If not us, who?

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think you get those bad things (Secret police, repressive actions, censored media, etc.) when the government in power can only stay in power through those means.

You ask what could sooth years and years of subjugation? Money isn't enough, IMO. A stop to the bad actions now is a start, and going forward you have to prove you care.

Hard to do when profits are the sole motivation for every action. It's much easier and profitable to do business with a repressive government.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hard to do when profits are the sole motivation for every action. It's much easier and profitable to do business with a repressive government.

Why did we intervene in Kosovo? Is the govt. that replaced Saddam more or less repressive?

Honest questions.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Why did we intervene in Kosovo? Is the govt. that replaced Saddam more or less repressive?

Honest questions.

Honest answers:

Kosovo, I don't know too much about. My guess is that there was something for us to lose if we didn't intervene. There have been plenty of examples of us ignoring ongoing genocides in other countries.

I would say the government that replaced Saddam is going to be less repressive, since it's hard to be more repressive than him. However, censored media and secret police are a fact of every Arab country and Iraq is no exception.

 

[jlprk]

Yawn. Wake me when the thread stops pretending that America is the shining light, and every other country is the bad guy.

 

[Denny Crane]

Honest answers:

Kosovo, I don't know too much about. My guess is that there was something for us to lose if we didn't intervene. There have been plenty of examples of us ignoring ongoing genocides in other countries.

I would say the government that replaced Saddam is going to be less repressive, since it's hard to be more repressive than him. However, censored media and secret police are a fact of every Arab country and Iraq is no exception.

Kosovo is in Europe, which may be enough on its own. It's not the only example I can think of (Korea is another) where I don't see any colonial aspirations on our part.

Censored media and secret police are a fact of every country, no?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Yawn. Wake me when the thread stops pretending that America is the shining light, and every other country is the bad guy.

Are you even reading the posts? Where do you see that?

Kosovo is in Europe, which may be enough on its own. It's not the only example I can think of (Korea is another) where I don't see any colonial aspirations on our part.

Censored media and secret police are a fact of every country, no?

Kosovo is Europe technically, but we all know that the definition of "Europe" is fuzzy. It's Eastern Europe, which by the very fact that it is labeled as such shows that it's different than Western Europe in some essential way. Plus, it's full of Muslims, brown(er) people and languages/cultures we are not familiar with. I think the West needs a reason to intervene, however, sheer proximity might be enough. Admittedly, I don't know much about Eastern Europe, but I can't imagine there isn't an ulterior motive to intervening, simply given the presence of other unchecked massacres in parts of the world with nothing to gain by getting involved.

I can't see how you can say that the our involvement in the Korean war didn't have at its roots any colonial aspirations. The entire cold war was, and still is, a neocolonial game to acquire client states in which to do business. Korea was no different.

Yes, there is censored media and secret police in every country, but to differing extents. There's a difference between self-censorship like we have in the West and direct censorship like in the Middle East. We also have the courtesy to give our secret police names (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc). In Arab countries, this isn't the case. In every Arab country there is what people call the mukhabaraat, and they are shrouded in mystery. The common narrative I've heard is that they pay poor and homeless people to listen to everyone's conversations and then report them. I don't know if this is true, but it's to the government's advantage that people think it is.

 

[Denny Crane]

My understanding is Kosovo was about ending ethnic cleansing of Albanian muslims by a tiny minority of christian Serbs. We came to the aid of the muslims - the "browner" people as you put it.

On June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea invaded South Korea. It wasn't us who had any colonial aspirations. Seems to be quite the reverse - to stop the communist domino principle. Same is true of Vietnam. I mean, I don't see Chevron drilling for oil in Korea protected by armed forces. And I see what appears to be a free and vibrant society in the South.

During the Korean War, the US found it was far cheaper and more convenient to manufacture supplies (jeep parts, etc.) in Japan rather than shipping them across the Pacific. Within 10 years, "made in Japan" was as "bothersome" to us as "made in China" is today. The first transistor radio I owned was made in Japan less than 10 years after the war ended.

As Japan's economy grew, they developed South Korea as a place they could outsource. This boosted the standard of living of the Japanese people, of course.

The relationship between Japan and Korea is interesting because Japan did colonize Korea and later made reparations and signed treaties to at least try to patch things up.

I'm not sure that every Arab country has a secret police force as you describe. Turkey would be the obvious exception, no?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I am fairly certain that every Arab country does have the mukhabaraat. I don't know too much about Turkey.

And stopping the communist domino principle was and is all about neocolonialism. If a government falls to communists, then... then... well, they won't do business with us.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think Turkey is the model for Arab nations to follow. You might want to look at its history, particularly the influence of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

I think there's a significant difference between geopolitical interests and colonialism. FWIW.

 

[BrianFromWA]

quick jump here (BTW, thanks for the knowledge-droppin', hoojacks)...

Turkey isn't Arab. They're secular-governed Muslims, but they're for the vast majority Turkic, not Arab.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I think Turkey is the model for Arab nations to follow. You might want to look at its history, particularly the influence of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

I have studied a bit of Turkish history after the Ottoman empire, but most of my knowledge is about the linguistic reformation under Attaturk. Economically, they sometimes make a good case of getting into the EU. And as Brian points out, they are a secular nation of Muslims, not Arabs, and they have very few problems with extremists. However, as long as they continue their extreme persecution of the Kurds, I don't see them being a good model for the Arabs to follow.

I think there's a significant difference between geopolitical interests and colonialism. FWIW.

Not colonialism but neo-colonialism. I mean, at this point we're getting into an academic debate. FWIW, I don't see the difference between using force and/or coercion to enhance a country's geopolitical interests and straight up neocolonialism. The two have very similar results.

 

[Denny Crane]

I have studied a bit of Turkish history after the Ottoman empire, but most of my knowledge is about the linguistic reformation under Attaturk. Economically, they sometimes make a good case of getting into the EU. And as Brian points out, they are a secular nation of Muslims, not Arabs, and they have very few problems with extremists. However, as long as they continue their extreme persecution of the Kurds, I don't see them being a good model for the Arabs to follow.

I was suggesting that Turkey is a good model for Arab nations to follow.

Not colonialism but neo-colonialism. I mean, at this point we're getting into an academic debate. FWIW, I don't see the difference between using force and/or coercion to enhance a country's geopolitical interests and straight up neocolonialism. The two have very similar results.

I don't think neocolonialism had anything to do with Korea. It was less than 5 years after WW II ended, and Eastern Europe was ceded to the Russians. Stalin was making moves against neighboring countries. Why would we fight such a bloody war to then allow the kind of agression against nations to begin again?

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I was suggesting that Turkey is a good model for Arab nations to follow.

Right. Arab nations should produce an enigmatic leader to usher them into a new age of cooperating with the West? Or, what?

I don't think neocolonialism had anything to do with Korea. It was less than 5 years after WW II ended, and Eastern Europe was ceded to the Russians. Stalin was making moves against neighboring countries. Why would we fight such a bloody war to then allow the kind of agression against nations to begin again?

It depends not on the kind of aggression, but the source. We were clearly in a game of power against the USSR before the war even ended. Why were we even fighting communism? If you say, "to keep people free" then you probably think we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqis.

 

[Denny Crane]

Right. Arab nations should produce an enigmatic leader to usher them into a new age of cooperating with the West? Or, what?

I was thinking the non-secular democracy part.

It depends not on the kind of aggression, but the source. We were clearly in a game of power against the USSR before the war even ended. Why were we even fighting communism? If you say, "to keep people free" then you probably think we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqis.

The Russians were an axis power before Germany turned on them. I wouldn't say they were our allies for the most part.

 

[Denny Crane]

Anyhow, this is on topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/world/africa/algeria-militants-hostages.html?_r=0

Hostages Dead in Bloody Climax to Siege in Algeria

BAMAKO, Mali — The four-day hostage crisis in the Sahara reached a bloody conclusion on Saturday as the Algerian Army carried out a final assault on the gas field taken over by Islamist militants, killing most of the remaining kidnappers and raising the total of hostages killed to at least 23, Algerian officials said.

 

[Denny Crane]

From what I see, the French don't like the momentum and trajectory the rebels are taking. If Algeria falls, too, then the Islamists are just across the pond from France.

If we're pushing to be a European style social democracy, I'd expect the socialists to be pacifists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/world/europe/hollandes-intervention-in-mali-raises-concerns.html?

But Mr. Traoré, 70, does represent the internationally recognized government of Mali, said a senior French official, shrugging. And then, like every French official on the topic, he asked a questioner to imagine the alternative — “another Somalia” on the western edge of Africa, lawless and dominated by Islamic radicals close to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, who would set about instituting the harshness of Shariah law all over Mali, stoning adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves, while engaging in the drug and arms smuggling, kidnapping and terrorism that funds their notion of jihad.

That prospect, the officials insist, is why the entire region, including Algeria, has supported the French intervention, which was also backed by the Security Council. The French initiative has also had public support, if provoking quiet concern about overreaching, from allies like the United States and Britain.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Beyond the Malian government's desperate calls for assistance, France has its own reasons for taking action. It was Mali's colonial master until 1960, and maintains strong trading links. There are French garrisons in neighbouring countries like Ivory Coast, Chad and the Central African Republic containing up to 5,000 troops in total - all involved in the long-standing security commitment to French-speaking Africa which Mr Hollande had actually promised to reduce.

The trouble, as far as Mr Hollande is concerned, is that the history of his country's involvement in its former colonies is a dark one. Former president Jacques Chirac was one of many who meddled and muddled, to the extent of destroying much of the Ivory Coast's air force in 2004 because of alleged treaty breaches. France launched more than 50 military operations in its old African empire since 1960, viewing the area as its exclusive sphere of influence.

It is an open secret that France has regularly propped up controversial African leaders for its own gain. It is all part of a "Françafrique" policy stretching back to the presidency of Charles de Gaulle, which involved France maintaining both its political influence and its strategic grip on oil- and mineral-rich countries.

http://www.thenational.ae/thenation...sion-to-mali-part-of-long-dangerous-tradition

Guess there's two sides to everything.

 

[oldguy]

Serious question, I'm not trying to be thick. What, exactly, did we gain in Iraq?

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

Serious question, I'm not trying to be thick. What, exactly, did we gain in Iraq?

Go Blazers

We had propped up the Iraqi leader and then we drove him from power and let the people elect their own government.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Serious question, I'm not trying to be thick. What, exactly, did we gain in Iraq?

We, as in the people? Nothing.

We, as in America? We sent a "don't fuck with us" message to the rest of the region, which is very valuable when you're knee-deep in everyone's business over there.

We, as in KBR and Halliburton? Billions of dollars of no-bid contracts.

 

[oldguy]

We, as in the people? Nothing.

We, as in America? We sent a "don't fuck with us" message to the rest of the region, which is very valuable when you're knee-deep in everyone's business over there.

We, as in KBR and Halliburton? Billions of dollars of no-bid contracts.

I'm no student of middle eastern politics, but I can't accept the notion we went there to send a 'don't fuck with us' message. We sent that message the first time we went there, in spades, went we went through the 'invincible' Republican Guard like a hot knife through butter.

I kept hearing how we went there for oil, but I've never seen any evidence of that. I guess the bottom line is you believe that we went to war to get work for Halliburton, even though the government spent 1000's of times more on the war than they made cleaning up the mess? Bush was a dumb ass, but I don't think he was that dumb.

Second serious question. Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now, or before we ousted Saddam?

Go Blazers

 

[oldguy]

We, as in the people? Nothing.

We, as in America? We sent a "don't fuck with us" message to the rest of the region, which is very valuable when you're knee-deep in everyone's business over there.

We, as in KBR and Halliburton? Billions of dollars of no-bid contracts.

I cringe a little to ask this, but who else's business are we 'knee deep' in? I'll give you the country that allowed our sworn enemies a place to train their troops and plan their next attacks against us.

Go Blazers

 

[Denny Crane]

You know that KBR was sold off because it wasn't very profitable...

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I'm no student of middle eastern politics, but I can't accept the notion we went there to send a 'don't fuck with us' message. We sent that message the first time we went there, in spades, went we went through the 'invincible' Republican Guard like a hot knife through butter.

There is a difference between a. obliterating an army because they were fighting a war of aggression against an ally and b. invading, overthrowing and installing a new government unprovoked. This was a clear message to the rest of the Middle East (at the time), one that Bush started saying after 9/11: "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists." Well, Saddam with with neither, and he was hanging before it was all said and done. Believe me, despots notice when one of their own falls.

I kept hearing how we went there for oil, but I've never seen any evidence of that. I guess the bottom line is you believe that we went to war to get work for Halliburton, even though the government spent 1000's of times more on the war than they made cleaning up the mess? Bush was a dumb ass, but I don't think he was that dumb.

There's a difference between Halliburton and the government. Cheney has two million dollars of Halliburton money in his pocket when we went to war, and Halliburton and KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) get over 8.2 billion dollars in no-bid contracts. This wasn't just about oil, it was about business.

Second serious question. Do you think the people of Iraq are better off now, or before we ousted Saddam?

I've never been to Iraq so I can't really say. I see this question a lot, and there are honestly too many variables to give it a definitive answer. Iraq is a diverse place, so there are certain populations, the Kurds for example, who are thrilled to have Saddam gone. They are no longer persecuted and they live in a relatively violence free area, so the war did not effect them as it did other people. For others, such as middle class Arabs living in urban centers, the war was absolutely life-altering and still is. If you had a job and house and kids and kept your nose out of trouble living under Saddam, you probably wouldn't opt for all out war to overthrow him. Then again, I met numerous Iraqis who fled to Syria that told me they loved America. So go figure. It's all in who you ask.

I cringe a little to ask this, but who else's business are we 'knee deep' in? I'll give you the country that allowed our sworn enemies a place to train their troops and plan their next attacks against us.

If you look at many of the issues in the Middle East today, it comes down to two places: Palestine and Saudi Arabia. We are knee deep in both. I'm sure you know the problem in Israel, so I don't need to go into why we are involved and why that is important.

Saudi Arabia is a problem because during the first gulf war, we placed troops there and then kept them there after the war was over. This is a problem because it is the holy land. To have foreign troops (especially American) occupying pieces of the holy land is unforgivable to many. Everyone knows how friendly Saudi Arabia and America are to each other, and people don't approve.

Besides those two issues, there's plenty of $$$ to be made by keeping the Middle East scared of us.

You know that KBR was sold off because it wasn't very profitable...

Whatever. Doesn't change what happened. Who said any of these crooks were good businessmen anyway?