Chris Russo wrote:
> On Thursday, November 29, 2001, at 08:53 AM, Brian D Williams wrote:
> > Both Jordan and Syria occupy former Palestinian land and isn't it
> > funny that you never hear boo about it?
> Where Jordanian and Syrian governments are in control of the territory,
> Muslims aren't treated as second-class citizens.
Incorrect. Jordan booted them (Palestinians) out decades ago in response
to a coup attempt, and Syria conducted extensive genocides of whole
palestinian camps and deported the rest to Lebanon. While muslims per se
are not treated as second class citizens, muslim doesn't necessarily
equate to 'palestinian'. On the other hand, Jews ARE treated as second
class citizens in EVERY muslim country, and are frequently the victims
of pogroms and other repressions that never make the news.
> > Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this set right, but the
> > Palestinians are every bit as much at fault, if not more so, than
> > the Israelis.
> See, that's where I'm not so sure. With our media and government so
> much under the influence of Jewish media moguls, have we as Americans
> been getting a reasonably objective view of the events in Israel and the
> Middle East? From my conversations with friends outside of the US
> media-sphere, I get the feeling that the Palestinians are much less at
> fault than we've been lead to believe.
Lets see now, looking at the news releases through the international
press the last several months, it seems that all targets of Israeli
attacks, and most victims, are militants engaged in illegal combatant
activities (terrorism), while every instance of dead Israelis shows that
they are inevitably either civilian victims of terrorist bombings, or
soldiers attempting to defend against terrorist attacks.
When the negotiators on one side are demanding 7 days of no attacks,
while the other side says that attacks will continue until they all are
engaged in peace talks, it is rather evident to anyone who can actually
think, which side is the agressor.
> >> Also, this is more than just about Israel. This is also about
> >> continued US support for puppet regimes like in Saudi Arabia and
> >> Kuwait.
> >> Sure, the US talks a good game about democracy and freedom, but
> >> Middle Easterners who would wish to have freedom and democracy in
> >> their own countries have to not only battle their own governments,
> >> but also the dollars and military of the United States.
> > So what right to we have to go around kicking in governments?
> Straw man. Who said anything about "kicking in governments"? I'd just
> like us to get out of the whole area. Leave Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
> Let those governments stabilize and defend themselves. If they want
> help in creating secular democracies, then it's probably worth it for us
> to give them a hand. Currently, though, I don't understand why we're
> supporting the countries that we are.
You still have not answered my demand to show where in the US budget we
are providing any financial aid of any sort to the governments of Saudi
Arabia or Kuwait (Kuwait, BTW IS a democratic government).
> > Liberals always want to have things both ways.
> Oh, man. I certainly hope that you're not calling me a liberal. Them's
> fightin' words. I'd characterize myself as a libertarian, or at worst
> an atheistic conservative.
With a tendency to apologize for anyone who hates jews.
> >> The Cold War is over. This support of the "lesser of evils" no
> >> longer makes the sense that it did a couple of decades ago.
> > Which is better, a corrupt government or a fundamentalist one?
> Who knows? In this case, the corrupt one was more predisposed to us
> because of our past intervention on their behalf, and because they know
> that our continued support is required for them to stay in power. Then
> again, our occupation of Saudi Arabia is one of the prime reasons why we
> just lost over 6,000 people and billions of dollars. Maybe supporting
> the fundamentalist one would have been cheaper.
Please explain to me how in hell the US can "occupy" Saudi Arabia, a
nation of several million people, with a contingent of only 500 people?
> We should just get the hell out of the support business for governments
> that are fundamentalist, corrupt, or both.
How about getting out of the support business of apologizing for
terrorist groups that are even more fundamentalist than the goverments
that they want out of power?
> >> I'd rather see us withdraw from the Middle East completely than
> >> continue to be embarrassed about our policies there.
> > There are places in the middle east where we are welcome, Kuwait
> > for example.
> Of course we are. They've gotten filthy rich selling us oil at
> collusion-obtained prices (OPEC), yet when they have trouble with their
> neighbors, we take care of it for them. A lot of good it did for our
> oil prices this past summer when they went along with all of the other
> OPEC nations in reducing production.
Sure, now Russia has turned on the spigots, isn't a member of OPEC, and
is quite happy to keep the oil flowing as long as we want.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:23 MDT