SADAM HANGED to death
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] [ 9 ] Next >
Posted on: 06-01-07 15:20:09
Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
OK, lets have it your way. We end up with a radicle govt in Saud. So what is the threat? Is it the oil again?
Are you for real?
The threat is a falling economy in the west. Let me answer the question about the 'eating dates'
part first:The west is not the only market for the oil. Again you assume that the west or Namerica is all powerful and the only variable in world politics.
The Russians and the Chinese would LOVE to have a handle on the oil resources of the ME oil fields. I'm even guessing that if the west walked out...the Russians or Chinese would be more than happy to prop up the House of Saud inorder to ensure their oil supply at the discounts that the US/west enjoys.
Guess who will be the next superpower then?
You know what? I'll play along with you:
Lets assume that the west has walked out and the Russians and Chinese have been complascent. For now lets not even worry the middle east is awash in islamic theocracies and a taliban like culture throughout the middle east...issuing Fatwas against any thing deemed against the 'book' be it freedom of religion, Secularism, human rights, womens rights or mute buddhist statues. Israel crumbles and the jews are chased into the sea, probably written out of existence. Ofcourse, all that does not matter because trade will be fair right?
Wrong! This is just ONE and probably the most optimistic scenario:-
The trade will be fairer for the Russians/Chinese etc. They will be the preffered market. Guess whose economies will dominate the world then? OK thats all fine because atleast 'free trade' is happening right? Lets all migrate to the newly powerful economies of the middle east and russia and china. Its highly inlikely that there will be ANY freedom such as what we enjoy now BUT then there is going to be peace and harmony right? Should I go on or do you get the picture?
A more realistic and pessimistic scenario is that the radical islamist(like any other fascist ideology e.g:Nazis ) would immedeately make plans for world domination now that they control the most important resource. You really have to be ignorant to think otherwise.
Another scenario...equally pessimistic and realiistic, the radicals take aim at Israel...which decides to bring the whole house down. No more Middle easter problems...only a HUGE glass parking lot(read about the samson option).
Have you even thought things out to their conclussions? If the west walks out what will replace the world order will probably be MUCH worse than what exists.
Quote:
Funny how you trust Robert Baer's future predictions so much then you must be fair and give equal weight to other views as well.
what other views? That democracy will replace Saudi monarchy if the Saudis have an election? Other than wishful thinking, do you have any valid arguments to back that? I dont think I should be bothering with this level of ignorance but I'm just going to assume that you are honestly unaware and intend well.
Quote:
Agreed, but my point is why cant self interest be achieved by honest and fair means. Why do you imply that oppression of other people is the only means to achieve this for oneself.
Yes once we get the west to accept this, will you make the rest of the world e.g chinese, russians etc accept this too? Or are you again assuming that the west walks out and every one else stays out too? OR are you assuming that radical islamists are the ones that enable the selfinterests to be achieved by honest and fair means?
Quote:
You contradict your self here. You mention at one place that the american way of life is yearned for by all over the globe and then you make such a statement.
So which one is it?
No contradictions. The Chinese did not have to choose democracy to benefit from economic growth. The UAE does not have to either. Again arent you assuming too much?
Quote:
Re Bin Laden, I suggest we drop this thread and start a new one about what he wants because it could take a life of its own. :-)
He wants the middle east to be free from foreign influence and composed of islamic theocracies(maybe a single one). Simple as that. However, you would not see the relation between that and what we are discussing(inspite of it being spelt out to you).
You'd rather have 'free trade' and 'justice' and assume that its going to happen if the west pulls out of the middle east. Ignorance(especially about the political landscape outside that of NAmerica) and morality are a scary combination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Heres what the Samson option means
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
peace in the middle east if the west pulls out? Sure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
The Russians and the Chinese would LOVE to have a handle on the oil resources of the ME oil fields. I'm even guessing that if the west walked out...the Russians or Chinese would be more than happy to prop up the House of Saud inorder to ensure their oil supply at the discounts that the US/west enjoys.
Are you sure about this? This is tantamount to convicting someone before they even commit a crime, isnt it?
Quote:
No contradictions. The Chinese did not have to choose democracy to benefit from economic growth. The UAE does not have to either. Again arent you assuming too much?
So whats the gaurantee that a theocratic govt in Saudi wont be beneficial to the saudi people as well?
Isnt that not what we want? That the owners of the oil wealth (The ordinary saudi citizen) benefit first from it? Rather than big oil and the western elite under the pretext of holding the pillars of the global economy and protecting the ME from the Russians, Chinese or theocrats?
If really the intention of the theocrats is to collapse the global economy, wont the theocratic govts also collapse along with it? Where will they sell their oil then?
Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
If really the intention of the theocrats is to collapse the global economy, wont the theocratic govts also collapse along with it? Where will they sell their oil then?
Who said anything about collapsing the global economy? I'm talking about changing the world order to support the new theocracies with political and economic power resting with the same. They WILL put up with short term economic pain if needed...eg: hitler.
I am not going to pick the million holes in your argument including the lack of even the basic 'human rights' and 'justice' under theocracies and the 'Chinese system'(i really dont know what it is anymore). e.g: 'google'/freedom of expression etc in china, adultery laws working against women in islamic theocracies etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.
Yet you think it will be 'beneficial' to the people.
However, I will point out that you are arguing that 'free-trade' and 'justice' , whatever that means to you, are more likely under theocracies and state control. I hope you see how disjointed and convoluted that argument is.
To sum up, you do not trust democratic countries but have a leap of faith in other political systems to be in control over the world resources.
In one of my earlier posts I did warn about this kind of convoluted thinking in the west when I said that such thinking itself undermines the very system(democracy) that made it possible. Thank you for proving my point in your rush to do 'good' and 'justice' to the Saudis
.Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
Quote:
The Russians and the Chinese would LOVE to have a handle on the oil resources of the ME oil fields. I'm even guessing that if the west walked out...the Russians or Chinese would be more than happy to prop up the House of Saud inorder to ensure their oil supply at the discounts that the US/west enjoys.
Are you sure about this? This is tantamount to convicting someone before they even commit a crime, isnt it?
Quote:
No contradictions. The Chinese did not have to choose democracy to benefit from economic growth. The UAE does not have to either. Again arent you assuming too much?
So whats the gaurantee that a theocratic govt in Saudi wont be beneficial to the saudi people as well?
Isnt that not what we want? That the owners of the oil wealth (The ordinary saudi citizen) benefit first from it? Rather than big oil and the western elite under the pretext of holding the pillars of the global economy and protecting the ME from the Russians, Chinese or theocrats?
If really the intention of the theocrats is to collapse the global economy, wont the theocratic govts also collapse along with it? Where will they sell their oil then?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
I am not going to pick the million holes in your argument including the lack of even the basic 'human rights' and 'justice' under theocracies and the 'Chinese system'
1. 'human rights' and 'justice'??? for whom?
Arnt we there the ones today in the ME proping up regims, tyrants and dictators as long as they are accomodating to the west's policies. Where is the 'human rights' and 'justice' you talk about in that?
You claim we are the lesser evil which I have to say we are not. We are as bad as any human can get. I believe its a waste of our time talking about human rights and 'justice'.
2. According to your Russian and Chinese theories? I would expect to by now or earlier to see an invasion and occupation of Iran, Iraq by Russia or China. Surely, you say that they are there to step in and occupy global resources if the West dosnt invade and grab in order to stabilize the global resource supplies.
I am thinking Iran and Iraq would have been good choices of oil resources for China or Russia to control. Instead both these countries are working with the Iranian govt to set up oil production facilities. This is inpite of Iran known to having polices that keep a very large profits from oil deals to benefit the Iranian itself.
3. If we the west are the ones taking this moral responsibility that we want to create a stable resource supply by occupying resource based countries so the global economy be kept safe. Why are we then randomly attacking Iraq and Iran? Does'nt that cause global oil supply problems. The last I remember we were being supplied fine by these two nations untill we intervened to liberate them. Now we have the west bullying international banks to stop transactions arising out of Iran, we freeze dollar assets of Iran. Iraq of course is a lost cause needless to say. We are DISRUPTING the global economy my friend.
I have to respectfully diagree with most of the points you made so far. You have shown a lot of ideas and theories on why the west should invade, occupy and control global natural resource. When these theories are put into today's reality contexts they fail the test so badly hence we see what we see today slaughter and looting of the middle eastern people, terrorism. Bloated big oil profits, obscene profits lining big investors of MIC and govt favoured companies. I am not against profits but not for it, if it is borne out of thievery. It does piss people off.
Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
You claim we are the lesser evil which I have to say we are not. We are as bad as any human can get. I believe its a waste of our time talking about human rights and 'justice'.
Where did i say we are the lesser of 2 evils. I said that we are the devil we know.
Any shift in the world order will only create another set of elites. In a theocracy the elites are going to come from the sects of the 'church'(as it was in the past) or the islamic radicals(as you see now in places like Iran).
Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
I am thinking Iran and Iraq would have been good choices of oil resources for China or Russia to control. Instead both these countries are working with the Iranian govt to set up oil production facilities. .
That is why russia and china do not NEED to go in there to control anything(even if they could, considering the lacking ability and resouces compared to the US). They already ARE the preferred market. The Saudis the Qataris and Kuwaitis are similarly aligned with the US.
The Russian and Chinese relationship with Iran have NOTHING to do be magnanimity. Are you really serious in your positions? The russians and chinese are now the best models of free-trade? I guess they can appear to be so their security apparatus has silenced dissent within and outside the country. Its politics in action not free trade.
Quote:
Originally posted by hemzer
3. If we the west are the ones taking this moral responsibility that we want to create a stable resource supply by occupying resource based countries so the global economy be kept safe. .
I will say again. It is NOT about moral responsibility. World politics is much more complicated.
e.g:
1) If the people in Kashmir were to choose, They would secede from India. India cannot afford that...and will not let that happen. What is 'morally right' or 'justice' for the kashmiris do not factor.
2) If Quebecors chose to secede in a referundum,. Canada would do its darndest to make sure they did not secede(as we find was the canadain cgovts intentions after the last referundum)
3) China will NOT walk away from Taiwan irrespective of what the Taiwaneses say
4)Turkey will NOT let the Kurds have a Kurdistan inspite of wishes of kurds
5) The russians cannot afford to give chechens a homeland inspite of the wishes of a majority of chechens.
etc etc etc.
So you see my friend its NOT about moral responsibility(which is just a smokescreen for larger interests). In any part of the world.
The west pulling out of the middle east will not do ANYTHING to better the lot of the people in the middle east, if thats what you are implying.
The israeli-arab divide, the presence of radical extremists , the shia-sunni(not in just Iraq) jostle for power etc ensure this. If anything they will be worse off...and so will the rest of the world
Just because you exhibit a willfull or unintentional ignorance of the Middle east, based on feel-good morality OR other biases, it does not change middle-eastern reality.
Lets sum up your positions
1) Theocracy in the middle east means more justice for the people.
2) The Russians and Chinese are fairer than the west in matters of world politics.
3) The west getting out of the middle-east will ensure 'justice' to the people there and peace in general.
4) This is from another thread 'The holocaust summit' promoted 'free-thinking'.
Do you really stand by these? It sure shows a bias but seems removed from reality. Theres probably a good reason why things are really not that way. Whats next?
the jews masterminded 911?
or
the jews eat children?
or
Bush is the anti-christ.
They seem as plausible as your other arguments.
Compare this with my arguments
1) World politics is about self-interest....i.e they are all equally good or bad
2) Due to 1, peace and justice are smokescreens used by all sides in this battle for self interests
3)A change in the world order(the topdog) will NOT usher in peace or justice, rather it WILL usher in a new set of tyrants/warmongers/interests/injustices/sufferings in place of the old ones.
4) The current world order is one I am more comfortable with rather than the other alternatives, which will be just as bad or worse in terms of 'morals', but will definitely be worse for me and my decendants in terms of economics. i.e: power in the hand of democracies is more to my liking than power in the hands of theocracies OR other systems(like the chinese).
Which one of my arguments dont you agree with? I'm guessing its 4.
Notice...there is nothing in my comments about one being more just than the other or one having more of a moral high ground than the other. Those are your delusions and you are welcome to them
.-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Quote:
Do you really stand by these? It sure shows a bias but seems removed from reality. Theres probably a good reason why things are really not that way. Whats next?
the jews masterminded 911?
or
the jews eat children?
or
Bush is the anti-christ.
now that is silly..! ....911, eating children?, anti-christ
Although Id say we pretty much did away with a big chunk of the children,
the next generation of Iraq into mince meat. May their souls rest in peace.
Quote:
The Russian and Chinese relationship with Iran have NOTHING to do be magnanimity. Are you really serious in your positions? The russians and chinese are now the best models of free-trade?
Not magnanimous, but wont you agree its civil enough so that the Iranian child dosnt have to see his mother blown to bits before his sister gets to be raped and burnt. So we can get that oil for cheaps.
Quote:
Lets sum up your positions
1) Theocracy in the middle east means more justice for the people.
2) The Russians and Chinese are fairer than the west in matters of world politics.
3) The west getting out of the middle-east will ensure 'justice' to the people there and peace in general.
Please, its only logical that I would know my points better than you would. So allow me to write them up.
There is only one
- There is not need for the west to cause aggression and prop up regims in the ME in order to rob its oil wealth. There is a big difference in aggressive negotiations and causing genocide to get the same.
Blood money is not acceptable. This is the root cause of terrorism. Solve this greed and aggression and there would be no need for a \"war on Terrorism\" or some silly pretext phrase that we use to kill those Middle easterners who stand up to the robbery.
An excuse that \"We should kill and rob because some one else will do it\". That is plain apathy for basic humankind and is the same as living like a Neanderthal in a lawless jungle.
Quote:
4) This is from another thread 'The holocaust summit' promoted 'free-thinking'.
Re the summit The last we left it at was at this...
- what exactly is The president of Iran's agenda?
- and what exactly is yours?
I am not making a judgment here but since you want to revisit the topic....
Quote:
4) The current world order is one I am more comfortable with rather than the other alternatives, which will be just as bad or worse in terms of 'morals', but will definitely be worse for me and my decendants in terms of economics. i.e: power in the hand of democracies is more to my liking than power in the hands of theocracies OR other systems(like the chinese).
Like I said, what ever the world order and where ever you reside if your nation is causig genocide to gain the wealth of another....either in the West, China, India, Russia. It is your duty to think and act right. Again, I have to ask you are the Chinese and Russians bombing Iran to negotiate a better oil price?
