Ray,

I am curious about this statement:

>Most people in the middle east are taught from birth that the USA and it’s allies are the source of all evil in the world.

Where is this coming from?

Listen for a moment to the statements of the leaders (both political and religious) in Iran and other countries when they state IN PUBLIC that America (and Israel) is evil. Listen to the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah when they say the same. Witness the schools in Pakistan that teach militarism against America and it’s allies. Do a google search of Arabic web sites that state the same. All the information is out there, if your only willing to open your eyes and see it.

The truth is, the main message to most of the middle east is that America and it’s form of government is evil. Even some our own citizens repeat that mantra over and over again. That’s the main point of this thread.

I suggest that you try the following web site for further information, it provides English translations of Arabic speeches that you may find interesting.

http://www.memri.org/

Everybody hates us?
The country is just too good for this awful, fallen world?
meeting Al Qaeda's demands?
Bin Laden doesn't really mean what he says?.
Ahmadinejad probably doesn't either, right?

This is insanity. The posts here are a frightening testomonail to the fact that 'you people' still just don't get it. You will understand nothing less than a painful, grisly death, which is likely where your world view is taking you.

Unfortuinately, the following comment doesn;t help to clear the waters much:

To some extent, that’s an inevitable fact of being The World’s Sole Remaining SuperpowerTM but it’s also a consequence of our asserting the right to intervene anywhere, anytime we deem our interests to be served by so doing.

This is exactly the type of comment that makes the libs scream. Unfortunately for their politics, it just doesn't happen as much as they would like to think.

Of course, ANY country has the 'right' to intervene, anywhere, anytime. There are also consequences. Just because our motives are genuine does not mean there will not be negative consequences. But that wasn't the point I wanted to make.

The point is, everywhere we act, it is in support of a defunct U.N. The world body has actually agreed that we are correct, just not the means of dealing with the problem.

It is not really productive to fan the flames for the likes of madmatt and Tano by saying we act unilaterally. Because we don't.

I am curious about this statement:

>Most people in the middle east are taught from birth that the USA and it’s allies are the source of all evil in the world.

Where is this coming from?

Have you lived in the middle east? Do you speak arabic or farsi? Do you have close friends in the middle east whom you speak to often?

The webmaster's blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated and bumped, newest items at the top. Please click here to learn more about The Phoenix Project, then click here to see a selection of Old War Dogs merchandise. All sales proceeds go to support...

Deep anger comes with the perception that the corruption has set in.

And that's the biggest problem. Most people believe that perception trumps reality, especially in the middle east. Most people in the middle east are taught from birth that the USA and it's allies are the source of all evil in the world. Nothing will change in the middle east until that perception changes. That change will not occur until the people of the middle east actually experience what our type of government allows as per individual achievements, as opposed to what their current governments are telling them. Until the governments in the middle east change and allow their people to see what reality is, as opposed to the propaganda as presented by their government, peace will no be possible.

If those governments will not change on their own, and the evidence tells me that they won't, then those governments must be forced to change or millions of people will continue to live in fear and intimidation and many will die without knowing what is possible for them and their descendants. Should we condemn so many to misery and death simply because the ideal is not to interfere?

These governments will be resistance to a change in the balance of power within their own countries and will do anything to maintain their power including attacking anyone that opposes them. Witness the oppression that occurs in these countries. Why do you think it took an invasion in Iraq to force a change? Because dictators care more for their power than for any individual life. That makes them extremely dangerous to every one and not just those within their sphere of influence, as history has shown us time and time again.

We, as human beings, should not allow tyrannical governments to exit both as a humanitarian concern and as a security concern as it is inevitable that a tyrannical government always uses fear and intimidation to increase their power and will attempt to spread that power and influence throughout the world at the cost of millions and millions of people's lives. It much better to remove tyrants and dictators before they are allowed to gain that much power and acquire weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction, and attack us. If we wait until these governments directly attack us, as many have said about Iraq, then the human costs of war will be greatly increased and many more will perish than would occur if we act quicker.

I'm only 45 years old, yet experience has taught me that sometime force is necessary to introduce change which will, in the long run, prove to be beneficial to everyone involved. It may be undesirable to fight a war as the cost of war is so great, but in a lot of circumstances there is no other choice. Let not wait until millions have perished before we act, for that is truly the worst choice.

I understand that too.

Its always a struggle, a fine line, between making necessary compromises of your ideals, given the nature of reality, and going too far into a corruption or abandonment of the ideals, in favor of pure self-interest.

That is why the solution is eternal vigilance, and self-criticism. Applying constant pressure to keep ones eyes on the ideals. If you do that, I think most people will understand the balance you attempt to achieve. Deep anger comes with the perception that the corruption has set in.

Sorry but I havent run across your postings re. Mossadegh. I am sure it would be of interest. My opinion is that it was one of the most grevious errors of the post-war period. It gave lie (in the eyes of many) to our promise of being a different kind of superpower, it established the paradigm of US foreign involvement being readily explained by being "about the oil", it represented the absurd position of America (the original anti-colonialist nation) replacing a democracy with a monarchy, and it established in Iran a repressive authoritarian regime that became, in the space of a generation, so hated by its people, that they were primed to embrace an utterly rejectionist opposition - the consequences of which we live with today.

It also had the terrible consequence of inspiring the construction of absurdly long run-on sentences.

In short, they love our ideals. And they love us to the extent that we abide by those ideals. But when we don’t, the bitterness is compounded by a sense of betrayal.

Name any country, community, group, or person that ever based all their actions according to an ideal and has not, at times, be forced to act in opposition to that ideal. Ideals are guidelines for our actions but reality has a way to interfere with our ideals and influence our actions. The real world changes and we need to adapt to those changes. Sometime this means that ideals can not be fully realised and that our actions will seem to be in opposition to those ideals. Most people understand this.

I've posted pretty extensively about the Mossadegh regime. I recognize that I'm in the minority in rejecting the standard narrative and believing that in colluding in his overthrow we took the best of several unpalatable alternatives.

How do you get from Mossadegh nationalizing Irans oil industry to us thereby having a right to intervene? By what rationale is it our "legitimate" right to decide that Iran's oil industry must be in the private sector? Is that not a question for the Iranians to decide (it was a democracy then)?

No doubt, as our economy is currently structured, we have a need for middle-eastern oil (if we are to avoid economic dislocations). But you seem to equate our need with a right to use force to maintain that supply on terms that are acceptable to us. Do other countries also have the right to assure access to their needs (as they define them) by use of force, if necessary?

I don't think we are hated just because we are big. It is because we are big and we go get what we need (and want), but do not recognize such a right for others. In fact we try to structure the "international community" in such as way that our own position is assured, and the positions of other nations are derivative.

The promise that America seemed to give to the world after WWII was of a rule-bound level playing field. Respect for the legitimate rights (whatever that means) of all countries, and mechanisms of dispute resolution, bound by international law, for areas of conflict. But too often we make use of our own force to assure that the dispute is resolved in our favor, and the result is a sense of betrayal.

In short, they love our ideals. And they love us to the extent that we abide by those ideals. But when we don't, the bitterness is compounded by a sense of betrayal.

Why don’t we give a couple billion dollars to some of these countries and buy some good will instead of funding dictators swiss bank accounts?

We have, in the form of economical and humanitarian aid including federal and charitable donations and low interest loans that have totaled tens of billions of dollars over the decades, and it hasn't worked. Most of the money donated was used by the dictators to further their own goals and and not to help their repressed people.