Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (116769)	10/13/2003 8:30:13 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Yes, 1956 Suez is a counter-example to my thesis. A rare counter-example, which doesn't negate the overall pattern. We use Force against Muslims, casually and routinely, and have been doing so for 200 years, as my list shows. I agree, this list of military actions is not anti-Muslim, that was not the motivation. Mostly, we were protecting our commercial interests. And we did the same things all over the globe. We want our ships to trade in peace, so we attack pirates. We don't want Iranians to control their own oil, so we overthrow the elected government. We wanted the Arabs to stay divided and weak, so we sent soldiers to quash Nasser's ideas. Until the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Islam had not been the unifying anti-American ideology in the area. The pattern of intervention in Muslim lands, began long before the Soviet Union was founded, and continues after the USSR is gone. The conflicts in the area were made worse by the Cold War, as both America and Russia armed an ever-changing list of client states. But those conflicts were there anyway. In some cases, as in Somalia/Ethiopia, the two sides switched partners halfway through, and continued fighting. Communism never had much appeal in any Muslim nation (although they were glad to accept Soviet guns and money). In the 234 Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798 - 1993: history.navy.mil Muslim nations are a minority. Until 1991, none of the big actions abroad had been in a Muslim area. The reason we sent troops to Saudi Arabia in 1991 (which led directly to sending troops to Afghanistan in 2001, see Bin Laden's videotapes for the connection), was the same reason we sent troops to Tripoli in 1801: money. For 200 years, we have been protecting our commercial interests, trying to create a "good business environment", so our traders can make a profit. Over that 200 years, there has been a lot of nonsense printed in U.S. media, about more honorable, but imaginary, reasons for sending U.S. soldiers into Muslim nations: suppress slavery, protect missionaries spreading civilization, contain Communism, spread freedom and democracy. It's all just PR. It's always been about money: first trade, then access to oil. It's only very recently, that the local religion has become the rallying point for anti-foreign militarism.