Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 12:25
trotsky (Hambone) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"I'd certainly take issue with that statement, particularly the first part."
the US used to have an excellent reputation in the Arab world for a very long time. i have been surprised to learn this, but it is true. the US was always seen as the anithesis of the former European colonial powers...the high point probably came when Eisenhower intervened in the Suez crisis ( it's probably been downhill ever since, but i think it's fair to say that it took several decades of misguided US foreign policy to destroy the goodwill the US once enjoyed in Arab eyes ) .
also, you probably make the common mistake of relying too much on the paucity of biased information available in the US media regarding the Arab world. prior to the Iraq altercation people like OBL at best had the support of a smallish radical fringe, somewhat akin to the degree of support abortion clinic bombers enjoy from a small radical fringe of evangelical fundamentalists in the US ( i.e., slim to none ) . if you think ( as i suspect many Americans do ) that OBL and his ilk have always been popular in the Muslim world you are mistaken.
the fact that OBL has now become some sort of folk hero there is no doubt in large part a result of the Iraq invasion. the WTC attack provided an excellent opportunity to ostracize and isolate the Islamic radicals once and for all - and it was completely missed.
you may be interested in learning that the ambivalent history of relations between the US and radical Islam points to the fact that we shouldn't be too surprised by this outcome.
here is a very interesting article by an expert on the subject, Robert Dreyfuss.
quote from the introduction:
"Dreyfuss is the author of a remarkable new book, The Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam. It's a striking history of how, for the last half century, successive American administrations have bedded down with right-wing Islamic movements. James Norton, former Middle East editor for the Christian Science Monitor, recently called the book "a chronicle of mistakes made, opportunities lost, and lessons most vividly not learned. It's also the story of the historical error that has come to define U.S. foreign policy in the Muslim world: the Machiavellian use of political Islam as a sword and shield against communism and Arab nationalism… Devil's Game records the long and sordid history of right-wing and hard-line elements in the U.S. government finding common cause with fundamentalist groups in the Middle East… By feeding the monster of militant Islamism to fulfill short-term goals, Dreyfuss argues, the United States helped unleash the most challenging foreign policy crisis of the new millennium"
tomdispatch.com
as an aside, i note that the WTC perps OBL and his right-hand man al Zawahiri continue to roam free. why was so much energy diverted into a useless war, while the real culprits have apparently been forgotten? why is it thought necessary to erect a police state at home, the main function of which seems to be the spying on citizens, while the radicals behind this atrocity remain cozily holed up in the Hindukush mountains?
it sure is a conundrum.
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 11:45
trotsky (BoS) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"on 9/11 it was good to have someone like Bush say either/or stuff,"
and how was that 'good', aside from providing a little bit of instant ego gratification? he immediately set upon destroying the enormous world-wide swell of goodwill and sympathy for the US in the wake of 9-11.
Paul Craig Roberts ( a conservative who served in the Reagan administration ) put it best:
"Before Bush launched his war on terror and invaded Iraq, the vast majority of Muslims supported the U.S. and thought bin Laden was a nut case. Today, Muslims think Bush is a nut case and support bin Laden."
read the whole piece, it's pretty blunt, which is Robert's style, but sure rings true:
antiwar.com
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 11:37
trotsky (Alberich) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
no doubt there is a lot of bad blood and not-so-glorious history in the Kurdish areas of Iraq, and you're quite right that the Kurds were the ones to be displaced in the first place. i only wanted to point out that the area is by no means pacified, and that the Kurds aren't exactly angels either.
one thing i certainly agree with is that the pathological obsession everybody seems to have over Iraq's territorial integrity is totally misguided. who cares if the country splits into threen parts...if that's what they want, let them go for it. it's not the first country this would be happening to, and the territory of Iraq is a colonial invention anyway.
in fact, the modern day nation state is neither a historic inevitability nor is it particularly desirable anyway.
a few Rockwell pieces on the state:
lewrockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
lewrockwell.com
mises.org
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 11:12
trotsky (@pm stocks) ID#248269:
everything still looking great on the money flow front. the dip should be bought.
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 10:40
trotsky (Alberich) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
your glowing assessment of the Kurds ignores the fact that they are in the middle of an enormous ethnic cleansing campaign designed to drive out all the Arabs and Turkomen in their region by any means available. there's a civil war raging in Mosul and Kirkuk. to call this region 'pacified' is way off the mark, imo.
frankly, i don't think 'we' ( meaning the 'coalition', such as it is ) need to draw up any plans for Iraq at all. the solution is to get out, and let THEM duke it out. it's their country, plus it's probably the only ( if by now very remote ) chance that peace actually does break out, since the major motivation for the insurgency would be gone.
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 10:27
trotsky (Bleuler@Chavez) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
i also don't like Chavez' political outlook , but calling the man a 'tyrant' wilfully ignores that he has won altogether 9 democratic elections with an overwhelming majority, in spite of the media in his country being aligned against him.
the article from the War Street Journal is tendentious through and through - the offhand 'explanation' for the 2002 coup sure doesn't hold water either, not to mention the fact that it is extremely hypocritical of a WSJ editorial to accuse ANY government about its propensity to use violence, since this rag has no qualms arguing for copious spilling of blood and guts as long as the spillers are aligned with it politically.
i'm almost ashamed to admit that i once used to read it regularly. otoh, it goes to show that ones outlook can evolve...anyone trading the markets soon realizes that the information provided by the financial press doesn't produce better trading results, and after that what's left of the WSJ, except blatant, almost Pravda-like propaganda?
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 09:58
trotsky (@Brzezinski) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
"In a recent speech, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser in the late 1970s, spoke of a crisis of American leadership.
He believes the US is "sliding towards a war with the world of Islam".
In Iraq, he argues, it was necessary to re-define success, since the original goal of creating a stable, secular democracy there was no longer a realistic option. "
1. the policies implemented by the Shrubco gang have long been advocated by Mr. B. himself - he's the original empire builder.
2. 'redefinining success' - that's a good one. it'll take some doing. let's see...'we have totally succeeded in installing a theocratic right-wing Shi'ite Islamist government in Iraq, death squads, torture chambers and all. they're good friends with the other nice mullah friends next door. we've also left them with a spot of total chaos to make things more interesting. success is our middle name!'
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 09:46
trotsky (@Gartman) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
the arrogance and pompousness of the man knows no bounds...while at the same time, his constant assurances regarding how much it pains him to have to be bullish on gold merely reveal his desperate kow-towing to the establishment.
have i forgotten anything?
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 09:41
trotsky (@warning) ID#248269:
Copyright © 2002 trotsky/Kitco Inc. All rights reserved
your relief over the opportunity to get gold a little bit cheaper today is understandable - but be warned, the cabal will soon be buying again.
knowing the gold PPT, they won't allow more than a $6 pullback....unwritten rules.
i know it's not fair, but they've been pumping gold for 5 years now. if you can't beat them, join them.
|
