The West's continual interference in the Middle East

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Pinto, Nov 9, 2003.

  1. Pinto macrumors newbie

    Mar 19, 2003
    New Zealand
    It gets weirder and weirder. As his helicopters are falling out of the sky over Iraq, President Bush tells us things are getting even better. The more we succeed, he says, the deadlier the attacks will become. Thank God the Americans now have a few - a very few - brave journalists, like Maureen Dowd, to explain what is happening.

    The worse things are, the better they get. Iraq's wartime information minister, "Comical Ali", had nothing on this; he claimed the Americans weren't in Baghdad when we could see their tanks. Bush claims he's going to introduce democracy in the Middle East when his soldiers are facing more than resistance in Iraq. They are facing an insurrection. So let's take a look at the latest lies. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," he told us on Thursday. "Because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." Well said, Sir. George Bush Jr sounds almost as convincing as, well, Tony Blair. It's all a lie. "We" - the West, Europe, America - never "excused and accommodated" lack of freedom. We endorsed lack of freedom. We created it in the Middle East and supported it.

    When Colonel Ghaddafi took over Libya, the Foreign Office thought him a much sprightlier figure than King Idriss. We supported the Egyptian generals (aka Gamal Abdul Nasser) when they originally kicked out King Farouk. We - the Brits - created the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan. We - the Brits - put a Hashemite King on the throne of Iraq. And when the Baath party took over from the monarchy in Baghdad, the CIA obligingly handed Saddam's mates the names of all senior communist party members so they could be liquidated.

    The Brits created all those worthy sheikhdoms in the Gulf. Kuwait was our doing; Saudi Arabia was ultimately a joint Anglo-US project, the United Arab Emirates (formerly the Trucial State) etc. But when Iran decided in the 1950s that it preferred Mohammed Mossadeq's democratic rule to the Shah's, the CIA's Kim Roosevelt, with Colonel "Monty" Woodhouse of MI6, overthrew democracy in Iran. Now President Bush demands the same "democracy" in present-day Iran and says we merely "excused and accommodated" the loathsome US-supported Shah's regime.

    Now let's have another linguistic analysis of Mr Bush's words. "The failure of Iraqi democracy," he told us two days ago, "would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region." Here's another take: the failure of the Bush administration to control Israel's settlement-building on Arab land would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Now that would be more like it. But no. President Bush thinks Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is "a man of peace".

    And then there's that intriguing Bush demand for a revolution in undemocratic Iran. Sure, Iran is a theocratic state (a necrocracy, I suspect), but the morally impressive President Mohamed Khatami, repeatedly thwarted by the dictatorial old divines, was democratically elected - and by a far more convincing majority than President George Bush Jr in the last US presidential elections.

    Yes, "democracy can be the future of every nation", Bush tells us. So why did his country support Saddam's viciousness and war crimes for so many years? Why did Washington give its blessing, at various stages, to Colonel Ghaddafi, Hafez Assad of Syria, the Turkish generals, Hassan of Morocco, the Shah, the sleek Ben Ali of Tunisia, the creepy generals of Algeria, the plucky little King of Jordan and even - breathe in because the UNOCAL boys wanted a gas pipeline through Afghanistan - the Taliban?

    A break here. Fouad Siniora is the finance minister of Lebanon. He is a believer in the American way of life, a graduate of the American University of Beirut and a former lecturer there, an ex-executive of Citibank. He has a valid American visa in his passport. Yet he has been telephoned by the American embassy in Beirut to be told he will not be permitted entry to the US.

    Why? Because last year he gave $ 660 at a Ramadan fast-breaking iftah to a charity that runs educational projects and orphanages in Lebanon. The organisation is run by Sayed Mohamed Fadlallah - once described by the Western press as the "spiritual adviser" to Hizbollah. CIA sources long ago revealed that they tried to kill Fadlallah - they failed, but their Saudi-prepared car bomb killed 75 civilians - so Siniora, an Americanophile to his fingertips, is persona non grata in the US. Fadlallah is not Hizbollah's "spiritual adviser" - so he could hardly withdraw his support for its victory over the Israeli army in Lebanon three years ago - but the loony- tune "security" legislation in the US has deprived Siniora of any further contact with a country he admires.

    Yes, roll on democracy. Bring 'em on. The new "Rummyworld" war on terror is in Iraq. Ban the press from filming the return of dead American soldiers to the US. Liberty is what it's about, democracy. "Accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East", indeed. We created this place, drew its borders, weaned their grotesque dictators. And we expect the Arabs to trust Mr Bush's promise?
  2. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2003
    Adelaide, Australia
    How I see it.

    Early to mid 80's Rumsfelt(or however his name is spelt) sells arms to both the Iranians and Iraqis in a Civil war.

    Rumsfelt sell chemical weapons to Iraq and the US admin props up S. Hussian to lead the country.

    Firts Gulf war breaks out with Iraqis using US supplied arms.
    G. Bush doesn't finish the Job.

    Over the next 10 years (democrat rule) US implement sanctions and bomb Iraq daily.

    Republicans get back into power (Democrats got more votes,) All hell breaks loose.
    Afghan’s use US supplied arms (US supplied arms to the Mhuja Hadean to fight the Russians 70's) to again fight the US.

    N. Korea tells Bush to Pissoff,
    Bush decides to ousts S. Hussian once and for all (he’s really after the oil) (Johnny boy and Blair join the party)

    No weapons found, No Radioactive material found, = big waste of Taxpayer dollars for little or no gain.

    If we look back into the past that we see that whenever a Republican Admin is in power their have been major wars that the US has more or less started by sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
  3. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a


    Dec 3, 2002
    Pinto, I'm glad you picked up on that news story. I saw that a few days ago and wondered if I was the only one who saw through the blatant BS that was flying around. Thank goodness there are others out there who see through this administrations double-speak.
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    I've watched a lot of this in real time, given my age. I guess my only argument with the article would be with the apparent idea that all these machinations are direcly and deliberately connected over this entire time period.

    To me, it's pretty much tied to the Cold War and to oil. The various decisions were made in the name of short-term expediency on a case-by-case or issue-by-issue basis. I don't mean to imply "good" or "wise", of course.

    Short-term solutions in a long-term real-world, I guess. Unintended consequences do indeed cause trouble...

  5. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003
    And what will be the consequences of our foray into the Middle East this time? At best, another generation of terrorists is my guess. If we do something stupid and pull out of Iraq before leaving it a better place, we could face another failed state that would provide haven to terrorists for years to come.
  6. Pinto thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 19, 2003
    New Zealand
    So would you agree that comments like "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe" from Bush is hypocritical and designed to keep the US public ignorant to your own involvement.

    Would you agree that the people of the middle east have every right to be suspicious of US motives and considering the history, consider this to be an invading force rather than liberation?
  7. manitoubalck macrumors 6502a


    Jul 17, 2003
    Adelaide, Australia
    Hell yeah, If you go uninvited into someones house and kick them in the nuts, what are there going to do? March on over to your place uninvited and knee cap you, Then what are you going to do? Etc... Etc...

    Need I look no further than Vietnam or the Events of Sept 11, to prove my point. People rather quickly get fed up with US and their gun ho attitude and 'we are the policemen of the world' line of thought and start attacking the US citizens. Its happend before, it's happening now in Iraq and until something is changed it will continue to happen in the future.

    Just the point of view from and Engineering student with people from all walks of life, from all over the world, who are allowed to believe and worship whatever and who ever they want, whenever they want.

Share This Page