All Hank, all the time.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think it's working?

Not yet, but I think it's extremely early in the process. It will take a generation to change the thought of a large part of the muslim world that has been brainwashed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me that there are a shitload of people in the Middle East that need to find a job and a mortgage and deal with the headaches of everyday productive lives that are worth preserving.

I see that as a major part of the problem also.

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
How that happens, I have no idea.

We focus our middle east policy on trying to get these countrys to adopt policies that lead to economic growth - which, by the way, should always be the focus of our foreign policy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
We focus our middle east policy on trying to get these countrys to adopt policies that lead to economic growth - which, by the way, should always be the focus of our foreign policy.

Yes - I myself am a big advocate of making sure that in places like Lebanon, which have a history of Democracy and have developed a substantial middle class educated in a Western style, don't get turned over to the fundamentalist Islamic hotheads. It's very hard to develop such traditions, and, I think, even harder once they are destroyed and replaced.

So, to paraphrase an American politician, are the Lebanese better off today than they were four months ago?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me that there are a shitload of people in the Middle East that need to find a job and a mortgage and deal with the headaches of everyday productive lives that are worth preserving. How that happens, I have no idea.

this is a very Orwellian thought in the Keep The Aspidistra Flying mould.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


(Also, shit like this needs to be followed up upon regularly and we should loudly demand explanations from our "friends" as to why crap like this is still going on.)


Invisibility cloak back on.

Oil has totally screwed up our relationship with Saudi Arabia (you are all muttering to yourselves - tell us something we don't know). Many of you think oil caused us to screw up in Iraq. While oil may have been a large part of the motivation to go in there, I still don't think it was a screw up. I think oil helped pressure us into doing the right thing in Iraq (Sidd, try not to puke when you read that) - but I digress.

We should put pressure on Saudi Arabia for all sorts of reasons (their schools of hate all over the middle east, their total internal economic incompetance, total lack of civil rights, beheading princesses who try and escaped arranged marriages etc.) but we can't pressure them because they are our crack dealer - which really sucks. But besides trying to get our dependence off of foreign oil, I don't know what we can do about it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, to paraphrase an American politician, are the Lebanese better off today than they were four months ago?

No but what the hell else was Israel supposed to do?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
No but what the hell else was Israel supposed to do?

It's a long term/short term benefit analysis.

Long term, the only way to rid Southern Lebanon of Hezbollah is to have a Lebanese government strong enough to do it (and Syria sidelined enough so they can't prevent it). Hezbollah knows that, so they needed some help from the Israellis to destabilize Lebanon. They got it.

And Israel got to know that they'd fought back, at the cost, of course, of casualties on their side as well as Hezbollah's. But, Hezbollah is the big winner and Lebanon the big loser.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As an intellectual exercise, it's boring, in the same way that pointing out hypocrisy on the other side is boring. As an exercise in changing the world, I don't think it changes anyone's behavior. And often it's an attempt to score cheap political points, a sort of pose rather than an attempt to accomplish anything. E.g., Penske baiting me when he asked why I wouldn't condemn Yassir Arafat's terrorism.

Then don't get into the discussion. I believe that the failure of Muslim leaders to speak forcefully to their constituents and say "this is wrong." (note the period) is an enormous part of the problem.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not yet, but I think it's extremely early in the process. It will take a generation to change the thought of a large part of the muslim world that has been brainwashed.

Early, schmerly. We were going to be out of there in six weeks, remember?

Seriously, though -- it's been three years. Do you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is really helping change views of the US in the muslim world? (Favorably?)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Then don't get into the discussion. I believe that the failure of Muslim leaders to speak forcefully to their constituents and say "this is wrong." (note the period) is an enormous part of the problem.

Why? It's not like Eric Rudolph would act differently if the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire condemned anti-abortion violence more vigorously.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have zero reading comprehension but you are not scrutinizing the public statement? Right. Have you even read it? Here it is:

....It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

When the speaker says the British government "must not ignore the role foreign policy plays...", does this really have any substantial meaning to you, Ty? Do you really think he means terror attacks will stop as long as the Brits stand up and say "hey, we acknowledge the fact that the terrorists are pissed b/c we're in Iraq and that's why maybe the terrorists are slaughtering innocents." I think the statement says loud and clear that, to stop the terror attacks, the British government needs to conduct its foreign policy in a way Muslims want -- get out of Iraq. So let's not pussyfoot around here.

And it's really shocking that you take the 24% statistic so lightly. Add to that the percentage (17%) of people who answered "I don't know" when asked if terrorism is sometimes justified -- 17% of Muslims can't fucking admit that blowing up a plane of civilians is never justified? That's 41% of British Muslims who aren't condemning terror. Pretty scary statistic. So your public speaker has much to say about how the Brits should "combat terror" but it's getting pretty close to half of the speaker's community that won't even say terrorism is wrong.

Last year, the surveys showed 1/3 of British Muslims believe Western society is "decadent" and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it. I sure haven't seen any peaceful efforts by Muslims to encourage changes to our "immoral" behaviour. I think we all know what "seek to end it" means.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Long term, the only way to rid Southern Lebanon of Hezbollah is to have a Lebanese government strong enough to do it...

And you believe the Lebanese goverment wants Hezbollah completely out of Lebanon?

[SlaveNoMore]

[iSpanky [/i]
I think the bigger issue here is how much of Britians actions in the Middle East are prompting these terrorist acts.

If Britain completely disengaged from the Middle East. No more support for Israel, no troops in Iraq, and didn't mess around at all in who runs which government, would the terrorist attacks against Britian stop:

My guess here, and this is just a guess:

Ty = yes

Club, Hank and Sgt Club =no


Spanky = confused

Sidd = ?

Slave = Are you kidding?

If Hezobollah, Hamas and the PLO unilaterally disarmed, there would be peace in the Middle East.

If Israel unilaterally disarmed, they would be attacked from all sides and be driven into the Sea.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
On the middle east in general, I find that I don't have time to make bombs and incite dissidence and do all sorts of other shit to hurt the people that I hate, because I have other shit to do. I'd love to sit in a cafe all day and gripe about the man to my fellow shiftless lazeabouts and groan about how miserable I am and then do something about it to hurt the person whose fault I think it is, but I'm not that miserable, and I have to go to work. Seems to me that there are a shitload of people in the Middle East that need to find a job and a mortgage and deal with the headaches of everyday productive lives that are worth preserving. How that happens, I have no idea.

i.e., we need to start fearing and profiling folks from Berkeley.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's a long term/short term benefit analysis.

Long term, the only way to rid Southern Lebanon of Hezbollah is to have a Lebanese government strong enough to do it (and Syria sidelined enough so they can't prevent it). Hezbollah knows that, so they needed some help from the Israellis to destabilize Lebanon. They got it.

I dont recall the exact numbers, but isnt the latest Lebanese government filled with Hezbollah members - like 25%- 30%?

But, Hezbollah is the big winner and Lebanon the big loser.

Damn, you and I agree on something. Sign number 3 of the apocalypse.