might be able to shed some light on.

Is the middle eastern Bloc for want of a better word or perhaps the "Arab Street" in common parlance fractured in such a way that they cannot be of substantive help in stabilizing Iraq.
At the very least stepping up travel controls to Iraq by perhaps one can call them "agitators".

Are the borders so porous on purpose do you feel or is it just the nature of the terrain allowing "unofficial" access at many points.

Are some current governments there - for example Egypt that has in the past played peace maker worried for their own stability or perhaps looking to see the US lose face. 

Thoughts appreciated.

I did find it disturbing that so many senior diplomats and other"notable voices" with experience in the Middle East from both the US and Britain have condemned the US policy.

I didn't like it but that was just my opinion. Their's would seem to hold far more weight. 
Was there ever much support on the Arab Street itself for the US policy.??

[ June 27, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Macjava,

I think I'd be weighing up my options as you are doing. No matter what you decide, you will clearly have to continually assess your situation and be prepared to get out at a moments notice. 

Allowing people to carry firearms is not going to make one iota of difference to personal security - at least not positively. The terrorists (and now thieves and any criminals) will assume you're packing and will either shoot first or aim first. The more weapons there are about in untrained hands, the more discharges. Although this will sound hollow coming from the safety of a stable country, your best defense is continual awareness and not going anywhere where you can be singled out. Presumably your employer is giving your colleagues information and training and I'd also assume that the Saudi's are focussing efforts on protection of the foreign worker compounds. But that's a big job and who is to say the security forces are not infiltrated? Indeed, if it ever looks as though there may be a coup, get outta there pronto. When states that are built on family power topple, the overthrowers don't think about the future economy and usually do decades of damage in a few days (Iran, Iraq......).

I hope you are getting danger pay. I read in a British newspaper last week that UK contractors are paying 1000 pounds a week extra to keep people in the middle east. With so many foreign workers in Saudi, it's a fairly good bet that there will be significant evacuation plans if it ever comes to that. Meanwhile, the chances of being "singled" out must be pretty low in relative terms. Life is a risk. Probably more likely to be shot be one of your buddies playing with his new pistol....


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

At first glance, I thought I mistakenly found another thread on the cold war until the words "Arab Street" registered. Then I knew I was home.

I will just start by saying that making light of the current situation as it relates to ones personal safety would be in very bad taste and a show of poor character. I would expect these are not the type of qualities someone in sales would want to convey to the buying public. If it was unintended, you have my appologies and please excuse me as I am probably a little sensitive about the security situation at the moment.

The Arab streets seem to be pretty much in tune with each other (not fractured). The general concensus seems to be that they are glad Saddam is gone, but don't want to see an occupying force on Arab lands any longer then need be. Additionally, most Arabs still believe that the Americans used the war to obtain free oil. While these are negative points for the coalition forces there, most of the Arab streets condem and oppose the terorrist attacks that are killing innocent muslims and non muslims alike. I am using the term Arab Streets to represent the general population of the Whole Arab world. Other groups represented by Islamic extreemists have other points of view with their own agenda. One of which is to stop the spread of democratic styled Arab governments. People in this group have shown that they will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They will slit the throat of any innocent bystander (man, woman or child) faster then you can say "cube 4 sale".

"The explosion in Hillah, 60 miles south of Baghdad, came Saturday evening outside the former Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) mosque in a shopping area where residents traditionally while away hours in the cool of the evening, said police Brig. Gen. Qais Hamza Aboud, the commander of police in surrounding Babylon province. Aboud told The Associated Press that the blast was caused by a booby-trapped car. He said it was a clear attack on civilians — men, women and children — because there were no police or coalition soldiers in the area. He said nine other cars were set ablaze and that many of the injured suffered severe burns."

I am not really sure what you mean or expect in terms of "substantive help in stabilizing Iraq", as Iraqi civilians themselves can be as much a target as the coalition forces there. Last thursday for example, more then one hundred Iraqis were killed while lining up for jobs as security police. Numerous Iraqis associated with the current political structure have been assasinated in broad day light. The same can be said for Saudi Arabia. The majority of saudi citizens here are as scared and helpless as we expats. Put another way, if it were not for the destructive forces of these fanatical insurgents, Iraq would be well on the road to rebuilding itself and the majority of Iraqi people would have supported that.

Obviously when a country finds itself at war, boarder control can become difficult if not non existant at times. Stepping up controls at points of entry would likely be difficult as it would require resources that might be needed elsewhere to sustain the countries war effort. To shed light on your sarcastic slure, I recall the TV images of people leaving Syria for Iraq to make Jihad. Who were they? Agitators? Friends of a fanatic? Patriotic terorrists! Another recollection of a young muslim man going off to make Jihad in Afghanistan. He had only gained British Citizenship a few years prior to the Afghan war. In a interview with BBC, he anounced that he was going to defeat the British troops on Afghan soil and watch them run from the battle field with tales between their legs. What classification should we give him? Traitor? Agitator? Patriotic terorrist! God save the Queen and all that good stuff. In my opinion, one of the problems to all of this is a single word. Jihad! It is not the birth right of any human being to go around murdering innocent people in the name of God no matter what religion you subscribe to. 
To see this in live action, tune into CNN and get the latest on 3 Turkish workers being held at gun point. Now take a close look at the agitators holding the guns and read very closely their demands. Pretty impressive eh. These gangsters do not represent the Iraqi people! Most of them are not even from Iraq! Regardless of what you think of US policy and its war effort, tell me these thugs (agitators) are making a positive contribution to the current situation. Tell me their cause is the right one for the Iraqi people! They call Bush a criminal? You mean hacking off the heads of 3 innocent people that were just doing their job is not criminal? Yah, you might call them agitators if you want to be nice about it. 

The word Jihad has been hijaked by these fanatical groups to exploit its meaning far from its intended origins. The word Jihad means "strugle". It is performed by all muslims and represents the personal strugle each must endure day in and day out to live their lives as good muslims and to ensure them a place in the house of Allah. Jihad can mean "military strugle" in certain instances, but not in the context these fanatical groups are using it in today. 

Egypt is one of the strongest regional allies the US has in the Middle East and its current president is an avid supporter of western democratic governments. Egypt itself knows all too well the challenges facing Saudi and Iraq today, as it has just recently gone through similar pains of civil unrest. From about 1996 to almost 2000, Egypt's government fought a Islamic fundimentalist movement that was bent on religious and political reform. Egypts current efforts revolving around the Arab/Israeli issue will no doubt have a lasting effect on regional stability as well as that within thier own boarders if anything at all can be achieved. It is not likely that Eygpt disires the US to fail in Iraq or Palestine as that would only lead to more unrest throughout the region that could possible spread to its own boarders. 

It is true that there has been a lot of negative feed back regarding the current US war effort. Many who supported the war at first, are now questioning it. Show someone a tredmill and they think it is a great idea. Tell them they have to stay on it for 30 min/day and well.... you get the picture. I recall on another thread someone had postsed a link to an article that quoted 10 or 12 ex military and or political figures that were speaking out against the war and its validity. And all 12 of them would be right. War can never be the best solution. On the flip side, 12 people does not constitute the US government. Nor would it be even a fraction of the pentigons planning dept. My point is simple. Just remember that the negative spin is always amplified as that is how the media works. It sells papers. Additionally, I think it unfair to point all fingers at the Americans for mistakes made here. Do you really think that Russia, Germany and France were against the war because they are simply nice guys with the best intentions for the Iraqi people? Or were they trying to protect their own interests that were linked to the former Saddam government. Again, not everything you see is as it seems.

Now I would like to ask you one question. Define US policy for me?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A VERY insightful thread.

Might just do some lurking here!

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You get me wrong if you think it was a slur - it was a search for a word that best described the activity of those in Iraq and perhaps elsewhere that are intent on destabilizing emerging civilian institutions in Iraq and existing governments in other states. Most I understand are not from the locales where the violence occurs.

It's one of the issues facing the world and the US in particular - how to classify these violent militants even when they are captured.
I don't pretend to have the answer to that.
Don't set up strawmen that aren't there. There is no easy answer and the area has beenin conflict for some 13,000 years on an off and with the "west" for the better part of 1500 years.

No question even historically back to the Great Game and western meddling ( including Russia ) fingers can be pointed in all directions including the " who were friends and now enemies then friends etc " of the various US adminstrations.

What I see from reading is that those that serve in the Street - often come to understand and respect greatly Middle East culture and also know it's different.

We struggle with similar issue with Quebec as a society with far less a gulf than exists between "Western" and "Middle east" - tho those terms are so vague as to be almost useless.
All you can say is - there ARE differences and what I perceive is often a lack of respect in the West for those differences. 
I'm sure the portrayal of the "enemy" in many movies as sinister looking "vaguely middle eastern with head scarves" is infuriating.
It's that kind of insensitivity that shouts "disrespect" and without respect for different cultures any mutual effort or initiative becomes all that more difficult.

What I was trying to understand from you without you getting your back up was how the various governments in the area viewed the Iraq situation - whether there was consensus or a wide diversity of opinion.

From the gist of what you said it appears the the fundamentalist - stateless agitator - is a threat to them as well. At the same time the US poses a different discomfort...harking back to old invaders perhaps.
No easy answers for anyone.
•••••••
As to US policy.
That's far too broad to answer.

Should the US have gone into Iraq as it did - I feel no and am glad Canada did not support it and amazed at Mexico standing up and saying NO.

At the same time it points out the lack of a method of dealing with "sovereign" state who is in the eyes of the world a "rogue".

There appears to be methods when the "rogue" aspect involves another nation or even an oppressed province/people ( Kosovo and East Timor ).
But within borders and even in areas like the Congo where a world war level conflict continues the mechanism and perhaps even the actual forces are limited or ineffective.
And the US with issues with the World Court and "war crimes" makes it more complicated yet.

The one aspect of "US Policy" that is most disturbing to me and I think to many others in the world is the pre-emptive aspect which is an about turn from previous administrations - tho only perhaps in "stated form" as covert pre-emptive actions could be argued.
Retaliating against Afghanistan while perhaps not too effective was understood by most of the other nations.
Engaging Iraq the second time was not.

It's the pre-emptive - "whoever we label evil" aspect that is most concerning. Is that not a concern for the Middle East that you are aware of??

The concept of American hegemony not brooking rival super powers is a more shadowed aspect that causes me concern.
America's lip service to multi-lateralism - and all the frustrations that dealing with multi-lateral decision making entails - is more worrying in the larger aspect of world foreign policy as opposed to Iraq or the Middle East.

I don't object to the US as the world cop if they want to be as long as they aren't sherrif, judge and executioner all rolled into one.
They got rid on vigilantes in their own past ( mostly ).
It's still appears to be a concern on the world stage.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

MacDoc. I appologize if I have commented inappropriately. Most probably a misunderstanding from my side. Please allow me the opportunity to explain in more detail later.

I appreciate the comments thus far and look forward to replying soon. At the moment I am excitedly trying to make arrangements for a flight out of here as my wife has Just delivered our son Anthony at the American Hospital Dubai.

See you all back here soon.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Looking forward to hearing back from you, once you are in Dubai.  

Have had a few friends who worked in the middle east. They all said that a trip to Dubai was like breath of fresh air after being cooped up in a small room for a while.

Enjoy it laddie. Sounds like you deserve a break.  

And congrats on the new addition to the family. Best of luck to all of you.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No offence taken - I was struggling for language as the rest of the planet seems to struggle for solutions.

Congrats on your new life challenge  - I've got two I know.

Ah Dubai now THAT seems to be a place of wonder these days. I saw a documentary on the Canadina team doing the construction there. Absolutely mind boggling.
Take care.

Looking forward to - "in the thick of it" - insights.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Allow me to simplify the situation for you, macdoc. It is thusly:

-REALLY bad guy was running Iraq and was hated throughout the region. He was a threat to everyone. EVERYWHERE.

-United Nations were unable to remove this critter or his vermin offspring because several key members of that august body (France Germany Russia, among others) had a vested interest in seeing him remain in control of all that oil. He could do anything he wanted...or so he thought.

-United States under George W. Bush...along with thirty five other countries...gave said bad guy several warnings and then removed him from power. With a surprisingly small loss of life on either side. The Iraqi people were overjoyed. So was every other thinking human being on the planet.

-Then pretty much every other Bad Guy in the region decided that this was too good an opportunity to pass up, and descended on the place with every sort of weapon they could beg borrow or steal. The idea is to destabilise the whole shaky interim government and then carve off a piece of Iraq for themselves. One of the reasons that this _COULD_ actually work is because the world media and the US media is so terribly critical of the coalition action in Iraq. This creates severe public pressure to push the Americans and their allies out of Iraq before it's really ready to stand on it's own.

-The fact that the UN is completely unable to fulfill it's proper role in all of this (or anywhere ELSE in the world, for that matter) just makes it all that much easier for the Bad Guys to believe they can succeed. The UN is paralysed because of the previously aforementioned self-interest of certain key countries who hold a lot of power within that body. (see above). Those previously aforementioned key countries are currently under internal investigation, by order of none other than Kofi Anan himself, to see just how _DEEP_ the internal UN corruption really is.

(the fact that one of the very first names to be revealed by the internal corruption probe was that of Kofi Anan's own son makes me suspect that the investigation won't really go very far.)

Meanwhile....Iraq is on the brink of self-determination. Saddam Hussein is about to be turned over to the Iraqi authorities. And...as near as I can tell...not a single drop of Iraqi oil has yet been stolen by the Americans. As a matter of fact, the Americans have devoted billions of their own dollars toward rebuilding and securing the country before turning it over to local control.

And if the state-sponsored and privately-funded Bad Guys would just stop blowing up infrastructure and terrorising the Iraqis for a few weeks...then it all might turn out to be a roaring success.

With Iran poised to begin it's own home-grown democratic revolution at any moment, then we might see democracy breaking out all over the middle east.   

Which is precisely _WHY_ so many state-sponsored and privately-funded Bad Guys are doing their level best to stop the process before it gets a toehold. Stable democracies are bad news for the jihad types. Hard to recruit the dissaffected youth and strap bombs on them when they are fat and happy and free to vote.

This is ALSO why Saudi Arabia is becoming a target for the jihadists right now. It is a major oil state and there is a confusion of power at the top right now. It is ripe for de-stabilistation by cruel terrorist acts targeted at innocent civilians. Expect more of them to happen in the coming months. If the US pulls out of Iraq too soon and that country begins to really teeter...then expect some truly horrible stuff to happen in Saudi. The Bad Guys have an agenda, no question about it. And they'll do anything.... _ANYTHING_ ...to further that end.

The only real hope for the future is a sucessful transition to self-determining democracy for Iraq, and later on Iran. Still later, for Saudi Arabia.

Future historians will look back on this period...and it's lurid negative headlines...and shake their collective heads in wonder. "Did they really want the terrorists to _WIN_, and Bush to fail ?" They will ask themselves.

Perhaps some of us should stop and take a breath and ask ourselves that very same question.

The answer might be rather revealing.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

Macnutt: who's the "they" in "Did they really want the terrorists to WIN, and Bush to fail ?" They will ask themselves."

US media?


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Part 1

It is with great pride that I introduce Anthony William (Tigger), born June 28, 2004. I am flattered that Steve picked my sons birthday to announce the next major release of mac OSX, but to actually go ahead and name the next version Tiger really deserves special mention. Thanks Steve.











Anthony is number 3 for us and comes as a special gift from my 40th birthday trip to the Maldives last October. Actually, he came as a little bit of a delighted surprise, as the minister of all ministries said she would be closing the factory almost 7 years ago. There is a lot of love in those jeans Son!

After a well deserved break and a beautiful reunion, it is back to Riyadh and back to work. I would again like to thank everyone for their comments thus far on such a hot and sensitive topic in this as well as many other threads, and I would especially like to thank macdoc, utbjwoodget and macnutt for their well wishes. Thank you.

Before I begin, I would like to repeat something already said. Religion and politics are two of the most difficult topics to debate. In the end there is never really a right or wrong argument. Just one person’s point of view compared to another. Like the act of prayer or voting, we all have to make personal choices based on our own experiences, knowledge and what we believe will serve our own interests best. The level of discussion on this forum can be impressive at times as the participants are often very well read. I have to say that I am impressed with the content of the debates here and have thoroughly enjoyed all of the varied points of view. At times, the discussions here have even caused me to step back and rethink my own point of view. What else could one expect from a group of mac users.

I ended my last post here asking for a definition of US foreign policy as macdoc understands it. I think it was fair to answer it the way he did as Government policies regarding foreign affairs are typically quite complex and usually in a constant state of flux. I will add though that after having followed several threads in which macdoc has stated well reasoned opinions regarding issues on foreign affairs and or politics, I was admittedly hoping for a little more meat to chew on.

However, I will start with the one aspect of "US Policy" that is most disturbing to you. Not as a personal attack, but simply as an effort to add another dimension to your argument with the hopes of shedding new light on areas that might have been left neglected.

Issues surrounding pre-emptive action and or unilateral decision making in today’s world by any country would be a very good reason for concern; especially when those actions and or decisions relate to global issues. Currently, the missing counter balance to US might and power has left many analysts with those exact concerns. In all fairness though, pre-emptive action and unilateral decision making is not exactly what happened regarding the recent Afghanistan / Iraq invasions. I will skip over Afghanistan and start with Iraq as that seems to be your main point of concern. Before doing so, I should conclude these issues regarding Afghanistan by simply saying that the Taliban in Afghanistan were given ample time to provide the world with a reason not to invade that county. They more then just failed to provide that reason, they challenged it.

Pre-emptive action is certainly not what happened in Iraq. We should not forget that there were several long months of debates and resolutions passed at the UN following Afghanistan on issues concerning Iraq. We should also not forget the years leading up to this point that were spent watching Saddam ignore world opinion and numerous UN resolutions, while causing general mayhem to his own people and the region at large.

Quote
“had defanged Saddam sufficiently without breaching sovereign territory” 

I could not disagree more with the above quote. In which way was Saddam defanged? Was it the half hearted way he made the common Iraqi pay for the sanctions placed against their country because of his inept actions? It is sad to think that the animals in the Hussain family zoos were better kept and feed then the average Iraqi citizen was! 

Or was it the way he silently murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people with WMD? Or maybe he was “ defanged” in the same way that the likes of Khadafi was “defanged”? The skies over Scotland and nightclubs of Germany ring certain bells and recollections of a mad man assumed to be “ defanged”! “ Defanged” is a relative term here. 

Considering the nature of global affairs post 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion that followed, Saddam, as the head of state and ruler of Iraq, should have been able to pick up on the right thing to do. Most other Arab rulers in the region had come to the appropriate conclusions and were strongly cautioning Saddam on his position while advising him to rapidly change coarse. 

If Saddam’s intentions were so good, why didn’t he open up to the world and disprove the accusations being leveled at Iraq? Instead, he maintained a harsh posture with words of war. He was fully aware of the events of 9/11, remembering he publicly applauded them. He was also fully aware that the Americans were trying to connect dots to his name and flag. 

How does someone like Saddam, who has so cunningly managed to stay in power for decades against the will of not only the vast majority of his own people, but the will of many others in the world, miscalculate his position so badly? A sudden miscalculation that not only costs him the life of his sons, his rule, but untold fortunes! Could it be that he was given assurances from certain members of the UN assembly that war would not proceed? Could it be that this was also in and of itself a miscalculation; war would not proceed? Or was he just reading too much into the message that was coming from his economic allies at the UN that war would not proceed! Whatever the reason for his mental lapse, He certainly left many with the impression that his intentions were unchanged. Bad! Death and destruction to anyone who challenges his existence, or gets in his way. 

It would be an oversight and absolute disgrace to the victims of 9/11 to simply call this a war for oil, as it would be an error to place all the blame on US policy or any others for what eventually happened. A large part of the blame rests firmly on the shoulders of Saddam’s regime where it has been for some time. Equally, it would be wrong to label what eventually happened as pre-emptive given the time course of events.

A unilateral decision to go to war was a term used by the US itself in the context of a UN resolution failing to require the same. The US openly stated that they would be willing to go alone if they could not get a UN resolution passed. In reality though, the US did not act alone. They did not act on majority within the UN, but they also did not act under a unilateral decision. 

Looking from another angle under the same light, could questions be raised about the 3 big show stoppers, Germany, France and Russia? There was a lot of discussion regarding the reasons that these 3 counties were against war in Iraq and blocked a UN resolution that would require action. Mostly, they were reported as reasons of economics that were tied to the Saddam regime. If this is true, is it reasonable that Germany, France or Russia keep a tyrant like Saddam in power just because it makes good financial or economic sense for them? Especially after 9/11! Who would be fighting a war for oil here? What a slap in the face for all the American blood spilled on the wind swept beaches of France. What about world stability? Given his past track record, which government can guarantee that a tyrant like Saddam is not continuing his quest for bigger, more powerful WMD? The realizations post 9/11 leaves to much risk on the table to go unchecked. Would we actually expect Saddam to come clean with the world regarding his ambitions in this area anyway? Remember that after more then a decades long shell game with the UN, we were still waiting for him to come clean on what he did with a bunch of missiles that he was known to have, but suddenly went missing! He had Iraqi scientists devoted to a highly secret nuclear research program among other things. Why? 

As a world citizen am I really willing to put my trust in someone like Saddam? Absolutely not! I have seen Saddam’s world up close and I can tell you without hesitation, it’s not pretty. Does this mean that I think Bush is the perfect US president and that he has made all the right decisions? Absolutely not, but again without hesitation, I would take the one way ticket to Washington any day of the week! 

When one reads the commissioned reports made available concerning 9/11 and the war in Iraq, we should remember that although they have not found evidence of WMD or links between Saddam and Osama, they also have no evidence confirming that these issues did or do not exist. 

The reports were meant to tell one thing. Facts! The fact is they found no WMD and no evidence to confirm a link between Saddam and Osama.

In order to confirm WMD they would first have to find one. Iraq is a huge country. Finding illegal material within its boarders could take forever. This does not even account for the fact that these WMD or material could have been moved to a neighboring country like Syria. Mostly what can be said with any certainty regarding Iraqs WMD is that aside from using them on his own people, having a proven interest in further developing them and the fact that there is still an inventory of WMD that have gone unaccounted for in Iraq, Saddam himself constantly threatened that he had salted away enough arms to bring on the mother of all wars. If he was bluffing fine, but I would be inclined to take him on his word until proven otherwise. 

In order to confirm a link between Iraq and Osama, they would need video, audio or written material acknowledging this fact. Suppose a foreign intel agency informs you that a certain Mohammad of Egyptian origin has made contact with Iraqi diplomats. One year later this same Mohammed is seen on surveillance cameras boarding a flight that shortly there after crashes into a tall building. Further investigation reveals that this same Mohammed had been taking flight instructions for wide bodied jets at a school in the US while being funded by Osama and his terror group. Contact between Mohammed the pilot and Iraqi diplomats 3 years prior to a report on the matter can be easily disputed, but the fact that hundreds if not thousands of Osama’s little helpers are in Iraq today making frequent contact with members of various Iraqi groups can not. 

A unilateral decision to go to war was never taken by the US as they were not alone in their actions. The US did and still does enjoy a list of countries that support their efforts in Iraq and other parts of the world. Thank god.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Part 1

It is with great pride that I introduce Anthony William (Tigger), born June 28, 2004. I am flattered that Steve picked my sons birthday to announce the next major release of mac OSX, but to actually go ahead and name the next version Tiger really deserves special mention. Thanks Steve.











Anthony is number 3 for us and comes as a special gift from my 40th birthday trip to the Maldives last October. Actually, he came as a little bit of a delighted surprise, as the minister of all ministries said she would be closing the factory almost 7 years ago. There is a lot of love in those jeans Son!

After a well deserved break and a beautiful reunion, it is back to Riyadh and back to work. I would again like to thank everyone for their comments thus far on such a hot and sensitive topic in this as well as many other threads, and I would especially like to thank macdoc, utbjwoodget and macnutt for their well wishes. Thank you.

Before I begin, I would like to repeat something already said. Religion and politics are two of the most difficult topics to debate. In the end there is never really a right or wrong argument. Just one person’s point of view compared to another. Like the act of prayer or voting, we all have to make personal choices based on our own experiences, knowledge and what we believe will serve our own interests best. The level of discussion on this forum can be impressive at times as the participants are often very well read. I have to say that I am impressed with the content of the debates here and have thoroughly enjoyed all of the varied points of view. At times, the discussions here have even caused me to step back and rethink my own point of view. What else could one expect from a group of mac users.

I ended my last post here asking for a definition of US foreign policy as macdoc understands it. I think it was fair to answer it the way he did as Government policies regarding foreign affairs are typically quite complex and usually in a constant state of flux. I will add though that after having followed several threads in which macdoc has stated well reasoned opinions regarding issues on foreign affairs and or politics, I was admittedly hoping for a little more meat to chew on.

However, I will start with the one aspect of "US Policy" that is most disturbing to you. Not as a personal attack, but simply as an effort to add another dimension to your argument with the hopes of shedding new light on areas that might have been left neglected.

Issues surrounding pre-emptive action and or unilateral decision making in today’s world by any country would be a very good reason for concern; especially when those actions and or decisions relate to global issues. Currently, the missing counter balance to US might and power has left many analysts with those exact concerns. In all fairness though, pre-emptive action and unilateral decision making is not exactly what happened regarding the recent Afghanistan / Iraq invasions. I will skip over Afghanistan and start with Iraq as that seems to be your main point of concern. Before doing so, I should conclude these issues regarding Afghanistan by simply saying that the Taliban in Afghanistan were given ample time to provide the world with a reason not to invade that county. They more then just failed to provide that reason, they challenged it.

Pre-emptive action is certainly not what happened in Iraq. We should not forget that there were several long months of debates and resolutions passed at the UN following Afghanistan on issues concerning Iraq. We should also not forget the years leading up to this point that were spent watching Saddam ignore world opinion and numerous UN resolutions, while causing general mayhem to his own people and the region at large.

Quote
“had defanged Saddam sufficiently without breaching sovereign territory” 

I could not disagree more with the above quote. In which way was Saddam defanged? Was it the half hearted way he made the common Iraqi pay for the sanctions placed against their country because of his inept actions? It is sad to think that the animals in the Hussain family zoos were better kept and feed then the average Iraqi citizen was! 

Or was it the way he silently murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people with WMD? Or maybe he was “ defanged” in the same way that the likes of Khadafi was “defanged”? The skies over Scotland and nightclubs of Germany ring certain bells and recollections of a mad man assumed to be “ defanged”! “ Defanged” is a relative term here. 

Considering the nature of global affairs post 9/11 and the Afghanistan invasion that followed, Saddam, as the head of state and ruler of Iraq, should have been able to pick up on the right thing to do. Most other Arab rulers in the region had come to the appropriate conclusions and were strongly cautioning Saddam on his position while advising him to rapidly change coarse. 

If Saddam’s intentions were so good, why didn’t he open up to the world and disprove the accusations being leveled at Iraq? Instead, he maintained a harsh posture with words of war. He was fully aware of the events of 9/11, remembering he publicly applauded them. He was also fully aware that the Americans were trying to connect dots to his name and flag. 

How does someone like Saddam, who has so cunningly managed to stay in power for decades against the will of not only the vast majority of his own people, but the will of many others in the world, miscalculate his position so badly? A sudden miscalculation that not only costs him the life of his sons, his rule, but untold fortunes! Could it be that he was given assurances from certain members of the UN assembly that war would not proceed? Could it be that this was also in and of itself a miscalculation; war would not proceed? Or was he just reading too much into the message that was coming from his economic allies at the UN that war would not proceed! Whatever the reason for his mental lapse, He certainly left many with the impression that his intentions were unchanged. Bad! Death and destruction to anyone who challenges his existence, or gets in his way. 

It would be an oversight and absolute disgrace to the victims of 9/11 to simply call this a war for oil, as it would be an error to place all the blame on US policy or any others for what eventually happened. A large part of the blame rests firmly on the shoulders of Saddam’s regime where it has been for some time. Equally, it would be wrong to label what eventually happened as pre-emptive given the time course of events.

A unilateral decision to go to war was a term used by the US itself in the context of a UN resolution failing to require the same. The US openly stated that they would be willing to go alone if they could not get a UN resolution passed. In reality though, the US did not act alone. They did not act on majority within the UN, but they also did not act under a unilateral decision. 

Looking from another angle under the same light, could questions be raised about the 3 big show stoppers, Germany, France and Russia? There was a lot of discussion regarding the reasons that these 3 counties were against war in Iraq and blocked a UN resolution that would require action. Mostly, they were reported as reasons of economics that were tied to the Saddam regime. If this is true, is it reasonable that Germany, France or Russia keep a tyrant like Saddam in power just because it makes good financial or economic sense for them? Especially after 9/11! Who would be fighting a war for oil here? What a slap in the face for all the American blood spilled on the wind swept beaches of France. What about world stability? Given his past track record, which government can guarantee that a tyrant like Saddam is not continuing his quest for bigger, more powerful WMD? The realizations post 9/11 leaves to much risk on the table to go unchecked. Would we actually expect Saddam to come clean with the world regarding his ambitions in this area anyway? Remember that after more then a decades long shell game with the UN, we were still waiting for him to come clean on what he did with a bunch of missiles that he was known to have, but suddenly went missing! He had Iraqi scientists devoted to a highly secret nuclear research program among other things. Why? 

As a world citizen am I really willing to put my trust in someone like Saddam? Absolutely not! I have seen Saddam’s world up close and I can tell you without hesitation, it’s not pretty. Does this mean that I think Bush is the perfect US president and that he has made all the right decisions? Absolutely not, but again without hesitation, I would take the one way ticket to Washington any day of the week! 

When one reads the commissioned reports made available concerning 9/11 and the war in Iraq, we should remember that although they have not found evidence of WMD or links between Saddam and Osama, they also have no evidence confirming that these issues did or do not exist. 

The reports were meant to tell one thing. Facts! The fact is they found no WMD and no evidence to confirm a link between Saddam and Osama.

In order to confirm WMD they would first have to find one. Iraq is a huge country. Finding illegal material within its boarders could take forever. This does not even account for the fact that these WMD or material could have been moved to a neighboring country like Syria. Mostly what can be said with any certainty regarding Iraqs WMD is that aside from using them on his own people, having a proven interest in further developing them and the fact that there is still an inventory of WMD that have gone unaccounted for in Iraq, Saddam himself constantly threatened that he had salted away enough arms to bring on the mother of all wars. If he was bluffing fine, but I would be inclined to take him on his word until proven otherwise. 

In order to confirm a link between Iraq and Osama, they would need video, audio or written material acknowledging this fact. Suppose a foreign intel agency informs you that a certain Mohammad of Egyptian origin has made contact with Iraqi diplomats. One year later this same Mohammed is seen on surveillance cameras boarding a flight that shortly there after crashes into a tall building. Further investigation reveals that this same Mohammed had been taking flight instructions for wide bodied jets at a school in the US while being funded by Osama and his terror group. Contact between Mohammed the pilot and Iraqi diplomats 3 years prior to a report on the matter can be easily disputed, but the fact that hundreds if not thousands of Osama’s little helpers are in Iraq today making frequent contact with members of various Iraqi groups can not. 

A unilateral decision to go to war was never taken by the US as they were not alone in their actions. The US did and still does enjoy a list of countries that support their efforts in Iraq and other parts of the world. Thank god.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Part 2 (please see part 1 above)

Of all the interesting view points I have read here, I must say that there are still a couple points that are more confusing then interesting. One of them being “Amerika the police state” , or “fascist state”. I was stunned at the number of you that might think in this way. The first question that popped into my mind was “do they all really mean it, or are most of them just going along with a popular post?” It seams the basis for most of this is a stamp and the term “Homeland Security”. You guys cant be serious! 

Macdoc, how can someone with so much apparent depth hit rock bottom with a single phrase? Coming from you was like a shot in the dark, a surprise and or a complete miss. “I was like huh”. I understand your dislike for the current US administration. I can even understand that you might just simply dislike the Americans and what they stand for period. But police state? I guess you don’t treat all of your posts with the same thoroughness. 

If we really think of America as a police state, then the first question I have would be in comparison to what? Have any of you ever experienced a police state? Because I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here. First impression would be that most here don’t get out much, but I know that is not the case. So what then… must be just good old America bashing. Seems to be the flavor of the day. 

A great man once said “ the problem with history is that it is only one sided. It only reveals the consequences of the decisions and actions taken.” It is easy in hind sight to criticize America and its allies for the recent history that has been recorded in Afghanistan and Iraq, but what would history have revealed if Osama and Saddam were allowed to continue unchecked? You can only think about it now….You have no way of knowing for sure. Only memories of what you know of the past can help you build the possibilities…9/11

Yes things have changed since 9/11 and I would be the first one to agree that the Americans might be going a little far with some issues at times, but I don’t think it is completely unwarranted in light of the situation. Look at the treatment American Japanese had to endure following Pearl Harbor. Ok not a perfect comparison, but the point is, don’t underestimate the impact an incident like 9/11 can have on a government and the society it is meant to protect. 

We all want our civil liberties protected. Tell me Macdoc, where is the civil liberty in having some freak half dusted on religion slam my well kept memories into the side of a tall building? I do a fair amount of travel throughout the year and in light of current affairs, I not only expect, but demand that every passenger on every plane, train or what ever, including myself, has been screened and cleared for travel. Big job! Absolutely, but there is no room in any society for the type of people committing these terrorist acts let alone space for them on public or private modes of transportation.

Should I care that some rich guy wants to challenge his government on issues of whether or not he has to show official ID? Look pal, if you want to play the important citizen, do it on your own time or buy your own plane, but if you are planning on boarding the same plane as me, show the man your picture. 

Regarding the US as a fascist state, the following quote asked a fair and simple question. One I have not seen answered yet.

Quote
“Is the US turning to fascism...or is it just a reaction to a massive terrorist attack on home soil in their biggest city? Do they want to subjugate everyone in their own country and in every other country...or are they just reacting in a pro-active and preventative way?”


Lets look at this so called evolution of a fascist state by reviewing the “14 characteristics”.

Quote
“1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism -- Fascist regimes
tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere…” 

That would just about cover every living soul, group or party on this planet that has ever participated in elections, sporting competitions, fund raisers…ect! Who here is not proud of their identity and the flag their arms carry? Be careful, you might be turning into a fascist pig.


Quote
“2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights…The people tend to 'look the other way' or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners…”

Some if not all of this happens on almost a daily basis throughout the entire Arab world as well as China, most of Africa…ect! 

Quote
“3. Identification of Enemies/ Scapegoats as a Unifying
Cause - - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe…”

If we are implying here that the threat people like Osama and Saddam posed to the world was or is a make believe one, it is done in bad taste as this would demean the deaths of literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world.


Quote
“4. Supremacy of the Military -- Even when there are
widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding…”

A disproportionate amount? Comparatively speaking, I am not so sure about that statement. The US might spend more per capita on defense budgets when compared to this country or that, but they usually make more per capita then this country or that! The US has many social freedoms and institutions that are miles ahead and years in front of many countries around the world. Although it would be nice to see continued social improvements to what is already there as well as a decrease in US defense spending, it would be silly to single the US out as the one country that has neglected its social structure. 

On the other hand, taking almost the entire Arab world as an example, it is often joked that you belong to one of two institutions. Military or Religion. There will always be room for more government spending to help improve social structure in any society, but is it really fair to place labels of fascism to one of the worlds strongest democracies?


Quote
“6. Controlled Mass Media -- Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government…”

Again, compared to what?… There are places in this world where media coverage is controlled with the barrel of a gun. The US is not one of them.

Quote
“7. Obsession with National Security -- Fear is used as a
motivational tool by the government over the masses…”

This is in exact opposition to what the current US administration has done. Through all of the major crisis times since 9/11, the US government has asked its citizens not to panic, but to go about their daily life as normal and encouraged its citizens not to change who they are or what they do as this would imply a victory for the terrorist… blah blah blah… 


Quote
“8. Religion and Government are Intertwined -- Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool…”

I suggest a visit to Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia…ect. Where a man can be publicly beaten for not attending a mosque during any of the 5 daily prayer calls, or where a man can be punished with death for practicing the wrong religion. Slightly less likely in the US I would say!


Quote
“9. Corporate Power is Protected -- The industrial and
business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power…”

Can you give me an example of a country where wealth and power does not promote the government? Nice to know I grew up in a great fascist country like Canada!


Quote
“11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts -- Fascist
nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia…”

Cant really see how the US fits in here.


Quote
“12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment -- Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power…”

Tell that to the bruisers caught on tape while handing out public beatings… The legal system in democratic societies generally frowns on police brutality issues. All in all though, when considering the size of all civil police forces across America, the incidence of such issues is quite small comparing to other parts of the world.


Quote
“13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption -- Fascist regimes
almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government 
positions…”

Lets compare the US to Afghanistan or Iraq since they so prominently fit into this discussion. I wonder which would prove to be more fascist like? The current US administration or one of the other regimes. Saddam’s Iraq gave a whole new meaning to “I’ll tell two friends and so on and so on”…


Quote
“14. Fraudulent Elections….”

The last time Saddam held an election, he won with a landslide victory and carried 99.9% of the votes. No one can figure out what happened to the other 0.1% as Saddam was the only one allowed to run for office! TOMORROW YOU WILL VOTE…FOR ME!


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Part 3 (please see part 1 & 2 above)

Macdoc! I was seriously thinking the next time I was to be in your neck of the woods, I could introduce myself over a barley sandwich or two and we could discuss my next PowerBook purchase among other things…Then you posted this and I am thinking, can I afford it!

Quote
“Very good point there, Osama – NP”

I know I am hardly worthy of it, but if there is one thing I wish to impress upon any of you here, it would be this. There is nothing good, right, or truthful about anything Osama or any of his followers says, does, or represents. Presenting Osama’s views as something you approve of on a public forum could make for a risky character builder. Macdoc, after following your personality here at ehmac for some time, and enjoying it considerably I might add, I have to believe that you have mistakenly associated yourself with the above views out of pure ignorance.

Since the age old debate of Israel / Palestine has been brought up through the eyes and words of a mad man, lets take a closer look at the arguments that have been so diligently posted here by macdoc.

To begin, I ask a simple yes or no question. Leaving borders and territory out of this for the moment, as these could be disputed until the end of time; do the Jews, like the Palestinians, have a right to live in that part of the world? Remember that the Jews, after fleeing slavery in Egypt, had established an existence in that same location that like any other modern society, provided shelter, governance, trade and a social structure complete with sacred temples for its people, centuries before the Muslim rulers and their Islamic faith appeared on the scene. 

The area known as Judaea from biblical times, had the name Palestine bestowed upon it by Roman occupiers in their effort to erase the identity of a people that were seen as a constant irritant to that Empire. Jerusalem, as one of its peoples oldest settlements, not only houses the most holiest of Jewish shrines, but also provides a historical landmark that can not be disputed. Jerusalem! City of the _ _ _ s. (blanks to be filled in by reader)

If you answered yes to the above as I would, then you recognize the struggle for freedom and the right to act as an independent people in an area that holds the strongest of ties both historically and culturally. This peoples legitimate struggle for freedom is no different then any others that have come before or after; as witnessed throughout the course of human history. 

If you answered no, then I challenge simply with why? While waiting for a reply, lets build on the above scenario. Lets move to Mecca now or even a thousand years from now, and ask its Muslim inhabitants if they would be willing to not only leave this historical & culturally important place, but accept another as its replacement. I am pretty sure I know the answer to that one.


Quote:
“You attacked us in Palestine” 

Arab aggression was at the forefront of all but 1 of the 5 major Arab/Israeli conflicts. In 1948, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq all attacked Israel as it announced its independence. In 1967, Egypt requested the UN to leave its territory before mobilizing thousands of Russian made armor pieces and Hundreds of thousands of troops to the Sinai. Additionally, Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba by naval blockade and conducted low level military flights over Elait. Egypt was also joined by Syria, Jordan and Iraq as they publicly announced their intentions of eliminating the Zionist pigs from that area. 1973 witnessed an Egyptian surprise attack during an Israeli national holiday and in 1982 the PLO sparked off another conflict from bases in South Lebanon. 

The US had very little to do with attacking Palestine physically. If the Americans were attacking Muslims in Palestine, then who were the Russians attacking?

Quote:
“Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years.”

Quote:
“the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years”

Quote:
“The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased.”

News flash… The area being referred to as Palestine has been the object of military and or political games for the better part of the last 300 centuries. Osama would like you to focus on the last 50 years as that is what is most relevant to his cause. The Jews have a history in that region that reaches back more then 2500 years. Macdoc! Give me one good reason why a people should give up a 2500 year history soaked with its own blood, sweat and tears based on someone’s discontent over the last 50? 

In keeping with his views then, Muslim Arabs were criminal occupiers when in the mid seventh century, they illegally conquered these lands from the Christian hands of a Byzantium Empire, and further more, the creation of these Muslim Arab states was a crime that had to be erased. This is what he uses to justify 9/11? What an Ahole! 

Macdoc! Explain to me how one peoples conquest differs from that of another? How is it that war and conquest in the mid 7th century should have the distinction of being legal while conflict in the 21st century should be considered a criminal act? Should we call one an agitator and the other the rightful occupier / landowner? It appears that Osama & Co. just aint happy with the way things worked out in the 21st century. 


Quote:
“It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses”

Islam was not an ideal in the days of Moses. It would be a little hard to claim inheritance to the laws passed down through him.


Quote:
“When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam”


When Jerusalem fell from Christian hands to that of its new Muslim rulers, it did so for the first time in history. There was no “return to Islam” as far as legitimate history is concerned. 


Quote:
“and we make no distinction between them”

Lets take something of Christian or Jewish value and show it off in this nuts home town and see what kind of reception you get. A word of advice! Have a well planned escape route. Here in Saudi, anyone who practices a religion other then Islam, does so behind locked doors. I still find it amusing how you can find mosques in many North American or European towns, but you wont find so much as even the front cover of what use to be a lonely bible anywhere in Saudi Arabia where the public would see it. So where is the lack of distinction between faiths Osama?


Quote:
“Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis”

“The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you”

These two quotes sum up nicely the level of this guys insanity. As he puts it, he is determined to remove all legitimate forms of governance in the Arab world and replace them with a superior shariah law. (Oh yah, he forgot to mention who would be at the top of this cute little pyramid. Him of course.) 

He interprets his own government’s resistance to this notion as an attack against his kind, and feels that ultimately the US is behind the resistance? How does that work in the real world? Like there should be a government anywhere that would be overjoyed by the fact that some freak with a lot of $$$ is going around blowing up large parts of its society with the intention of overthrowing their legitimate governance? If nothing else, I guess it underscores the mans level of stupidity and might help some of the nay Sayers understand him 
a little better … (9/11)

Shariah law! I will give you an example of how the supreme shariah law works. In Nigeria a few years back, a woman was raped and became pregnant. She was facing execution under shariah law for bearing a child out of wedlock. Is that supreme enough for ya…Macdoc!


Quote:
“You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices”


The US buys oil on the world market like every other nation in the world. Oil which by the way is not his! There is nothing paltry about the market value of oil today. The problem with a halfwit like Osama is that he understands very little of the world around him, let alone the gravity of the situation as it concerns world energy supply. There is a fine balance between the amount of energy a given producer supplies and the amount it should charge. Groups like OPEC have been managing this situation long before the fruit cake with a rocket launcher came on the seen. 

Oil producing countries are well aware of the fact that the higher hydrocarbon energy costs rise, the more incentive there is for consuming countries to develop alternative sources of energy. That incentive is a direct threat to the long term stability of the country producing the oil. Saudi Arabia as an example is no doubt enjoying the current price and production hike to the tune of a few hundred billion a year, but they likely do not want it to stay there as they know that straying to far from the negotiated range of $22 - $28 for to long could have long term negative effects. What concerns me most about the current cost of energy is not will I be able to afford to fill my car, but what will be the long term effects on the economies of countries like Saudi and Iraq if energy costs remain for to long out of their expected range? How will that effect world stability? 


Quote:
“Is it in any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century, that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?!! (Reservedly, I think he's got a point here – NP”


Please Macdoc fill me in. What is his point?


Quote:
“The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan”


True signs of a real mad man. A few paragraphs up, he tells us that he ATTACKED the US because they are an enemy of his for one reason or another. Now the tax payer is in on it? They funded a government that for no apparent reason is attacking him in Afghanistan? WTF! Take it from here Macdoc. He’s all yours.


Quote:
“We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.”


Don’t forget polygamy Osama. It makes me laugh that this creep would lecture anyone on fornication and homosexuality. Out here in Osama land, you get married when you can afford a bride. Up to 4 at a time. One of the reasons a lot of marriages here consist of brides being a lot younger then their grooms. The male is usually preferred if he is established well enough in his career to be able to provide sufficiently for a family. And so he should be, but what do all the young virile males do for excitement if all the young ladies are locked behind door and veil until an agreeable price has been negotiated? 

I am not implying that every Arab male has homosexual relationships, but am pointing out that homosexual tendencies are no stranger to Arab culture. The same would be true for fornication and drug abuse. 


Quote:
“You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products”


Women in Arab culture are often treated more like a possession then an equal half to her husband. A man may have a camel, 2 sheeps and 4 wives, an d he provides all of them with a destiny. Ask yourself, how balanced can a society really be when half of its most valuable resource is lock behind closed doors? Half of its most valuable resource is unable to provide real meaningful input into the world around them? Reforms regarding female issues have been breaking the surface here the last several years, but they are still too few and too slow in coming. 

I recall during the first Gulf war when a group of young Saudi Women felt the time was right to take a stand. Using the US female soldiers they witnessed driving around in jeeps as a rallying point, they decided to protest for equal rights of women by driving around Riyadh. Several arrests ended in execution as did the protest. This is a topic that I could easily fill several pages with, but will spare all of you that pain by asking a quick question. How many of you have seen some of the news reels of women being abused under Taliban rule in Afghanistan? This is another example of the supreme shariah law that Osama intends to impose and Macdoc so proudly advertises. 


Quote:
“You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and*industries. 
(Very good point there, Osama - NP)”


This is one of the funnier ones. Osama is lecturing the US on environmental protection. Who here has been to Iraq besides Osama? You want to see waste and pollution? Try Cairo. Lets take a count of how much the entire Arab world spends on environmental protection and then compare that to what the US spends for the same. I am not saying that the US could not do more. They should do more! I am pointing out that we should have a good look around before pointing fingers. 

Unleaded fuel is almost unheard of in large parts of the Middle East. You could use a gas mask just to drive around Baghdad. I am serious! It almost makes you want to take up smoking while driving, just so your clothes smell different then your gas tank afterwards. Unleaded fuel was just introduced in Saudi less then 2 years ago. You could still buy a brand new car here in Riyadh without pollution control mechanisms on them less then a year ago. Do you have any idea what it’s like driving around downtown in a city of 4 million non catalytic converted cars. You would think that a country like Saudi which makes its fortunes on gas and oil, would have a vested interest in protecting the environment from the ill effects of these resources. 

When will counties like Saudi be a part of, or bring their own Kyoto to the table? Saudi Arabia may not have the worlds largest industry base or population contributing to global warming, but they are certainly one of the worlds largest suppliers of an energy resource that is seen as a contributing factor in today’s environmental issues.

Been to China? A large part of china’s energy needs for heat and electricity comes from coal. Or at least it did back in 1995. I recall being city center Beijing and seeing at the back of apartment buildings, huge giant mounds of coal. On scheduled deliveries, big dump trucks would unload their cargo right in the center of what should have been parking for the buildings residents. The coal was moved one wheelbarrow at a time to a coal fired boiler that provided heat to the apartment and its tenants. 

At first I remember looking in amazement at the little pieces of black fluffy soot that floated softly down from the chimney tops. Shortly after though, I recall looking in disbelief and had a better understanding of why Beijing would lose its bid for the Olympics. No infrastructure at the time to support such an event. When will China be a part of, or bring their own Kyoto to the table? The US has conducted studies that show air particle pollution from China reaching the western seaboard of North America. With one of the fastest growing economies and the worlds largest populations, China will likely be a pollution producer to be reckoned with.

I have read most of the rants regarding the US and Kyoto, and I am left with the impression that some here understand very little of the issues at hand. It appears that some of us are under the impression that because the US did not adopt Kyoto, they are single handedly responsible for the death of the earths atmosphere. Sure, Kyoto could be a step in the right direction. I don’t think anyone would argue that. But is it the only step that could be taken? Would it be the best step not just for this country or that, but for the world? 

Lets change gears for a moment. To simply illustrate a point on economics, lets look at issues surrounding the Euro. When the EU adopted a common currency, it did so with varying costs to its different members economies. Germany, which was considered to be the power house economy of the EU at the time, paid a much higher price to adopt the Euro in comparison to Portugal for example. 

One might ask why Germany would go along with such a plan. The answer is simple. Germany could see the long term advantages to a cheaper labor force in a stronger EU economy, which it heads, over the higher short term cost of investment. There is no doubt that Germany carefully analyzed the pros and cons of such a move and how it would affect their position in the EU, but in the end, they elected a decision that made the most sense for the EU and more importantly for Germany as a country. Everyone needs a return on investment. 

So how does this relate to a discussion on Kyoto? Economics Sherlock! I used Germany and the Euro to emphasize the economics of the Kyoto agreement. Unlike Germany, the US would be required to carry the heaviest burden of this agreement with limited return on investment. 

Although environmental protection is desperately needed, the Kyoto agreement falls well short of what the world really needs in terms of environmental protection, The agreement did not make economic sense for the US as they indicated it would place high tariff’s on their industries. This would come at a time when other emerging economies (ie. China, India ) would be left unaffected by such tariff’s, shifting the balance of economic competitiveness. 

Like every other nation I suppose, it is not that surprising the US holds its own best interests at the forefront of decision making. I know you will point out that the environment is the return on investment. I am not arguing that US policy on this matter was right or wrong. I do not care about this government or that. But there must be a better way. I am more concerned about the world at large. What the world needs is a real solution to the problem, not a quick fix or one sided argument. 

If the current US administration sees economic discord with the Kyoto agreement as it is currently proposed, then so be it. That is their decision. What the world needs is a solution that brings responsibility to all countries, big or small. Laying blame on one nation is not an answer nor a solution. Lets see a Kyoto 2!


Quote:
“Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people”

Tell me which part of the world where this is not the case. The Arab part? This guy is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars that he uses to promote hate, fear and destruction and he wants to preach to the world about the appropriate use of wealth.


Quote:
“The US bred, armed and trained Bin Laden et al in their attempt to over throw the "Evil Empire". He and his militia were US heroes.........then.
The US taught them that even a Superpower could be defeated.”


The above quote is mostly incorrect, and what little truth it does hold has been inflated for presentation and readership. You make it sound like Osama showed up for work everyday in a CIA jeep and uniform and now draws a pension. 

Osama and many like him were on their way to Afghanistan with or without CIA involvement. Additionally, CIA involvement was mostly from behind the scenes. The CIA did conduct some training on the ground, but mostly worked through Pakistan’s ISI by providing several billion in support and supplies in an effort to help recruit and train a mujahideen force that was to resist Russian influence in the area as well as bring an end to the cold war. 

It was more then just an attempt. It was a success. The fact that Osama committed himself on the battlefield there, was able and willing to raise and contribute large sums of his own money to the cause (approx 200 million per year ) and was eventually able to promote himself to the head of MAK, made him somewhat of a prominent figure in the fight to liberate Afghanistan. 

It is true that the CIA knew of his presence and likely did nothing to hinder it as Osama had become a prominent and key player in a conflict that was meant to provide the net effect of ending the cold war. Was Osama taking direct orders from the CIA? Not likely! Osama was a hero to his own people. He was never a hero to any US administration, nor was he a hero to the people of the United States of America. Osama defeated a superpower only in his mind. Not in reality!


Quote:
“By being seen as the "invader" Bush has given Bin Laden credibility in the region he could never have achieved as an international pariah. It has put US troops in easy reach of radicals and lined US credibility for a fall.
Had the US continued to focus on Al Qaeda it would have continued the unity of the world community seen after 9/11.”

US forces under any President would have been seen as an “invader”. Read the first part of your post from above. According to Osama, the US are responsible for attacking Muslims in Palestine. This apparently would have happened in 1948. It did not take the recent invasion of Iraq for America to be branded as such in the eyes of the Arab world. Are you forgetting the US embassies, the USS Cole, the WTC, the Pentagon…. He has had the support of radicals at least since the Afghanistan conflict and certainly long before the current president took office. Focus on Al Qaeda and any others that support them is exactly what took the current President to Iraq.


Quote:
“The US is now hung on its own policies against an implacable enemy it has trained to combat a superpower.
It has also given that enemy a unifying reason to recruit more and a clear attack point that is accessible.
Reap what you sow.” 


Again your hatred for all things American shines through in almost every word you type. You seem to compare the Americans to one standard and the rest of the world to another. You seem to demand angels when the word America comes up, but are willing to accept the faults and shout comings of others. I have news for you Macdoc! There are no angels in politics. Everything you have accused the current US administration for in not just this, but many other threads could be said for almost any other form of rule in the history of mankind. 

Because of their current position, American policy factors prominently in the global issues of today. Is American policy perfect? No. Does American policy lean towards being self serving at times? Yes, but this is a common trait among world governments. Has America made mistakes? Yes, but again they are not alone in that category. Taking the Afghan conflict of the 90’s as an example of this; the Americans did little more then repeat what the Russians did during the Vietnam war. The big difference is that the Americans survived Vietnam, the Russians did not survive Afghanistan. Reap what you sow? Sure!


Macdoc. I cant hide the fact that I am a little pissed at the Osama thing, but I should also mention that I have a great amount of respect for the opinions and views you provide us with on this forum. You seem to be a man of great ideals and strong visions. Ideally what the world needs, is for more people like you to find their way into political circles. Invariably what you would most likely find after making it to those circles would be that the world is not an ideal place, and politics is not an exact science.

[ August 20, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: mac java ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"“Very good point there, Osama – NP”:

Hello







- would you like to find and show us that particular quote you attribute to me.

Just remember you are responding to Bin Laden not to me.

The bombs stopped in London ...why??

I neither approve or give any sanction to the methods or goals of Bin Laden NOR the US and other "powers" continual meddling' That's where the roots of violent resistance arise just as they did in Boston and every other violent geo-political change.
The US government covertly and overtly trained and supported both Saddam and Bin Laden when the US thought it in it's own best interest. Now the US demonizes both.

Saying that empires do as they have done for ages is no justification - it may be a valid observation but has no moral weight when unilateral action earned the distain of the world.

The US IS and have reaped what they have sown both at home and abroad. Bin Laden is a product of his own culture AND the western meddling. Did you read the essay on the rise of violent resistance??

88 doctors and nurses sent to aid Iran after and earthquake did more to bring the two nations closer than the billions spent on weaponry and covert destabilization.
Is that lesson always lost.

Trade, aid, RESPECT.

•••••

As to the slide to fascism, I'm hardly alone either here or around the world or with many concerned citizens in the US.

You are the one comparing the US and Saddam/Afghanistan and strangely that's as it should be.

Where you want to look is in analysis like that written about nations that exhibit fascist elements which the US unfortunately today shows many signs of. You have every right to disagree but it's not a casual observation on my part, it's a visceral reaction on the part of many around the world and in the US and it's born out by looking in detail and hearing echoes from events from the past that had dire consequences for the world..

Fascism is ALWAYS justifiable within the country and rarely perceived - Mussolini made the trains run on time, Hitler restored German pride and economy.









Can you explain why some 80% of Europe and millions of others around the world identified Geo W Bush as the most dangerous man on the planet.
Are you so willing to dismiss THEIR concerns as groundless?

Do you not hear the over 50% of the US citizens who now feel the war in Iraq was wrong that they were mislead.??
Are THEY also wrong headed??

Are the world military experts like Wesley Clark and the former Head of the Joint Chiefs totally stupid in their assessment that the US is going in a dangerous direction with it's foreign policy?

Is Vincente Fox with sooooo very much to lose so totally wrong in saying NO to Bush adventurism?

Bush being wrong does not make Saddam or Bin Laden right. It's not that kind of issue.
ALL are extremists.
ALL culture violence.

There ARE different courses of action. Many in the US know that and we fervently hope those that hold that view, hold power as well after the next election.

Will it be an about face, no, but perhaps the slide to fascism and "in the eyes of the world" enormously dangerous direction of current US foreign policy will be reversed or modified.

There ARE no easy anwers - the US under Bush has cast a die in the Middle East with, as Kerry says " no plan to win the peace".

Are you going to tell Kerry he's wrong too?????

As before, observation is NOT approbation.

Violent geopolitical action has root causes, foreign policies have consequences.

The biggest change for the US is that their foreign policies have had severe consequences at home.

Sometimes, just as with those first few bombs on Tokyo by Doolittle- Empires get a wake up call just when they think they are invulnerable.

•••
Congrats on the rug rat ....talk about change 









[ August 19, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> The US IS and have reaped what they have sown both at home and abroad.


*America bashing, the saga continues.* 

Cheers


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> 80% of Europe and millions of others around the world identified Geo W Bush as the most dangerous man on the planet.





> Over 50% of the US citizens who now feel the war in Iraq was wrong that they were mislead.??
> Are THEY also wrong headed??





> Wesley Clark and the former Head of the Joint Chiefs totally stupid in their assessment that the US is going in a dangerous direction with it's foreign policy?





> Is Vincente Fox with so totally wrong in saying NO to Bush adventurism?


Reality, pure and simple.
If that is America bashing, then Ralph Klein is an NDPer.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

IMHO...all of us, and I mean ALL of us...should take a few moments a carefully read what MacJava has written in his last post. Then sit back and try to digest it all. Even if it runs counter to what some of us want to believe.

Here is an emaclander who is actually LIVING in the region. Who has first-hand experience in the area. No commercial or government-run news service could possibly give us the sort of insight into the middle east that he has offered. His words deserve our undivided attention.

I've read his last post twice. Carefully. And I will probably go over it again. Even more carefully. (there's a LOT in there).

Anyone who has any sort of opinion on this subject...or who actually cares about our own collective future..NEEDS to read Macjava's last post. All of his posts, actually.

Ignorance is cheap and easy. Real information is expensive and hard-won. MacJava is offering this firsthand information without cost, to anyone who cares to listen.

And I, for one, am listening. Intently.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Abu Ghraib Probe Points to Top Brass

By Josh White and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 20, 2004; Page A01

An Army investigation into the role of military intelligence personnel in the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison reports that the scandal was not just caused by a small circle of rogue military police soldiers but resulted from *failures of leadership rising to the highest levels of the U.S. command in Iraq, senior defense officials said.*

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the report has not yet been completed, said the 9,000-page document says that a combination of leadership failings, confounding policies, lack of discipline and absolute confusion at the prison led to the abuse. It widens the scope of culpability from seven MPs who have been charged with abuse to include nearly 20 low-ranking soldiers who could face criminal prosecution in military courts. No Army officers, however, are expected to face criminal charges.

*Officials also said that the report implicates five civilian contractors in the abuse*, and that Army officials plan to recommend that their cases be sent to the Justice Department for possible prosecution in civilian courts.

The investigation, shepherded by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, is one of several into the abuse, which became widely known after hundreds of photographs surfaced depicting detainees in mock sexual positions, in a naked human pyramid and being intimidated by unmuzzled dogs. While the Pentagon and the White House have consistently blamed the abuse on what they have called a rogue band of MPs acting on their own, officials said this new report spreads the blame and points to widespread problems at the prison.

The findings, elements of which were reported by other news organizations, appear to support contentions by defense attorneys for the charged MPs that the problems at the prison were pervasive and were exacerbated by a lack of leadership. The lawyers have asserted that their clients were acting on orders when they stripped detainees and kept them awake using stress positions and humiliating poses. Officials said the Fay report will stop short of saying that soldiers were ordered to abuse detainees.

One senior defense official said the investigation specifically decries the fact that *many soldiers saw or knew of the abuse and never reported it to authorities.* Concerns are also raised about the vague instructions from high-ranking officials about what was allowed during interrogations at the prison, which led military intelligence and military police soldiers to misapply them, the official said.

"The interrogation policy was misunderstood, and it was one of a few policies that failed," the official said. "There was total confusion about the military intelligence tactics, techniques and procedures."

Another defense official said the Army study would be "a comprehensive report, a thorough look at another aspect of Abu Ghraib, to include up to the CJTF-command level," a reference to Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who until recently was the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Others said the report criticizes the leadership but softens its assessment by noting that top officers were focused on the insurgency that erupted last summer.

Officials said the probe criticizes commanders for essentially *failing to pick up the strong signs of abuse as they rose through the chain of command and for all but ignoring reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross detailing the abuse.*

The top command "shares responsibility for not ensuring proper leadership, proper discipline and proper resources," one defense official said. "Command should have paid more attention to the issue. Signals, symptoms of abuse weren't fully vetted to the top."

Military officials said Fay's report is expected to be presented to the public early next week. An independent investigative panel appointed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld plans to issue its report on Tuesday. The Senate Armed Services Committee announced yesterday separate hearings set for Sept. 9 to deal with both reports.

In the medical journal the Lancet, an American physician and bioethicist called for an investigation of the role medical personnel may have played in enabling and overlooking the abuse at Abu Ghraib.

*"The U.S. military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings,"* Steven H. Miles of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota wrote in the issue published today.

Miles based his assertions on the findings of Army investigators, the translated testimony of detainees and news reports. He noted that a psychiatrist helped "design, approve and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib"; that a physician permitted an untrained guard to stitch a cut on a prisoner's face; and that *doctors "routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to . . . natural causes" when the deaths were the result of torture.*

He also said that inspectors from the International Committee of the Red Cross found inadequate medical records on detainees and that monthly "health inspections," required by the Geneva Conventions, were not always done.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Miles conceded that military physicians have difficult roles with regard to the enemy, but he said that their ultimate loyalties should be clear.

"Docs are different from soldiers. . . . Our sole obligation is to the well-being of the patient," he said. He said this is especially important for physicians who have contact with prisoners.

"The health personnel will, in fact, be the first and last barrier between them [prisoners] and human rights abuses," he said. "When the health professionals are either silent or actively complicit in these abuses, it sends a message to the detainees how utterly beyond human protection they are."

Staff writer David Brown contributed to this report.


Nation building my a**
Paging Dr. Mengele


[ August 20, 2004, 08:02 AM: Message edited by: MACSPECTRUM ]


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Tisk tisk! Shame on you Macdoc! The rains of pressure bring true tests of man. If you are to aspire the prominent circles of world politics, the first lesson you must not forget to take with you is to be nice to your public. Try to avoid being seen as a callus and insensitive leader that ignores public opinion, basic human rights and civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the right to openly express them without ridicule. Least you become labeled a fascist thinker.

You have been questioned with a single volley across the bow of your opinions, and have responded with little graemlins and a personal swipe at ones family members. 
These are not the actions of a trusted leader a new father would subscribe to as he registers his vote. If this could be used as an example of ones ability to cope with the pressures brought by opinions and needed decisions, then it should be enough to say that the pressures form within a presidential office must be considerably different then that of an open forum such as this. 

Quote:
"“Very good point there, Osama – NP”:

I said you posted it, not authored it. It was your response following the letter and in other threads that gave me the impression you agreed with his views.


Quote:
“The danger to us in Southern Ontario is not from the "terrorist" in the next house it's from the terrorism engendered in the next country south.”

Quote:
“When you read the letter recall…Memories and struggles of peoples are long and run deep.”

Since the letter primarily addresses the Palestinian struggle as he sees it, I understood the above quote to lend a certain legitimacy to his way of thinking.

And in another thread you commented again.

Quote:
“I see no one has answered Bin Ladens letter.”

I understood this as another legitimizing statement as you seem to be implying that know one has, or could challenge his views on Palestine, or his misguided argument about how America is an enemy. Views that are left unchallenged for lack of a credible response, usually imply a certain degree of correctness. I hope I addressed the letter well enough for you.

Sending emergency medical aid to Iran during a time of crisis would be the most appropriate response. The good will you pick up on in my view is a common human trait found in all of us. When a helpful hand is offered, it is usually received with much gratitude. If Iran’s only fault was to have fallen victim to a natural disaster, they would be the luckiest nation and people in the world. I think we all know that is not likely the case. 

“Trade, aid, RESPECT.” Should the world community not demand a little of that from all sides of the fence. The presence of Iranian insurgents in Iraq today has added immensely to the woes of an already very unstable situation and has cost many innocent Iraqis their lives not to mention their livelihood. One could even argue that Iran has completely ignored the respect for Iraq’s international boarders. So lets all stand up and cheer while Iran tramples over the hopes of a desperate people in its attempt to undermine coalition efforts of achieving stability in Iraq. “Trade, aid, RESPECT.” Lets all stand and cheer for the next round of nuclear shell games at the UN. Trade, aid, RESPECT. 

Regarding US support for Saddam and the Mujahideen resistance in Afghanistan…agreed it’s fact. So what is your point? Because the US supported Saddam against Iran, they must accept culpability for any and all of Saddam’s future actions? If I support you with your computer business and then find out later that you became involved in an illegal activity, should I be held responsible? Which Government is free from blame for providing support in one form or another only to withdraw it afterwards. Alliances between Governments are constantly being formed and reformed. This is not a new concept. A review of any period in history would easily show that.

US involvement in Afghanistan was not one sided. The Mujahideen represented the counter balance to a Russian lead Afghani regime and more importantly a chance at ending the cold war. Should we be so critical towards the US alone? What about Russian involvement? Why is that left without comment? For years the world watched these two nations threaten each other with nuclear destruction. Was it not a good thing that the Americans were finally able to bring that period to a close? Your opinions are well read Macdoc, it is just that they seem to be getting a little one sided of late. 

I have not offered moral ground to any government for actions taken based on historical reference. You miss my point sir. Your argument regarding US policy is a measurement that you often fail to compare equally against all Governments. You want to chastise the Americans for their involvement in Afghanistan while ignoring the fact that the Russians were actually committed there first. 

The same could be said for Vietnam. The US entered that jungle on the request of the French Government. So who’s back should we crack the whip across for involvement there? And what should be said of Russian involvement in Vietnam? Maybe we should just leave it as, the Russians reaped in Afghanistan what they sowed in Vietnam! And what should Egypt, Iraq, Syria Jordan and Israel reap for the fields they have toiled in the much disputed territories? Least we forget the Russians again, who had more military equipment in that theater then any other country including the US. I wont even bother to start moving in the direction of Europe, China or Africa…more raping less reaping!

In my view it is not this Government or that, which will be left to reap what they sow, it is all of humanity. We are all culpable in one way or another. It becomes an extremely narrow point of view to lay blame for all of humanity on four years of a single nations history. You stand corrected sir.


A comparison between Hitler’s third Reich and the current US administration as proof of fascist tendencies would fail miserably. I will not pursue that here, but if you desire, I welcome the entertainment. 

I could not agree with you more Macdoc that things have changed dramatically in the US since 9/11. The whole world is different. I would also agree that the US has stretched its reaction a little far at times, but have they really stretched themselves into a fascist state? Or are they just reacting, or even over reacting to what they perceive as a serious and high level security breach? 

You read his letter Macdoc. Do you really think the right thing to do at the moment is allow a free for all at airports and bus terminals so that a select few can claim they feel good about their civil liberties? Of course if you think that he no longer has the capability or desire to commit to further acts like 9/11, then that changes the argument completely. I for one think that his organization and its capabilities have been severely restricted, and I attribute that to not only the current US administrations policies, but to those of the whole free world. I also believe that although severely restricted, he is still there and if given the opportunity, he has the desire and will to act again.


Your references to various political and military figures are well taken. I made no attempt to claim that Bush is right and Kerry is wrong or visa versa. I will simply add that we are all tuned into radio election year. This is not the first election I am about to sit through. I fully expect kerry to get much mileage out of something as big and emotionally charged as the issues surrounding Iraq. Negative news sells Macdoc as I am sure you are aware. I am not as phased by all the campaign jargon from either side. I play more to the reality of the situation. The reality is there is a major world crisis. The reality is regardless of who becomes the next President, that crisis will still be there. Will it change anything if Kerry takes his seat in the next office and another 9/11 occures. Tell me what course of action you predict the president will take if it happens again? How much will campaign words mean then? 

This crisis has been on simmer for a while now. Some might say the current crisis is all about Iraq. Others would say it started in Afghanistan during the 1990’s. Still others might point to 9/11. I think it received wings much earlier. 

I recall a conversation we had regarding the importance of Palestine in relation to 9/11. Wouldn’t you agree that it is hard to miss that importance after reading his letter? Something happened during the 67 conflict that I believe laid the foundation for the wide spread, but ill conceived hatred the Arab world holds for America. In order to understand this better, one needs to understand the dynamics of the players involved. The primary player being Egypt. Seen as big brother, Egypt was under immense pressure from the Arab league to rewrite history and reclaim Palestine as a Muslim territory. After much debate and pressure from the Arab league, Nasser deploys his forces in the Sinai. Being very confident of victory, public statements were made describing how the new territory would be divided. 

What happens following Egypt’s mobilization is nothing short of a catastrophe for Nasser and the whole Arab league. Within the first 3 days of war, Egypt’s air force was essentially wiped out while its armor had been pushed back to the Suez loosing the entire Sinai peninsula. By the end of the 6th day, every Arab force that participated in the operation had been cleared out or pushed back resulting in huge territory gains for Israel over Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. During the first few days of the war, local Arab TV, radio and newspapers were recording huge victories for Egypt and her allies. By the end of the 3rd day however, the truth was getting harder to conceal. The losses were so devastating that a few top ranking Generals in the Egyptian army even committed suicide. The reality of the situation was unbearable. 


Then it happened. Nasser had to find a scapegoat. He turned to King Hussein of Jordan for the exit plan. The two leaders went on to build what would later be known as the great lie. They claimed that in a sudden turn of events, it was the superior American forces and not Israeli forces that defeated Egypt. In his attempt to explain his own downfall, he cast a shadow of hatred on America that lives still today throughout almost the entire Arab world. Read Osamas opening argument as to why he attacked New York and Washington, “you attacked us in Palestine”. This of course is untrue and can be attested to by the various chronicles kept of the week’s events. Regardless, it is a lie that not only outlived its creators, but remains in the hearts and minds of the Arab commonalty, shaping what has ultimately become an illogical and ill conceived deep seeded hatred for all things American.

Again I ask, define US policy!

[ August 20, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: mac java ]


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"Should the world community not demand a little of that from all sides of the fence."

There IS no world community to demand anything. There IS no effective world body .....yet.
What steps that have been taken such as treaties and the World Court, are blocked by the one nation that should be leading.

NOT taking issues seriously, running roughshod over cultural and sovereignity issues didn't start with the US nor will it end with this variation of empire.
The Ugly American was written in the 50s - nothing to do with Palestine which is a terrifically difficult issue.
Russia as did Germany and Japan indeed suffer the consequences of empire.
Britain of all has some claim to having founded new nations - but at cost everywhere and rarely without some horror...ourselves almost the lone exception. Tho a few Acadians and any number of First Nations might make noises about even that exception.

As to US "over reaction".....perhaps this gentleman might have a few choice comments









_‘How in the world are average Americans going to be treated fairly?’ Edward Kennedy, U.S. senator_



> Kennedy victim of terrorist watch list
> Airlines refused to board well-known senator 5 times
> 
> His name is similar to an alias used by suspect
> ...














> It becomes an extremely narrow point of view to lay blame for all of humanity on four years of a single nations history. You stand corrected sir.


I don't in the least - meddling with peoples leaves broken cultures and is the breeding ground for further violence, generational violence. I don't stand corrected as my view is not narrow but wide and long term.
The clash between Islam and the west stretches much further back. Bush has exacerbated wounds that run deep.
The US has a long and bloody history of violent and pernicious empire building......it's not new but it IS a very dangerous course right now as some are taking exception to it in a similarly violent manner using the tools they have at hand.
The US trained Bin Laden to defeat the USSR and supported and supplied Saddam against Iran.

••••••

Memories are long. They still beat drums in Northern Ireland on St. Billy's day.

Why are there no bombs in London NOW.???

Are all those I named both in the US and abroad, who believe the US is on a dangerous course, wrong??? 

Is it so hard too say - yeah maybe, just maybe the US should reform their foreign policy, quit trying to run the world their way and actually join the community of nations and repair the breaches with their staunchest allies.

Bush is not responsible for all the hatred of the US - it far precedes his regime.

He IS responsible for making the world a more dangerous and unstable place by deliberate action in the face of protest from those same allies he now turns to for help.
That was HIS CHOICE entirely.

To invade Iraq against the wishes of the majority of the world.
The goodwill the US had post 9/11 and in their suppression of the Taliban was squandered by misguided ill conceived policies - that's on HIS watch.
The fortress America, fear mongering approach is on HIS WATCH.

I hope the next watch will see mending of fractured relationships, more discussion, less dissension. You say you percieve no fascist threat - others do, around the world, in the US itself. 
Listen to concern.
Watch in New York on the 29th......see what occurs when valid protest falls on deaf ears.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry macdoc, old friend....but, IMHO, MacJava is running _RINGS_ around you on this subject. And he is doing so with a singular measure of eloquence and style, as well.  

VERY well written, and well thought out, posts from a fellow who is actually living in the region, by the way.

And I, for one, am just enjoying the heck out of this particular thread. It's a good ride.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

This ought to be interesting. The d*ckhead (according to my g/f who read that long thread/debate between us) is back. Mac java, my g/f said that she has never seen such amateurish flaming as what you attempted to do in all her years on the Internet.  

In any case, I'm wondering when the personal attacks will begin?  Or will you be a bit more "circumspect" because you're dealing with Macdoc?  

P.S. Good thing that I don't have time to dissect one man's interpretation of the facts as he sees it.

P.P.S. Do you live in a compound? And how does that allow you to see what the "street" thinks?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We seem to be on the crux of yet another "Ironmac VS MacJava" debate. No doubt it will be another multi-page diatribe, complete with bugged out eyeballs and pulsing forehead viens.  

I followed the last one with great interest. So did my G/F. (she is a recent convert to APPLE, and she enjoys our eclectic nature no end).

She thinks that it will be just another case of "MacJava STOMPS Ironmac, in public" (she is a PHD, by the way)

Personally, I'm not so sure. 

Either way, it will be fun to watch.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

A PhD in what, pray tell?

As for you, MacNutt, where is the backup for your assertion that on human rights websites there are numbers for Cuban political prisoners?

What I've found so far is that right-wing conservatives are big on bluster and short on facts. Without credible facts, anything built on them is suspect and nothing more than fantasies and wishful thinking.

BTW, if this thread continues I may have to finish reading "A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani. *ugh*

[ August 21, 2004, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: IronMac ]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

IronMac mused;



> right-wing conservatives are big on bluster and short on facts.


Good one !
Can I borrow it once in a while?

Also;


> A PhD in what, pray tell?


A friend of mine that holds a PhD. says the acronym stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Macnutt at least he's had the cojones to answer Bin Laden.....you didn't.
You also jump on every bandwagon that has the least glimmer of support for your nonsense.

And having IYHO on MacJava's side is hardly an endorsement given your "track record" of crow breakfasts, lunches, dinners and snacks.

Both of you seem to dodge the fact that now the majority even of American's are NOT endorsing the war or it's conduct and thankfully coming around to what most of the rest of the planet has felt all along.
••••••

MacJava - I really think you need to slow down and read my posts instead of knee jerk reacting to them. Also to destinguish my posts from others who are of a similar opinion but with a more abrasive style.

••••

You misinterpret language, ( not the first time ). I congratulated you on your new addition and and "wryly" - having been there myself twice over noted you will see "real change" in your life.

That's the way common ground is reached, twice now you've misinterpreted...... that's not concensus building.

Your voice is very shrill and you lecture me from "on high"



> "Tisk tisk! Shame on you Macdoc! The rains of pressure bring true tests of man. If you are to aspire the prominent circles of world politics, the first lesson you must not forget to take with you is to be nice to your public. *Try to avoid being seen as a callus and insensitive leader that ignores public opinion*


I neither aspire to high office nor under estimate the forces that leaders are put under. As for ignoring public opinion...........how ironic a statement is that  

In the Art of War one of the main dictums is "know your enemy" 
Al Qaeda and radical Islam fundamentalism do not rise out of thin air.
One of the very best policy changes the US made in the past while was removing US troops from Saudi as his family members indicated that was one of the initial "sparks" that lit Osama's hatred of the US.

Others on the planet have many of the concerns and hates expressed in Bin Laden's letter but most often do not act to redress perceived wrongs in a violent manner.
Bin Laden's experience in Afghanistan in effectively crippling a world power validated in his mind the use of unconventional violent methods in what he and his cohorts clearly perceive as a battle of civilizations.

Addressing the roots of terrorism takes world effort and mediation. Mediation starts with dialogue.

If you see no validity whatsoever in he outline of suppression Bin Laden writes of, then you simply confirm his opinion of YOUR "west". 
That you will not "listen", that you will not "hear".
Bin Laden's voice is not that of Islam but it is that of supression begetting violence. It does not arise without cause.

No bombs in London.
Ask yourself why after 400 years, some progress is being made.

There are no easy answers in this "clash" with Al Qaeda- writing off an intelligent, experienced and hardened foe, not listening to what he has to say is foolish in the extreme.
He is only powerful as far as his ideas can influence others to act in the same cause.
Of course his language is rhetorical and extreme, so is that coming from his opposition. Demonization works both ways.

Working away at the roots of violence and terrorism [b}with the goodwill of the rest of the world[/b] are first steps.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Never a dull moment in cyber land. Hey iron….. at least she didn’t call me d*ckless! Hey iron, huh huh. Come on iron, come on… you know you hate it when she calls you that. So she’s on the internet is she! You got one those….webcam girls iron! Wink wink, nod nod…


----------



## ironman (May 11, 2004)

I had a webcam girlfriend once. Broke my heart though when she told me she was seeing another guy.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Hey little buddy! What happened to your avatar?


----------



## ironman (May 11, 2004)

I was in one of those new apple stores and started lippin off some guy at the genius bar. That’s when he grabbed my DELL laptop from me and beat me over the head with it.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

What were you doing in an apple store with a DELL anyway?


----------



## ironman (May 11, 2004)

I was lookin to pickup some shareware.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Anyway, back to reality. You will have to excuse me for about a day Macdoc. I have a couple pressing issues growing legs at the moment. But…I’LL Be Back!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

If she had called you that, mac java, then I would have said so. She said some other things besides your amateurish flaming style but I didn't ask her to elaborate.

BTW, Israel was the aggressor in 1956 and in 1967. She did invade Lebanon but only after over a decade of PLO attacks.

One other thing...the Arabs linked the US with the Israelis not because of the Big Lie but much earlier during the formation of Israel.

One last thing, the US was not in Vietnam at the invitation of the French. The French did try to encourage the US to directly intervene (before this it was only materiel support), especially during the last stages of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, with air support from the Phillippines but the US stayed out of it. The US only came in much later after the French had already left and Vietnam was split in two.

If I'm wrong then correct me but, otherwise, your understanding and knowledge of geopolitics and history seems awfully shaky.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

_Demonization works both ways._

Looking at some of the words that mac java uses to describe bin Laden - "mad man" "nitwit" - and using the same logic as the quote above we can see that both are cut from the same cloth.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Oh yeah, this assertion:



> The area known as Judaea from biblical times, had the name Palestine bestowed upon it by Roman occupiers in their effort to erase the identity of a people that were seen as a constant irritant to that Empire.


is wrong...the name was never bestowed upon the area by Roman occupiers.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes please don't fall into the wonderful world of Macnutt where actual accurate history is optional or non- existent.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Ahem...that would be the world of _MOORE (as in Michael)_ . Wrong wing, methinks.









Let me know if you need any more help with this stuff, David. I know how confusing it can be at times.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

that would be more in the world of BUSH, George W. and his military service record which seems to be here one moment and "whoosh", gone the next.

Talk about your fairy tales.
Oh, and let's remember that WMD_iraw_count = 0 still.....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yes Macnutt you are indeed confused by reality. Swirls of crow feathers obscuring the SSI distortion field these days??

Oh BTW-have you figured out who shares your compass quadrant yet??....and no it's not MM I assure you.

If you are to be believed, you even share a fondness for certain facial hair.....so it wouldn't be Thatcher then would it. The quote author kept the nonsense running for a good while as well.

MM edits selectively for his propaganda, you just pull things out of thin air......like "Japan can't feed itself....never could.".......and when challenged on it -----the silence was deafening. 

That would be selective forgetfulness I guess


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacJava THIS is one reason I view Bush Sr as a statesman and obversely Jr as misguided and dangerous in the extreme.



> To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war.* It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.*
> 
> George Bush Snr, in A World Transformed, 1998


Got a cogent argument why he was wrong too??


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Macdoc....what I said was that Japan couldn't grow enough food to feed it's population. And it can't. It hasn't got enough arable land area.

This shouldn't be big news to anyone.

And it certainly doesn't equate to "Japan can't feed itself".

I'm not going to get into the rest of your blather, macdoc. There's not much point.

You'll just skim it quickly, as you seem to do with all posts, and then go on to draw poor conclusions based upon incomplete data.

_YAAWWWNNN_


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Iron, correcting you would be a full time job all in itself! This one could actually be a double header though. You could be wrong just because your you, or you could be wrong because you haven’t finished reading “A History of the Arab Peoples" by Albert Hourani. *ugh*!”.

Before starting though, I am going to be up front with one thing Monsieur Fer! I will not chase the notions of an idiot around a multi post thread. Nor will I be offering free history lessons. If you cannot respond to my posts by first accurately reading them, then I fail to see what valuable contribution you could possibly make here. I have no desire or time to pursue such activities simply to fill your desire for imitating importance and or knowledge. My intent is to have a discussion on a topic that is more then a passing interest to me. Your comments and views relevant to the discussion are encouraged. I appreciate everyone’s input. Unfortunately, I do not have time to recite all of history for you. So consider this your one free admission webcam man, because following this, mindless jabber will fall on deaf ears. 

Your jabbering regarding Vietnam is inaccurate on several counts. First off, “the US entering that jungle on request of the French government”, was a play on words who’s meaning is better understood in the context they were written. I was questioning Macdoc on what appears to be a double standard used when comparing various governments and their policy’s and or actions. “Entering that jungle”, was meant as a play on words and metaphor for the mess that Vietnam was. I implied no date as to actual US troop deployments. And yes, the French exercised colonial rule in Indochina long before American interests there were invented. Which is the relevant point of the conversation you so ignorantly interrupted. The point already made there, and again restated here, is that America seems to be criticized for actions that every other world power has committed to in both past and present. And yet it is only America that is all to often mentioned in the criticism alone. Why? 

And yes, the French not only requested, but welcomed American aid and support for their efforts in Vietnam. Although both parties found common ground, France and America were both acting out of self interest. France was intent on maintaining its colonial power for material wealth, while the US was more concerned about the spread of communism and desired a vehicle to import its own brand of democracy.

And yes, the American government and its tax paying public were committed to Vietnam long before Dien Bien Phu fell.

1945 saw the insertion of several US OSS teams and the death of the first US soldier in Vietnam.

1950 witnessed US military advisers arriving in Saigon along with funding for the French war effort. By the end of 1950, America is paying more then half the cost of Frances war in Vietnam. The amount of US military aid for the French war effort continues to grow steadily until 1954, at which time Frances contribution is totally eclipsed by US support.

In 1954, the US had already drawn up plans to intervene at Dien Bien Phu with a naval task force and heavy bomber support on the ready. US forces were not deployed as they lacked certain strategic elements. Plans for a French troop evacuation were also eventually dropped due to a lack of time.
French colonial power in Indochina was but an anchor for the war ships of America. 


Regarding Arab associations with the US and the creation of Palestine. Not likely! It was the British that created modern day Palestine after WWI. US involvement in the early stages was mostly limited to pressure tactics on Britain to ease immigration laws for Jewish settlers. During periods of unrest, and there were many, Britain was seen as favoring Arab demands on immigration policy’s.

http://www.drumwaster.com/archives/001076.html 
“In the mid-1800's there was a lot said in London (the center of the most powerful nation on the planet) about establishing a Jewish state in it's traditional location. This idea evolved into the Balfour declaration, which was created upon the fall of the crippled Ottoman autocracy. The British Empire created a territory in the Levant, naming it Palestine, and then chopped it into two, leaving a large eastern portion (Transjordan) and a smaller, western part (Palestine). This was supposed to be, according to all treaties and plans, a Jewish State. And, in 1948, it became one, according to UN Resolution 181, which the Arabs rejected.”

Further more, it was not Arab associations with the creation of Israel that was being discussed. I was describing that point in history when Arab opinion in general, focused almost completely for the first time on America, as being the primary reason for their loss of Palestinian territories. The 67 conflict was the only one out five that carried much built up Arab pretenses of victory. This imaginary win was built on the fact that Egypt held superiority with its ground forces in shear numbers of both troops and armor. Armor that was meant to smash through lighter Israeli defenses. When this did not happen, the great lie pointed to the only reasonable answer that could be, in the minds and hearts of the entire Arab world. What better way for a unified people to dispel the guilt of such a devastating loss, but to deflect the blame away from itself. One often hears from the numerous corners of this debate about the various points of US involvement and its support for Israel, but it is likely to be the 67 conflict that reserves the title as being the major focus and build up of Arab hatred for America.

Yet again, you seem to be lost between the lines and your faulty compass has proved to be a poor companion in your guide to history. One begins to wonder if you are not in a constant state of… “being lost”. Or is it just dyslexia?


On May 18 1967, at the demands of Egypt, the UN agreed to pull its forces from the Sinai, and on May 23rd, Egypt followed with a naval blockade of the Straits of Tiran cutting off a major supply route to Israel. 

As I have already said, Arab aggression was at the forefront of all but 1 of the 5 major Arab / Israeli conflicts. The act of forcibly closing the Gulf of Aqaba with war ships is at the very least an act of aggression and could even be argued an act of war, if a country were fired on while running the blockade. Egypt continued their aggression by sending thousands of armor and artillery pieces and tens of thousands of soldiers to the Sinai and not one of them was using windows XP! (oops wrong thread, sorry.) Poised aggression! The fact that Egypt’s air force invaded Israeli airspace with combat ready aircraft was yet another example of Egypt’s on going aggression. 

It is true that Israel physically fired the first shot as it were in the 67 conflict, but only after weeks of steadily increasing Egyptian aggression.


In your haste to be the analyst/weekend historian, you likely confused the British construction of modern day Palestine with that of Roman influence on the ancient land of Judaea. I might suggest you improve your research techniques by refining key word entries for WWW search engines before making conclusive arguments. Least you let on early in the game that your credentials as an authoritative historian are fake.

http://www.la4israel.org/wordpress/2004/04/18/1383 
The term “Palestinian” is a masterful twisting of history. To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an ancient Mediterranean tribe, the Philistines (“Invaders” in Hebrew), who had died out over 2500 years ago. There is no connection between this tribe and modern day Arabs. The Romans, in order to conceal their shame and anger with rebellious regions, changed the references to Judea and Samaria by naming them Palestine.


http://www.drumwaster.com/archives/001076.html 
By 0 AD, there was no more 'Phillistine' nation...they had been destroyed by the Chaldeans around the same time that Jerusalem had been. Also, remember that the Phillistine people were related to the Greek culture, not the indigenous Semite culture. The term 'Palestine', related to 'Philistine' (and that in and of itself is argued hotly), was reintroduced to the area after the destruction of Judah in 136 AD. It was a conscious attempt to remove Jewish patriotism from the Roman list of problems, and Hadrian officially renamed the region. This is the actual beginnings of refering to the area as Palestine.


And if your in need of something with a little more fiber, try “The Middle East”, Bernard Lewis. Don’t actually eat it iron! I mean read it *UGH*! 

Page 31:
“After the revolt of Bar-Kokhba in 135CE, the Romans decided once and for all to rid themselves of this troublesome people. Like the Babylonians before them, they sent a large part of the Jewish population into captivity and exile, and this time there was no Cyrus to restore them. Even the historic nomenclature of the Jews was to be obliterated. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and a temple to Jupiter built on the site of the destroyed Jewish Temple. The names of Judaea and Samaria were abolished, and the country renamed Palestine, after the long-forgotten Philistines.”

In regards to being circumspect, I make no distinction between individual posters and how I respond to them. That does not mean though that I can not recognize the difference in quality from one poster to another.

For example, implying that I would mistaken one of Macdoc’s views as one of your own, or even worse, raise your level of reasoning to that of Macdoc’s, is not something likely to happen for obvious reasons. Using your last post as an example, out of the 4 points you made as a counter to me, 3 of them were faulted as you misread, or failed to read, or were unable to read the original post, and the 4th was argued out of plain ignorance on your behalf. Leaving me with impression that you know about as much of Middle East Affairs as the girl your chatting with via webcam! 


Ironmac reads:
“P.P.S. Do you live in a compound? And how does that allow you to see what the "street" thinks?”

Again Iron, I find it hard to use your name without the term idiot attached to it. 

In answer to your first question, yes I do live on a compound. In answer to your second question, I own a car! Riyadh is a city of about 4 million. Not surprising that one of the richest oil producing countries has invested in infrastructure that would allow for land, sea and air travel, telecommunications, webcam chats with your g/f, satellite service, office towers complete with shopping malls… Compound living is very common here as it is a way to keep private life from public view. Something desired in Arab culture. I am in contact with Arabs representing almost every country in the region on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. I have lived for an extended period of time in the Middle East and have traveled most of its boarders. Because I am a “Westerner” does not mean I do not participate in the local culture.

P.P.S. Do you live in an apartment in Toronto? And how does that allow you to see what the “street” thinks? I wont even say it iron, but you know most are thinking it!









[ August 26, 2004, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: mac java ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A well researched and well written post, as always, Macjava.  

Several of my oilfield buddies have spent the vast majority of their adult lives in the middle east, and they have pointed out to me (on numerous occasions) that the current people who call themselves "Palestinians" are virtually all imported workers from the state of Jordan.

Most of them, when pressed to do so, can't trace their "ancestry" in this area back much more than a few decades. At best.

Looking at a map of the area..and observing how vast Jordan is in comparison to the tiny strip of land that is present day Israel...one can only wonder out loud why these recent emmigrants have chosen to resort to such terrible violence in an attempt to carve away portions of an already small and desolate land.

But...then again..one also must take pause and wonder out loud why the Jews weren't awarded a healthy chunk of the European countries that had had persecuted and killed so very many of their people during the Second World War?

If that had happened (and it SHOULD have), then the Jewish homeland would now consist of parts of France and rather a large chunk of modern Germany. 

And my bet is that they'd have done pretty well with it too.  

But, instead, after WW2 they were given a tiny strip of arid land that no one in their right mind would consider "the land of milk and honey".

And they have been attacked and terrorised for most of the last half century since then. By ALL of the surrounding countries. On a regular basis.

During the first Gulf War of the early nineties, Israel wasn't even a participant. They had NOTHING to do with it!

But, when Saddam was under full attack by the US and their coalition buddies...what did he do? Did his rapidly retreating armies stand up and strike bacj against their agressors? Did his much-vaunted Iraqi airforce use their top of the line Russin supplied jet fighters to vanquish the American hordes that were invading their southern border? Did hios huge and well equipped army stand up and fight the invading infidel?

Nope.

Instead he launched SCUD missiles against Israel, of all places! Lots of them!  

That's like France attacking Germany...and Germany retaliating by launching missiles against Greece. Or Tibet!

Perhaps it's high time that some of us stepped back and took a breath..and carefully considered WHY it is, exactly, that the whole Arab world has such a terrible hatred for Israel? Why they seem to be totally committed to wiping out this one single free democracy that currently exists (and seems to thrive) amongst all of the tyrannical third-world dictatorships in the region that we know of as the Middle East?

The one single country in the whole area that has indoor plumbing in every house, that has shopping districts that are similar to our own, that has a lifestyle that is similar to the rest of the fully developed world, and the ONLY country in the area where every single citizen can vote freely in regular elections.  

And practically the ONLY country in the region that HAS NO MASSIVE OIL WEALTH to support their lifestyle.

But STILL they seem to be wayyy ahead of the surrounding Arab countries.

No wonder they want to destroy it at any cost.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

BTW, Macjava...

You might want to cut a bit of slack for the shallower types here when they suggest that you couldn't possibly know what is happening in the country you actually live in "because you live in a COMPOUND".

Most of them (all of them, actually) have never spent more than a week or two in any foreign land. They have no concept of what it really is like living in a VERY different country from the one they grew up in.









They can't even begin to imagine what it's like to wake up in a totally different land every day...and to have to deal with the realities of that place on a day to day basis. Or to grasp the sheer meaning of that simple fact that a person HAS to grasp and reconcile themselves with, when you don't really know when...or IF..you will ever leave the place. 

It was the same for me...for much of my working life.

We had guys who arrived in South America, and who worked there for several weeks, and who STILL thought that you could order pizza at two AM. And who thought that the cops were your best buddies.

Some of the denser ones actually walked around with their Canadian Passports sticking out of their back pockets for the first week or so. And flashed a wad of cash every time they bought anything.

We worked VERY hard to protect these neophytes from their own stupidity. Sometimes that wasn't even enough to save them from the inevitable.

And I used to think to myself out loud..."My GOD...these people can actually VOTE??!! On important decisons?? These brainless and poorly informed newbies who don't have a single CLUE about anything real, can actually VOTE??!!? On Canadian policies that might actually affect ME?!? Even when I'm living way out here??  

The really scary part is, now that I am back here in Canada, I STILL seem to be saying that to myself!

The people who are collectively electing the officials who are running MY life seem to be woefully uninformed newbies who have NO CLUE as to how the real world actually works! 

And it scares the living heck out of me!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

mac java:

I have found that it helps to print out your responses because it makes it easier to follow your logic and even easier to highlight your mistakes.

A. My response on your Vietnam point was based on the wrong context. But, my point was also not "inaccurate on several counts" as you assert.

Here is what I said:

"the US was not in Vietnam at the invitation of the French. The French did try to encourage the US to directly intervene (before this it was only materiel support), especially during the last stages of the siege of Dien Bien Phu, with air support from the Phillippines but the US stayed out of it."

Note that I said "materiel support" which is what you also said, although over three paragraphs.

B. "Arab associations with the US and the creation of Palestine."? Where did that come from?

Here is what I wrote:

"the Arabs linked the US with the Israelis not because of the Big Lie but much earlier during the formation of Israel."

Where did I even mention Palestine? Hrmmm...you accuse me of dyslexia but what about yourself?

C. "It is true that Israel physically fired the first shot as it were in the 67 conflict, but only after weeks of steadily increasing Egyptian aggression."

Anticipatory self-defense? Could Germany use this as an excuse for its attack on the Soviet Union? Could Japan use this as an excuse for Pearl Harbor?
2 out of 5, 'nuff said.

D. As for the Roman renaming of the area to Palestine, yep, it looks like I'm incorrect there.

E. My second question is asking if you own a car?



> In answer to your second question, I own a car!


My second question was:

"And how does that allow you to see what the "street" thinks?"

Which is directly related to the first question of whether or not you live in a compound. I was referring to the "Arab street", not the infrastructure. Are you being deliberately obtuse here or simply "dyslexic"? No matter because here is my response.

The reason I asked if you lived in a compound is to show how isolated you really are on a number of points.

1. *Physically.* Do you have your own family compound? Or is it a foreign workers' compound? I doubt that the majority of your neighbours are Arab.
2. *Religion.* Are you Muslim? Jewish? Christian?
3. *Economically.* Are you paid more than the average Saudi because you're an expat?
4. *Citizenship.* Are you a Saudi citizen? Or are you a citizen of any other Middle Eastern country?
5. *Language.* Do you speak and read Arabic?
6. *Physical appearance.* Are you a clean shaven male Caucasian?

Participate in the local culture? You probably do but, as is evident from the above, you're still a "Westerner".

So, since you like to keep score, let's go over the above:

A. You were wrong or misread my post.
B. You misread. I'm being charitable here.
C. You admitted who fired the first shot.
D. I'm wrong.
E. You misread at the very least.

Although, I doubt that you like the score so far.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

MacNutt here's what you claim



> Macdoc....what I said was that Japan couldn't grow enough food to feed it's population. And it can't. It hasn't got enough arable land area.
> 
> This shouldn't be big news to anyone.
> 
> ...


••••••••

Here's your reality check - not what you THOUGHT you said but what you ACTUALLY SAID.

_"They cannot even grow enough food to supply their own population. * Never could, as a matter of fact. *"_

http://www.ehmac.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=10;t=002151;p=2 

MacNutt You can't even keep your own words straight. 
You said the Japanese "never could".........you are wrong as then and as usual - just plain bull****



> ""They cannot even grow enough food to supply their own population. Never could, as a matter of fact.
> 
> Japan was not even open to trade from the outside until 1859 when Perry stuck a gun in their face.
> 
> ...


Not only were you wrong then, now you deny you even said it.









I didn't skim, I took the time to get the quotes and the references to show your "off the top of your head" nonsense was wrong...period. 

The thread is interesting without the noise and nonsense.  
If you're bored so us all and favour go climb your mountain and play Rip Van Winkle.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> But...then again..one also must take pause and wonder out loud why the Jews weren't awarded a healthy chunk of the European countries that had had persecuted and killed so very many of their people during the Second World War?
> 
> If that had happened (and it SHOULD have), then the Jewish homeland would now consist of parts of France and rather a large chunk of modern Germany.
> 
> ...
























 
Macnutt please for all our sakes go do some reading. Do you even know what the diaspora IS









••••••••

MacJava:

I think you and IronMac are boggin down in the details - it's really the issue of world powers meddling that's at the heart of the issue.

Who invited who where can be an infinite regression - in the case of of Iraq and Palestine the regression could go on for a couple of millenia as the conflicts have gone on that long..........and Indochina certainly for centuries.

Really the heart of it is peoples have resisted imperial re-arrangements from time immemorial.
From the disapora to the Acadians ( who just had a huge get together).

Cultures/histories/ longing for homelands are not easliy extinguished ( Jews, Roma, Kurds ) and even in modern Europe Catalonia is coming out from under Seville.

You hae been in Saudi Arabia. 
Do the populace still support their monarchy or is it doomed and just biding time.

A huge question is can a government like that ( there have been a number in the middle east of benevolent or not so benevolent monarchies ) asj for and expect aid from the remainder of the world to keep the existing government in place.

A knotty issue methinks.
Iran is probably the clearest "pattern". Western supported coups and kingships then a radical "revolution" now a maturing and perhaps softening attitude towards the western world.

The entire area has historically been a collision zone of religions and cultures and time shifted government styles.......from modern, sort of secular but culturally dominated Israel and previously modern Iraq but plagued by a Ivan the Terrible incarnate to Dubai converting it's oil wealth to future industries.

It appears there is about 400 years of "government type" timelines all compressed into a very small area many with historical axes to grind.

Now throw in historical and current religious conflict both internally and with the west and it's a witches brew.

Add oil = burning brightly which it is HOWEVER one would choose to view that metaphor.

So given that - as a region it's in turmoil - perhaps like Europe circa 1915.

How does the first world ??
• respect the independent sovereign nation states ( earn trust )

• at the same leverage influence for human rights improvements (promote but no impose modern institutions )

• meet the first world need for oil, ( fair trading )
and 

• "contain" violence from spreading. ( dependent on the above I beleive )


I think there are likley several scenarios.

If you took the* Imperial view* - then impose all the points from a traditional paternalistic PLUS empire looks after it's interests standpoint.
In my mind that's what Bush has attempted to do and expects rapid results.

If you take the *world community view to aid the region to reach it's own solutions with help and cooperation and "trade/aid/human rights" efforts then that view represents the multi-laternal approach which the rest of the world seems to want to pursue and would of course take much longer to play out.

I can see no middle ground adn I certinaly can't see the middle east as a region tolerating the Imperial approach even if the rest of the world holds their noses and looks the other way.

I have heard and read and it's been touted that the US "being strong" is secretly admired but publicly castigated.

Any truth?????

I have also read/heard that the far of "who's next" in the US sights?? Again covert fear.

Any truth????? *


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Every now and again, one has to right his tack in order to stay on course, as the message is easily lost in the wake of rough seas.

Macdoc, there are obviously a number of points here that have been misinterpreted, but I don’t believe language was one of them. I should start by correcting what I perceive to be a slight misunderstandings you have from my previous post.

It was not your view that I was correcting you on. It was your misunderstanding of my view that needed attention.

Quote:
“I have not offered moral ground to any government for actions taken based on historical reference. You miss my point sir.… You stand corrected sir.” 

Slow down and read between the sir’s, sir. 

It would be a little late to convince me that all the America bashing going on here is not a little narrow in scope. From oil and military tech companies to friends of the Bin Laden clan. From becoming a police state to the king pin of oppression. America tops them all! Really?

Is it a wide and long term view to believe that America is the only nation on this planet with oil & military tech companies? Is it the same wide and long term view that supports the notion that only American oil & military tech companies are in business to make as much profit as they can? Do you really find it surprising that rich and influential people are associated, manage or have invested their interests in oil & military tech companies around the world? 

Then you would probably be knocked flat off your feet on discovering the real truth about the rest of the worlds business ethics. I think if we researched this a little more, we would find out that rich and influential people from around the world have populated most if not all of the board of director seats in most if not all sectors of world trade. Sad but true! You wont find many of the worlds poor heading up corporations in today’s global market place.

How wide and long is the view that the Bin Laden clan is in the back pocket of the current US administration? What MM avoids to tell his audience is that members of the Bin Laden clan have close personal and or business ties with influential people from all corners of the earth. 

The Bin Laden clan is one of the most wealthiest and influential families in Saudi Arabia. Members of that clan have graduated into all segments of professional life both at a regional and global level. From politics and business to law and engineering. It would be a pretty narrow view to believe that a family with global investments likely reaching in the billions would not have made personal and or business relationships with influential people from around the world, especially in the US. 

It would be equally narrow in view to believe that the Bush administration is the only world Government to have made contact with or know personally, members of the Bin Laden family. Especially given their prominence in Middle East Affairs. Additionally, both the Royal family of Saudi Arabia and the Bin Laden family from the same, have disassociated themselves from Osama both publicly and privately.

Police State? The Senator you quoted makes a very good point. He seems to be pointing out cracks in the system. I could not agree more. There are likely to be gaping holes of inefficiency in any newly developed plan. Especially one that encompasses issues as large as US national security interests. 

I am sure that the need for increased national security has made more then just a few inconveniences for the big fish, let alone the little ones. But I do not get the impression that he is in anyway implying his country has become a police state, or that US democracy has grown fascist tendencies. The very act of publicly broadcasting his views and concerns regarding national security measures taken by the Department of Homeland Security is an example of Democracy in action. It is also an example of how we could wrongly label a person, place or thing by misinterpreting a message. 

Having a small group of people reject the idea that they have to show ID at an airport does not constitute a police state in my view. Everyone is affected by this, not just the Americans. Who do we blame, the terrorists who are intent on carrying out these acts, or the governments trying to protect us from the threat?


Quote:
“There IS no world community to demand anything.”

I could not disagree more. “We the people” make up a large part of that world community. The members here on this forum are a part of that same community and we have been making all sorts of demands on US policy and their makers. What about the policy of other states? Should we not be making the same demands from all governments? Would it not be reasonable to ask for a little trade, aid, respect from all parties concerned? Where does Iran stand on these issues?

Macdoc, I have made no claims that one political party is more correct over another. It is simply stating the obvious to conclude that the world is in deep peril at the moment. All those quoted would be correct in pointing that out. It would also be just as obvious that any view demanding the right to claim that America is to blame for the entire shebang is not only narrow minded, but short sighted. Webcam included!

Quote:
“One of the very best policy changes the US made in the past while was removing US troops from Saudi as his family members indicated that was one of the initial "sparks" that lit Osama's hatred of the US.”

Although the above quote is true, it is not the complete picture. In an effort to instill calm, Saudi Arabia has reorganized its commitments with the US military. The majority of US troops that were deployed here have been moved to neighboring Qatar; a smaller minority of troops still remains here for the time being. The Saudi government is attempting to deal with public concerns and issues while at the same time maintaining options for regional stability. They would not be the only Arab government to take this approach.

Quote:
: If you see no validity whatsoever in he outline of suppression Bin Laden writes of, then you simply confirm his opinion of 
YOUR "west".” 

“That you will not "listen", that you will not "hear".”

Macdoc, I suggest that you go back and possibly reread my response to his letter more slowly. In brief notes, I tried to address in detail the lies, fallacy’s and misconceptions he attempts to represent in his propaganda. I have read, I have listened and I have watched and peered into his world through a clear and untainted window. After doing so, I have concluded that His ideals and morals are not something I would subscribe to or promote in any form. 

This point is in fact the very issue and reason I have been trying to wean you on to US policy, or more specifically, policy’s that have shaped world history. The following quotes can be used as an opener for just that. 


Quote:
“The clash between Islam and the west stretches much further back. Bush has exacerbated wounds that run deep.”


“Al Qaeda and radical Islam fundamentalism do not rise out of thin air.”


“Addressing the roots of terrorism takes world effort…”


“Bin Laden's voice is not that of Islam but it is that of supression begetting violence. It does not arise without cause.”


“Working away at the roots of violence and terrorism [b}with the goodwill of the rest of the world[/b] are first steps.”


It seems that the biggest difference between our views of the current global situation might stem from our beliefs and understanding of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, its goals and how it is integrating into today’s world. We both seem to agree that Islamic fundamentalism is somehow important to understanding the current situation, but have not yet clearly defined it. 

From your comments thus far, I am under the impression you believe Islamic fundamentalism has grown out of years of western or US meddling, faulted US foreign policy, suppression or oppression and violence against Muslim peoples. 

If I have stated the above correctly, then I agree in general with some points, but not all, and certainly I do not agree with the principles of its body. 

Islamic fundamentalism grew not out of external struggle with the west, but resulted from struggle within Islam itself. The goals of this movement are meant to install Islam once again as the dominant world power. The struggle within, as it is seen by the extremist, was built out of necessity after the fall of the Ottoman empire; a period when many Muslims began accepting western modernization as a way of life. The competing values between a secular government and its opposing theocracy supplied the flint and paper for what would later become the fires of Islamism.

Egypt was one of the first to witness the rise or rebirth of Islamism in the 1920’s with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood. These struggles soon developed into armed conflict between extremists and their secular governments, which can still be felt today throughout the Muslim world.

After repeated attempts of installing their own form of rule met with failure, Islamic fundamentalists changed tactics. If they could not overthrow the secular governments of the Muslim world with internal efforts, they would escalate the fight by exporting it to the home land soils of their western supporters. Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman was one of the first to promote this tactic with the 1993 attack on the WTC.

Interesting to note that of the thousands of Islamic terrorists jailed following the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and Ayman Al Zawahiri, one of Osama’s top brass, were among them.

Islamic fundamentalism saw major advances towards its intended goals with the 1979 formation of Iran’s Islamic republic. Islamic fundalmentalism was no longer just the dream of a suppressed and oppressed people. It was a governing state. It was a place they could call home.


In my view, western influence and meddling, which occurred after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and seen as a catalyst for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, is not any different then that of the influence and meddling seen during the original rise of Islam itself. Many peoples were conquered and subjugated under Muslim rulers. Many peoples perished or had to convert to an Islamic way of life.

It is estimated that between 10 to 20% of the worlds Muslims are of the Islamic fundamentalist variety. That would make a mission of about 100 million strong. A lot of people yes, but not even close to a majority of the Muslim world. 

We have all been witness to the devastating effects that the recently toppled minority Iraqi government had on its people. Imagine applying that principle to the whole Islamic world. 

Go back and reread his letter Macdoc. I think you might have missed at least part of his message. His intent to return Islam to its past is not well received, even by people of Islamic faith. The fact that he is willing to fly airplanes into tall buildings to achieve this, raises other concerns and issues. 

What I think we are really talking about here is competing ideals. Democracy, communism, Islamism…. Ideals lend to interests. Interests shape policy. This is the underlying principle to my point that the US is not alone in their efforts to promote their values and way of life. All of humanity has done this from the beginning of time. I am not making a justification, but simply pointing out facts of the human condition. A review of any time period throughout human history would easily demonstrate this.

Regarding Bush Sr., he is indeed a very intelligent and well respected person within the community. As for my cogent response, I would first point out that his words were written before 9/11. The world we live in today has changed vastly since that event, and I have no reason to believe that his views have not done the same. Secondly, the same quote provides a cogent and effective argument to your position that the current crisis in Iraq is simply a war for oil. 

quote:
“To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability.”


The US buys oil from a world market like every other energy consuming nation. Entering Iraq for oil would prove fruitless, as the world community would not allow such a move. The current US President has been handed the difficult task of taking a decision that ultimately tests the wisdom of his own father and no doubt, closest mentor.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Don't ascribe MMs views to me.
Argue with him if you like.
He is a propagandist serving his own ends - don't make his stance my stance it's not.
Do I feel he has a necessary message yes if it brings on discussion and analysis you bet.

•••

Saying there are other empires in the past or nascient ones upcoming does not take away the immediate issue of the US and it's danger to the world community which many many around the world perceive very clearly.
Dangers many of it's own citizens and senior leaders, many WITH major world leadership roles also percieve.

You don't answer these people - even Geo Bush Sr who clearly ooutlined the dangers of middle east instability in toppling Saddam.....you apologize for the US.....say well they're not so bad look who's worse

Why do you continually associate issues of soveriegnity with approval for Saddam. 
Being against the US unilateral action does mean I or others condone Saddam, if anything he's a dire product of meddling in the middle east.
The issue of Iraqi sovereignity stops at the border, hence "defanged"...... that was as far as the world was willing to go at the time of the first Gulf war and the sanctions. You don't see me or others on Bush Sr case.....that's why.
The mechanism is not there to go further......yet.

"A unilateral decision to go to war was never taken by the US as they were not alone in their actions"......
oh come on.








Bush Sr had a real coalition and backing of the world community...Bush Jr doesn't.

Fascism
1- Sorry very few nations display the hopped up flag waving the US does - Pledge of Allegiance, hand over heart. Once again it's an indicator on a scale - not one thing in itself. "excessive' nationalism and display is a hallmark. NOT national pride. Celebrating being part of the world community as well goes hand in hand. PBS does it.
Want an indication it's a real issue??



> *U.S. athletes told to cool it at Olympics*
> 
> By Simon Hart
> LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
> ...


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040516-121028-9603r.htm 

2. Human rights, of course they are an issue elsewhere even here, but the very founders of the US warned against and dreaded it happening, the Constitution for it's tiime was world changing as I think our own Charter is for current times. The US founders knew the elements of despotism are always there in ANY government but in particular in this one. Hardwon freedoms LOST.
Other nations are working to gain theirs in the first place.
You imply it's okay if the US abuses human rights since it's so common.
It's NOT okay with many of it's own very concerned citizens and friends of the US people but against the current government policies.



> Anti-Terror Campaign Cloaking Human Rights Abuse
> New Global Survey Finds Crackdown on Civil Liberties
> 
> (Washington, January 16, 2002) -- The anti-terror campaign led by the United States is inspiring opportunistic attacks on civil liberties around the world, Human Rights Watch warned in its annual global survey released today.
> http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/wr2002.htm


3.Once more it's a question of excess. Climate change is a huge threat.....terrorism is *a* threat not *THE* threat. Prudence not excess.

_this would demean the deaths of literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people around the world._???








Is it used for political ends and to further an agenda many in the US and a huge number around the world perceive that to be the case. Again - one indicator amongst a number. Orwell knew the mechanism....demonization - fear as a tactic.

4. Increasing the largest military budget in the world by 45% when schooling and medical care are in dire straits....that's not disproportionate???  ...especially when the US is the sole remaining superpower.!!!

6. Compared to what the US is founded on, freedom of the press being a critical aspect of any modern demcracy and one of the pillars....The Fourth estate.



> HE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
> 
> W.W. NORTON, 516 PAGES, $10
> reviewed by SANDER HICKS
> ...


7. Bull****...they started out that way with business as usual and that was good, the US citizenry is now fearful - period..... out of all proportion. Listen to Bush's speechs right now harping on "security, strong wartime president......









8 The US is a modern democracy and it's sliding backwards. You are not bringing into play other modern democracies where separation of church and state is de rigeur as even the founders of the US wanted it to be. Bush even breached the UN customs in this regard. Ignorance is one term,that could be applied, hubris perhaps a better one..

9. 50% of the wealth in 1% of the population......50% of the weapons on the planet produced by the same nation. Did you read Eisenhower's statement???? He warned against it - can't you see it.....he saw the danger. Others see it now.

10.You really don't know the Bush administration very well if you don't see how the US "fits in here".
Ask the researchers, the pressure on PBS, loss of funding everywhere.

12 The highest incarceration rate in the world, 10 % of the populace involved directly or indirectly with the justice system  ,,,out of touch you are. 2.1 million citizens behind bars. There are threads with all the information.

13. YOU are the one comparing Saddam and the US. No one else is.
There is a corruption assessment by world bodies. The US is nowhere near the top and Cheney Haliburton is pretty clear. The US and Chile are neck and neck.

http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2003/cpi2003.en.html 

14. you continually harp on Saddam versus the US as a comparison...... 

The list is a list of indicators of dangers - millions inside and outside the US see the danger why don't you???
Senior leaders, millions of it's own citizens, more millions around the world see the issues and the dangers., the has US has lost it's way.
80% of Europe sees Bush as the most dangerous person on the planet.

Are they all nuts........no ......

Do yourself a favour - hunt around, goolge on fascism in the US 2004 - sure you'll get the ragged edge, you'll also get serious scholars and leaders.



> Special Report
> Creeping fascism
> 
> By S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D.
> ...


Is Gore Vidal so terribly misguided and wrong.
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/03/52/features-cooper.php 

George Soros??
http://www.soros.org/resources/articles_publications/articles/americanprospect_20030527 

Why can't you see what they see?? Answer their concerns about the US, don't apologize saying.....well the US is not as bad as some others.

the list goes on and on.  

Islam has it's own issues to deal with - fundamentalism and radical religious activity is a danger to all societies, was in the US and still simmers just below the surface.

The actions of western powers in in the middle east give it a target, a focus just as the Bush admin demonizes the inverse is also true.
The Great Satan.........with enough substance to focus hatred. 

[ August 27, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry macdoc...I've read both Majava's latest post and your rebuttal, and in my humble opinion he's gotten the better of you (He left a smokin crater in the ground where you used to be standing, old buddy! Total wreckage...and shrapnel that flew for MILES, actually!)
















And just to settle one last point between us:

Japan may have been able to grow enough food to feed their population 150 years ago...but there is no way in hell that they could POSSIBLY do it today! Not nearly enough flat arable land. Not even CLOSE! Look at a map if you don't believe me.

I'm not going to mention it again. Because the ongoing discussion about the middle east is FAR more important. And MacJava is actually living there, after all. So his thoughts and observations are rather important, and shouldn't be diminished by side discussions or petty arguments that have no real relevance. Don't you think?

(BTW... as I recall macdoc, you prefer to have your crow served up piping hot with Bullseye sauce don't you? OKAY...I'll fire up the BBQ and get right ON it!)


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Macdoc… Your voice is shrill, but I elect no comment on the preaching. Actually, I was a little surprised with your last post mac! Really not up to your usual caliber I must say. After reading through it twice, I am still not sure if it was thrown together out of haste, desperation or both.

All I am really trying to do is give you a balanced diet. I never said all of your views are incorrect. Nor did I say all the people you quoted were incorrect. Remember I started this thread pointing out that there is really no right or wrong answer when it comes to religion or politics. Both are based on ideals and beliefs that can only belong to the individual that holds them. At the end of the day, it is really just one persons view compared to another. Issues surrounding religion and politics are not equal to some guys view that Linux is not based on Unix because it does not begin with the letter “U”. One questions fact, the other questions belief. 

What I am saying is that you seem to be leaning off in one direction a little too far at times. Views that lack balance lose the ability to be objective about issues. Being so wrapped up in the news you want to hear seems to frequently cloud your ability to correctly interpret the message. 

The one thing I am faulting you on is your understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and how it plays out in all of this. Islamism is a crucial point to grasp, as it echo’s throughout the story here. Without a clear understanding of Islamism and what it represents, events like 9/11 are easily misunderstood and given a gloss over, only to lose much of the importance relative to our debate.

The main point being that without 9/11 or another event like it, there would have been no Afghanistan/Iraq to follow. Admittedly, I have been watching the winds of change out here for some time now wondering what and when will something big shake loose.

Speaking of misinterpreting things, your last post represents almost entirely a misinterpretation, or should I say, misrepresentation of my views.


Apologizing for America:
Where have I ever apologized for anything American based on the fact that they are not as bad as other countries? 

MM:
I never said anywhere that Macdoc = MM. My questions were not specifically directed at you, but to anyone interested in this thread. Maybe you perceived it that way because you played a central part in all of the American bashing here. Your conscience getting the better of you Macdoc?

US=Iraq:
I have never compared the US and Iraq as equals. Nor do I justify issues of sovereignty based on Iraq as an example! I have used Iraq in comparisons where appropriate, as that country is often very relevant to the topic here. Iraq was used in a comparison between the US regarding characteristics of a fascist government you posted here. My comparison was to highlight the obvious differences between a democratic government and a regime with very strong fascist tendencies. It seemed obvious to me that you were simply pasted the word America after each of the 14 characteristics to simply depict America in this light. 


Defanged:
Saddam was nowhere close to being sufficiently defanged! He continued to be a menace to the people inside that country, and given the financial resources and lack of moral intent, a menace to everyone outside as well. His ability to export terrorism was very real.


Fascism:
Fascism and US Olympic athletes? Misrepresenting the facts. You are so wrapped up in the news you want to hear, you more often then not misinterpret and or misrepresent the message. The article has nothing to do with fascism in the US. The article does not support your beliefs that the US is a police state with fascist view points. A couple interesting quotes from the article:

“The spectacle of victorious athletes grabbing a national flag and parading it around the stadium is a familiar part of international sporting competition”

“Unfortunately, using the flag as a prop or a piece of apparel or indulging in boasting behavior is becoming part of our society in sport because every night on TV we see our athletes — professional, college or otherwise — taunting their opponents and going face-to-face with each other”

“What I am trying to do with the athletes and coaches is to suggest to them that they consider how the normal things they do at an event, including the Olympics, might be viewed as confrontational or insulting or cause embarrassment.” 


Human rights:
Quote:
“Some countries, such as Russia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt, are using the war on terror to justify abusive military campaigns or crackdowns on domestic political opponents.”

The body of the article seems to be more about how countries other then the US are using the war on terror to abuse human rights. While the following 2 quotes bellow describe how the war on terror is threatening long held human rights in both the US and Europe. Notice the term “fascism” is absent. Looking for something that is not there?

Quote:
“Roth also said that new restrictions on civil liberties in the United States, such as the proposed military commissions, could compromise the U.S. government's ability to criticize human rights violations in other countries.”

“Anti-terror legislation in many Western European countries would have a similar effect on their abilities to provide international leadership on human rights, Roth said.”


Freedom of Speech:
Quote:
“Compared to what the US is founded on, freedom of the press being a critical aspect....the fourth estate.”

Macdoc, a single documentary seen through the eyes of a media critic is hardly worth mentioning, as it has nothing to do with freedom of the press. Publishing his views regarding the documentary are proof of his own freedom of speech. 


Corruption:
Quote:
“50% of the wealth in 1% of the population......50% of the weapons on the planet produced by the same nation.”

This is not a crime, but an example of a prosperous democracy exercising free enterprise. You mean France, GB or China would not be interested in the same title to wealth? You mean France, GB or China do not compete for international sales of their technology resources? What you are pointing out is simply the fact that currently, the US is the strongest world economy and other countries up until now, are less successful at competing against them. This does not deny the view that the US should give more back to the world community by showing leadership in reducing world poverty and strife.

The link regarding transparency agrees with what I have been saying all along. The US is in the top 13% out of 133 countries surveyed and in the top 9% if considering high range scores. Lets look at who fell below the US. Like I already said; the US is not much different to anyone else when it comes to the desire to take profit.

A few things to consider when looking over the CPI report. The report does not indicate how size of different economies would impact scores. It is imaginable that the larger the economy, the more opportunity for corruption. Also, the report does not specify why some countries were surveyed more then others, and how this would affect scores? Out of the 17 countries that scored a higher index then the US, only 1 was surveyed the same number of times. And lastly, out of the 17 countries that scored a higher index then the US, only 12 actually made higher scores when surveyed.


Vidal:
The Vidal interview is a good read. He has his own point of view that I find entertaining at times. The following 2 quotes however demonstrate his bias and lack of truth, and only make me question the rest of his message. 

Quote:
“No proof. All you need is the word of the attorney general or maybe the president himself. You can then be locked up without access to a lawyer, and then tried by military tribunal and even executed. Or, in a brand-new wrinkle, you can be exiled, stripped of your citizenship and packed off to another place not even organized as a country — like Tierra del Fuego or some rock in the Pacific.”

“No one has proposed preemptive war before. And two countries in a row that have done no harm to us have been bombed.”


Greeley: 
Someone should point out to Andrew Greeley that the Germans of the 30s were trying to shed the devastations of loosing a world war, while the Americans of today are looking through the eyes of the most powerful nation on the planet! A small difference dont ya think!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Not to sound like some sort of gushing fan here, Macjava...but I am really enjoying reading your posts.  

It's not just WHAT you've written...it's HOW WELL you've written it. If you are not a professional writer, then you certainly could be. Outstanding stuff, IMHO.  

And I suspect that macdoc is not exactly having a "very good week", when all is said and done.









Call it a hunch.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Shameless bump to bring this very important thread back up to the top of the list. Especially since so many are speculating about what makes the middle east "tick" in a seperate thread right now.

All four pages of this thread are well worth the read. 

Take a moment or two and go over what has been written, so aptly as well, by the only ehmaclander who actually _LIVES_ in this area.

Check it out. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

As has been amply proven, just because someone lives in an area doesn't mean that they can actually see what is going on.  

I mean, you do live in Canada but your federal election call was a total failure. (No quotes).


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> Every now and again, one has to right his tack in order to stay on course, as the message is easily lost in the wake of rough seas.


Yep, this is the part where mac java avoids answering the tough questions:



> 1. Physically. Do you have your own family compound? Or is it a foreign workers' compound? I doubt that the majority of your neighbours are Arab.
> 2. Religion. Are you Muslim? Jewish? Christian?
> 3. Economically. Are you paid more than the average Saudi because you're an expat?
> 4. Citizenship. Are you a Saudi citizen? Or are you a citizen of any other Middle Eastern country?
> ...


As for Macnutt's:



> You might want to cut a bit of slack for the shallower types here when they suggest that you couldn't possibly know what is happening in the country you actually live in "because you live in a COMPOUND".
> 
> Most of them (all of them, actually) have never spent more than a week or two in any foreign land. They have no concept of what it really is like living in a VERY different country from the one they grew up in.


I'll have you know that I've never been to a resort but I have spent months bicycling through Turkey, Jordan, Syria and Egypt by myself. I've been through the great cities of Istanbul, Ankara, Amman, Damascus and Cairo. Slept everywhere from hostels to garages to Crusader castles to rough campsites on top of abandoned post offices. Seen the three great mosques in Istanbul, Topkapi Palace, the cave dwellings of Cappadocia, the forests near Lebanon, the King's Highway in Jordan, the abandoned city of Petra, Wadi Rum where T.E. Lawrence had his headquarters, Krak de Chevaliers, the Sinai and the Great Pyramids.

I'm also listed as a contributor to the second edition of Lonely Planet's Syria and Jordan guidebook (I'm the one from Montreal.).


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Don't patronize MacJava........

_Macdoc… Your voice is shrill, but I elect no comment on the preaching. Actually, I was a little surprised with your last post mac! Really not up to your usual caliber I must say. After reading through it twice, I am still not sure if it was thrown together out of haste, desperation or both _

_Your conscience getting the better of you Macdoc?_

The appropriate response is..... "don't be childish."

MacJava
You COULD write and debate well........you instead choose this style.

"_Iron, correcting you would be a full time job all in itself _

_Your jabbering regarding Vietnam is inaccurate on several count_

_Tisk tisk! Shame on you Macdoc! The rains of pressure bring true tests of man_.

Gerry does the same that's why you rank high in his "approval" list.......and that's a particular opprobrium you might want to try and avoid.

Grow up a bit and stop by when you do ....or not  

Indeed IM had it right............_amateurish flaming style_


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Macdoc all grown up now! 

It appears to be more a loss for words then any kind of appropriate response on your part mac. What's up Doc! It only took you a couple of weeks and Macnuts mention to let your true feelings out eh! Feeling a little humiliated (childish) are we macdoc? 

Macnut expresses HIS views and you attack me for it? Now how childish is that! 

You accuse me of amateurish flaming only to turn around and openly call macnuts views a disgrace on this forum? Now how childish is that!

You seemingly cornered yourself into an uncomfortable position in this debate and then run for cover behind the words of the village idiot? Now how disgraceful is that!

In all honesty macdoc, I have thoroughly enjoyed the few debates we have taken up here, and you have offered interesting conversation via satellite, but I have never considered them as flaming sessions. In fact I have spent considerable time trying to convince you that I was not simply labeling your views as wrong. More then anything, I was trying to add a little salt to your diet. Try the right search button on your web browser once in a while. It can only make a good argument better. If you cant afford to run the risk of being called on any of your views here, then maybe you should reconsider the input you offer. 

Regarding Macnut, I cannot comment on his approval list, nor have I elected to be there, but am flattered if that is the case. I will say however that I quite enjoy reading his posts and cant help but think there are many others here that would agree, but are too shy to admit it. You might not like his style and that is fine. We all have a certain style. 

Heck, I am sure even your new found friend IM has a style to be found somewhere in that confused and mixed up conjecture of his. 

Regarding your new found friend,... well you got the amateur part right.

Iron reads:
Yep, this is the part where mac java avoids answering the tough questions:

The above quote is a reasonable representation of his level of mental abilities and reasoning power. I am talking from experience here as I have had ample opportunity to test it. The confused and mixed up conjecture of a mental midget. IM seems to be under the impression that I am trying to avoid, or am unable to answer his mindless questions. When In reality I have simply ignored them up until now. 

I indicated from his very first intrusion that my intentions were to have a reasonable debate. I also encouraged his reasonable input (minus the mindless stupidity) of which I would have been more then glad to respond to. Is there really any surprise at the direction he so eagerly attempted to move it? 

The tiring task of listening to his never ending and mindless babble over a debate on something as unique as UNIX was bad enough! Can you imagine having to drag this yak through a debate on a topic as large as world history? And would you really want to? 

Oh I know I could be a little more light hearted with the guy. After all, it is only a computer forum. But he could also make an effort at intelligent conversation. After all, it is a computer forum! 

Hey Iron, are you still looking for a good definition of UNIX? Try looking under "YOUNICKS" at your local library...(that ought to keep him busy for a while)...Just trying to be helpful!

Iron reads:
As has been amply proven, just because someone lives in an area doesn't mean that they can actually see what is going on.

Without implying responsibility for his comments; I willingly pass the ball into your court Macdoc. Can you please explain what it is your new found friend has amply proven? Did someone mention something about a lonely planet, and is this guy for real? 

I hope your courteous explanation doesn't stop at the above quote, but continues on with the 6 spells of renaissance questioning. We will worry about strapping on the dunce hat later. 

Out of respect, I will patiently wait for your response and no doubt IM's babble before offering my own comments.

Yes sir Ladies and Gents, step right up! We have a genuine three dollar bill here. 
From a world class analyst with an inch high shisma who apparently invests in cool but shrinking companies before publicly criticizing them, to the author, cum historian, cum tour guide... we have almost heard it all I am sure.

By the way Macdoc, it has nothing to do with flaming. Its a roast!

[ September 28, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: mac java ]


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

Revenge is a dish best served cold… and so the story goes for Yasser Arafat a few weeks on postmortem. 

Interesting read that “Arafat’s Money” thread. Put up or shut up? Wow that kind of challenge could only come from someone really in the know. A lonely analyst?…Ko! 

It appears that nxnw has discovered ironmacs lonely talent. Nitpicking! 

If I could add anything to the well rounded argument presented, it would be to point out that ironmac has confused a figure of 900 million, which approximates PA assets accumulated between 1995 and 2000, with what would be the total net worth of Mr. Arafat after his long career of saving the Palestinian people. A net worth that is guesstimated to be in excess of 6 billion. 

The truth is, no one really knows and will likely never know the complete picture or figure of the Arafat fortunes. Ironmac! Prove that Arafat’s net worth was not in the billions. Put up or shut up! Back at ya.

The point to all of this that I find most sickening is that Arafat and his cronies made a wealthy business out of distributing suicide jackets. Shrouding his cause with brainwashed suicide bombers to invoke world sympathy and the blank cheque it produced to fill his own pockets would be a crime against humanity in the highest degree. Has ironmac stumbled onto one of the 6 billion reasons a solution to the long crisis there has been so difficult to find? If there is a hell, Arafat is no doubt one of the FatCat residents there.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No question about it. He's probably frying there, as we speak. Deservedly so.

I might also add that Ironmac claimed in one of his posts that the ongoing theft of money from the Palestinians by Arafat actually STOPPED, at some point. (??!!??)

But he has not offered any evidence to back up that wildly speculative and highly unlikely claim.

Meanwhile, Suha lives on in unspeakable luxury. And the Palestinians subsist in a state of total poverty.

But at least the suicide killings and maimings of civilians have stopped. For now.

It remains to be seen if they will begin again...now that the "Leader" who was urging them on is finally deceased.

We can only hope...


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacJava...

Having read, rather intently, all of your recent posts (and having summarily dismissed your "village idiot" comments),...

I just gotta ask...

What is your take on the recent attack on the US embassy in Jiddah?

An isolated incident? Just the beginning of something much bigger? A last ditch attempt by some obscure branch of Al Qaeda to prove that their movement is still alive? Or a final tiny smack against the great satan that has them totally on the run these days?

Anxiously awaiting your reply. As always.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

Welcome back, MacJava! I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you? Thought you might had fled that compound and relocated to another corrupt regime propped up by the Americans.

The issue is that people keep putting up numbers without having anything behind those numbers. Can you say brainwashed? If anything that the money thread has taught us (well, some of us at least) it is that speculation is often passed off as fact and sources are simply not credible.


----------



## ice_hackey (Aug 13, 2004)

Hey - I was in Dubai for a month earlier this year. 

It was a breath of fresh air compared to Toronto too! What a lovely place and people.

I even made an unfortunate trip to the american hospital too! Instead of a baby, I walked out with a headache and a big bag of drugs. Oh well.

This is probably the most exciting place in the world right now. The city is springing up from nowhere!

Uhmm.. in internet city - there is even a tiny little shop that sells Apple stuff. I checked - and it's nary a nickel cheaper than in Canada.


----------



## mac java (Jun 6, 2003)

MacNutt. I feel as do most living here in the magical kingdom that the problems are far from over. There is an endless supply of supporters for extremist ideals out here and Bin Laden still enjoys sort of a heros status to many of the uneducated. 

From where I'm standing, capturing or killing a few rebels in itself will not create the long term solution the Royal Family is looking for. They will simply be replaced with new recruits. Although the Saudi authorities have made some progress at trying to decapitate rebel leadership here on the Arab peninsula, and have significantly disrupted Bin Laden's momentum and direction for his movement; real progress will only come from reform within Islam and the country itself. 

In addition to aggressively hunting the Bin Laden types here, Saudi authorities are promoting both religious and political reform. This will be a long process and likely measured in years.

The recent attacks in Jeddah are examples of both successes and failures for both sides. The weeks leading up to the American Consulate attack saw several rebels killed in gun battles there, leaving Saudi authorities for the better. Although the press has claimed a major rebel victory at the Consulate as they were able to breech security and gain access to the grounds while on a killing spree, they were stopped from entering any buildings and additionally, were all killed or captured. This is in stark contrast to many of the previous attacks where the rebels fled after inflicting heavy casualties.


Ironmac. I could not agree with you more on this point. Not just in your recent postings about Arafat's money, but in many other threads here. Hearsay is often misconstrued as fact, and fact is often misconstrued into something else.


ice_hackey. The large bag of pills was likely meant to overcome the big headache brought on by the bill you received from the hospital. Private health care, as you now know, comes at a heavy price out here as do most other things in Dubai these days. Dubai is certainly not the place to be buying Apple gear. Right off the map when it comes to price. I bring all my gear form the US or Canada. Are you prospecting employment opportunities in the UAE? If you are ever back in the area, send me a line and I would be more then happy to offer any assistance you might find helpful.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

MacJava...

I get the impression that, although Bin Laden and Co. would like to mount a serious well co-ordinated, and VERY widespread attack against all American (or even all Infidel) sites in the Muslim Holy land.....it's just not gonna happen.

Too many of the key Al Qaeda people have been taken down. Too many of the rest are on the run. Too much of their operating capital has been siezed or sidelined.

A little shot by some obscure cell or two is about all they can hope for these days. Perhaps even less in the coming months.

Am I on the wrong track here? What are your thoughts on this?

I certainly am anxious to hear what you have to say on the subject.

I'm all ears. Honest.


----------

