Muslims Self-Criticism

Ed said:
A sound and bold plan. Now I am really interested.

You know, any idiot can monday morning quarterback about anything. My interest lies in seeing how a progressive edifice looks with all of the troublesome moving pieces in place. I am particularly interested in how our tricycle industry meets demand once we sever relations with those nasty dictators that supply our oil and manipulate our markets when their camel farts.

I am glad that he has not knee jerked a response. This means thought is going into his answer. I am aquivver with anticipation.
Click to expand...

They don't manipulate your markets with their oil as such, you chose to become dependent on their oil.

If you think this entitles the US to take whatever actions it wants to get that oil, a modern day manifest destiny, as Skeptic has already stated, just say so.
 
Originally posted by a_unique_person
They don't manipulate your markets with their oil as such, you chose to become dependent on their oil.

The fact is that their activities impact our markets, everything else is window dressing. Is one of your guiding principles that a country is responsible for it's actions? That is to say, if the US uses oil and the producers now are a pain it's tough titties? There is no recourse? Does this hold for countries other than the US?

If you think this entitles the US to take whatever actions it wants to get that oil, a modern day manifest destiny, as Skeptic has already stated, just say so.

I think that being dependent on a critical resourse from an unstable and unfriendly entity is madness. I would be perfectly happy to have alternatives and thus pauper them. Barring that, I think that we must do what we have to to preserve ourselves. For better or worse our economy depends on oil to a great extent (as does that of the Western world) and as such we must ensure a supply.

Let me also point out that they chose to enable us in our addiction. It was and is their choice and they must bear responsibility for helping to create what we have become. This is precisely what you said above except applied to oil producers. I trust your concept holds universally, I am sure it does for otherwise you would be hippocritical.[/QUOTE]
 
Ed said:
I think that being dependent on a critical resourse from an unstable and unfriendly entity is madness.
Click to expand...
When the dependency on oil ends and there is nothing else for those nations to offer except sand then the madness will begin.
 
ZN:
"When the dependency on oil ends and there is nothing else for those nations to offer except sand then the madness will begin."

Why the hell doesn`t this kind of insight inform the rest of your posts? Is there hope yet?
 
zenith-nadir said:
When the dependency on oil ends and there is nothing else for those nations to offer except sand then the madness will begin.
Click to expand...

They can fall back on royalties from their intellectual property "zero". I understand that the case is in the World Court now.

Seriously, they will be the new black africa in 100 years. Completely marginalized, poor, sans infrastructure. I wonder how the US will be blamed for that. Naturally AUP will not engage in that since it was their choice to become so dependent on oil in the first place.

The real horror is that with those revenues they could have owned the new technologies. All the infrastructure is new so they would have had no retooling costs. Why are they not the largest chip maker? Or manufacturer of other computer parts? There is absolutely no excuse and they are going to pay a fearful price. And it is entirely their fault. So, what have they done instead? Well, they grow terrorists. They hate Jews. All in all a very impressive portfolio resulting from their wealth.
 
Actually, the Saudi royals (and others in similar positions) will be in good shape, since they do own a big hunk of the U.S. When things look like they'll get a little too hot, these guys will simply slip out of their respective countries, leaving their second cousins and their countrymen to fight it out over whatever's left.

It's telling that many of the same people who claim we're not in Iraq over oil will practically in the same breath proclaim how the Middle East will be nothing without its oil.

My *considered* position on foreign policy is not to do any special favors for tyrants of any kind. Friendly or not. Not to train their secret police with our CIA or military forces. Not to send them weapons or money to prop them up. Not to intervene to save them from civil wars. Not to send surveillance planes to watch over their neighbors' wars. Nothing.

Simple.

It doesn't matter if it's Exxon's interests or IBM's or the United Fruit Company's, or even Wal*Mart's interests at stake. If they made risky deals in foreign territories that are going to backfire, no amount of lobbying the federal government should get them special favors from the state department to drag the whole United States of America into their little business issues.

Of course, this reverses at least a hundred years of U.S. foreign policy that has pandered to big business dealing with tyrants and expecting the U.S. to bail them out with taxpayer money and the blood of our troops if anything ever goes sour.
 
Ed said:
A sound and bold plan. Now I am really interested.

You know, any idiot can monday morning quarterback about anything. My interest lies in seeing how a progressive edifice looks with all of the troublesome moving pieces in place. I am particularly interested in how our tricycle industry meets demand once we sever relations with those nasty dictators that supply our oil and manipulate our markets when their camel farts.

I am glad that he has not knee jerked a response. This means thought is going into his answer. I am aquivver with anticipation.
Click to expand...

Skeptic said:
Well, he did suggest "solving" world terrorism by the free world getting together... and buying Al-Quaeda & co. their very own powerful radio station, so the terroirsts will no longer "have" to attract attention by, you know, blowing people up.

I'm not making this up, I swear. .here is the thead.

Since that is "Evildave"'s idea of a good decision, you can get an idea how much weight his criticism deserves...
Click to expand...

epepke said:
We should take a tip from Babbit's wife and buy them all wicker furniture.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so we're back to the old last resort of sniping in unrelating topics with mischaracterisations about my constructive ideas about taking care of terrorism? I mean besides your oh-so-constructive notions that bombing people will make them our friends.

Then by all means give your impressions of the New Solution To Terrorism

You've all been notably absent there.

Possibly you simply like having the United States of America being a part of this sort of thing too much:
[modp]WARNING: The following link contains an image that may affect some people's sensitivity[/modp]
http://www.robert-fisk.com/bloodied_child_3.jpg

Ahh, the glory of war.
 
Originally posted by evildave
Actually, the Saudi royals (and others in similar positions) will be in good shape, since they do own a big hunk of the U.S. When things look like they'll get a little too hot, these guys will simply slip out of their respective countries, leaving their second cousins and their countrymen to fight it out over whatever's left.

That goes without saying. With the possible exception of whoosie face in Jordan (who seems actually sane) it is like looking at Chicago in the '20's. Like a bad Star Trek episode.

It's telling that many of the same people who claim we're not in Iraq over oil will practically in the same breath proclaim how the Middle East will be nothing without its oil.

The two are independent considerations. While I was against the Iraqi war from the beginning if being there secures a vital national resource I have no objection. If we did go in for oil, I suspect that it would have been cheaper to buy it.

My *considered* position on foreign policy is not to do any special favors for tyrants of any kind. Friendly or not. Not to train their secret police with our CIA or military forces. Not to send them weapons or money to prop them up. Not to intervene to save them from civil wars. Not to send surveillance planes to watch over their neighbors' wars. Nothing.

Okey dokey. So that means that regarding our interests we let the chips fall where they may. Is that it? And if France, for example, decides to fill the resulting vaccuum in their best interests we should stand on the sidelines? So, basically, you would let the rest of the world play but not the US? So if our interests in gaining some preference are important to maintaining, say, consumer prices in some segment, you would allow that advantage to go elsewhere. And if there is contention for control of one of these countries we should not care whether a contender who prevails is bought off by the French or whoever at our expense. OK.

Simple.
It is that.

It doesn't matter if it's Exxon's interests or IBM's or the United Fruit Company's, or even Wal*Mart's interests at stake. If they made risky deals in foreign territories that are going to backfire, no amount of lobbying the federal government should get them special favors from the state department to drag the whole United States of America into their little business issues.

You are a bold man among bold men.

Let's take a look at what the implications of your principled position are:

Exxon Market cap=$307 billion Employees=123,000
IBM Market cap=$141 billion Empolyees=319,000
Walmart Market cap=$226 billion Employees= 1,500,000

So by your example (which is certainly not complete, right?) You are saying that the Government has no business, none, concerning total corporate valuation of over half a trillion dollars and 1,900,000+ employees and all the taxes and other stuff that this implies. Let 'em hang out. Let 'em be more careful. Let the French companies do it. What happens when that happens?

You realize, I trust, that while your political opinions may be laudable to an extent that your business acumen would make us a bannana republic.

Of course, this reverses at least a hundred years of U.S. foreign policy that has pandered to big business dealing with tyrants and expecting the U.S. to bail them out with taxpayer money and the blood of our troops if anything ever goes sour.

Pander? Who, might I enquire, do you think works at these large companies that you wish to so cavilierly set adrift? Ummm people, perhaps? And who do you think owns them? Hint: People. And even if ownership is institutional, who do you think those institutuions are and who do you think owns them? People. You have a 401k? Where, pray, do you think that money is?

You are verily a bold man with bold ideas.
 
demon said:
Why the hell doesn`t this kind of insight inform the rest of your posts? Is there hope yet?
Click to expand...
See that's your stumbling block. When I post about Arafat or the Palestinian Authority it is not to slight all the Palestinians in the world, that would be asinine, it is to slight Arafat and what he's done to the Palestinians. That is where I differ from you and others here, I don't have to hate zionists and blame settlers to rationalize the plight of the Palestinians.

Same with OPEC....when the dependency on oil runs out in 30-50 years and all they have left is caste systems, sand and theocracies to offer then the _____ will hit the fan.
 
evildave said:
Ahh, so we're back to the old last resort of sniping in unrelating topics with mischaracterisations about my constructive ideas about taking care of terrorism? I mean besides your oh-so-constructive notions that bombing people will make them our friends.

.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have any advice that has merit. Your response to my request is, as I am sure you can see, juvenile. So your basic response is to sit back and offer terrible pictures and complain?
 
Ed said:
My *considered* position on foreign policy is not to do any special favors for tyrants of any kind. Friendly or not. Not to train their secret police with our CIA or military forces. Not to send them weapons or money to prop them up. Not to intervene to save them from civil wars. Not to send surveillance planes to watch over their neighbors' wars. Nothing.

Okey dokey. So that means that regarding our interests we let the chips fall where they may. Is that it? And if France, for example, decides to fill the resulting vaccuum in their best interests we should stand on the sidelines? So, basically, you would let the rest of the world play but not the US? So if our interests in gaining some preference are important to maintaining, say, consumer prices in some segment, you would allow that advantage to go elsewhere. And if there is contention for control of one of these countries we should not care whether a contender who prevails is bought off by the French or whoever at our expense. OK.
Click to expand...

The France can be the 'imperialist tyrant' that everybody hates and wants to target. Fair enough.

It doesn't matter if it's Exxon's interests or IBM's or the United Fruit Company's, or even Wal*Mart's interests at stake. If they made risky deals in foreign territories that are going to backfire, no amount of lobbying the federal government should get them special favors from the state department to drag the whole United States of America into their little business issues.

You are a bold man among bold men.

Let's take a look at what the implications of your principled position are:

Exxon Market cap=$307 billion Employees=123,000
IBM Market cap=$141 billion Empolyees=319,000
Walmart Market cap=$226 billion Employees= 1,500,000

So by your example (which is certainly not complete, right?) You are saying that the Government has no business, none, concerning total corporate valuation of over half a trillion dollars and 1,900,000+ employees and all the taxes and other stuff that this implies. Let 'em hang out. Let 'em be more careful. Let the French companies do it. What happens when that happens?

You realize, I trust, that while your political opinions may be laudable to an extent that your business acumen would make us a bannana republic.
Click to expand...

Would an international set-back in ONE of those companies cause its total collapse? Say if Wal*Mart couldn't get shirts from Bangladesh anymore, you think that would be a national calamity worthy of sending in the marines?

Actually, WE made the Banana Republics, hence the mention of 'United Fruit Company'. It's historically significant. The United Fruit Company's every desire for a time was the command of the U.S. government. In some cases, we literally DID send in the marines. For fruit.

Of course, this reverses at least a hundred years of U.S. foreign policy that has pandered to big business dealing with tyrants and expecting the U.S. to bail them out with taxpayer money and the blood of our troops if anything ever goes sour.

Pander? Who, might I enquire, do you think works at these large companies that you wish to so cavilierly set adrift? Ummm people, perhaps? And who do you think owns them? Hint: People. And even if ownership is institutional, who do you think those institutuions are and who do you think owns them? People. You have a 401k? Where, pray, do you think that money is?

You are verily a bold man with bold ideas.
Click to expand...


I don't see why you're worried about a few Americans losing a job from not propping up a dictator. You appear to think it's "JUST FINE" for us to speak of freedom and democracy, yet prop up and do business with tyrants. As if you don't think foreigners are human beings like Americans are.

How sad.
 
Ed said:
You don't seem to have any advice that has merit. Your response to my request is, as I am sure you can see, juvenile. So your basic response is to sit back and offer terrible pictures and complain?
Click to expand...

As if this post of yours has some special merit?
 
Ed said:
A sound and bold plan. Now I am really interested.

You know, any idiot can monday morning quarterback about anything.
Click to expand...

The operative word in this case being "idiot".
 
Ed said:
They can fall back on royalties from their intellectual property "zero". I understand that the case is in the World Court now.

Seriously, they will be the new black africa in 100 years. Completely marginalized, poor, sans infrastructure. I wonder how the US will be blamed for that. Naturally AUP will not engage in that since it was their choice to become so dependent on oil in the first place.

The real horror is that with those revenues they could have owned the new technologies. All the infrastructure is new so they would have had no retooling costs. Why are they not the largest chip maker? Or manufacturer of other computer parts? There is absolutely no excuse and they are going to pay a fearful price. And it is entirely their fault. So, what have they done instead? Well, they grow terrorists. They hate Jews. All in all a very impressive portfolio resulting from their wealth.
Click to expand...

And if they try to hoard some to keep the wealth to themselves a little longer, they risk being attacked. If they produce as much as possible as fast as possible, they are safe, even if they are not democratic.
 
People seem to think war is honorable and a nice thing to do.

They don't appear to understand that it is not nice at all. People get crippled and killed in wars.

It's not like a pretty video game where the little 'bad guys' go 'blip' and disappear.

You drop bombs, and ugly things happen as a result that "may affect some people's sensitivity".
 
evildave said:
People seem to think war is honorable and a nice thing to do.

They don't appear to understand that it is not nice at all. People get crippled and killed in wars.

It's not like a pretty video game where the little 'bad guys' go 'blip' and disappear.

You drop bombs, and ugly things happen as a result that "may affect some people's sensitivity".
Click to expand...

REALLY???

How long it took you to figure that one out, Einstein?

No, what you don't undestand is that other people understand very well what war really is. Trust me on this one--being from israel, I have more knowledge of what war is really like than most people.

But I also realize that, while war is bad, and indeed often horrible, appeasement, surrender, and wishing the world was different is far worse.

You don't. For you, war is bad period, while terror is excusable. For sane people, it is the other way around: war is sometimes excusable--when it's in self-defense, for example--and it is terror that is not.
 
Outside View: Russia massacre will hurt Muslims - September 7 2004
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 7 (UPI) -- Every dad or mum of any nationality anywhere will never forget, nor forgive, the sight of those Russian schoolchildren, girls and boys, running with blood smearing their bodies, tears in their eyes, and terror soiling their innocence as criminals, calling themselves Muslim freedom fighters, shot them in cold blood.

Nothing, not a single political cause, religious edict, or opinion by so-called ulemas (religious leaders) can excuse, let alone explain, murdering more than 330 innocent Russian hostages, including 156 children in Beslan, by Chechens indoctrinated, alas, by Muslim fundamentalists.

They can say Islam is a religion of tolerance from here to eternity, but at this point they are whistling past the graveyards where the children are being buried. Dear Muslims: no one is listening.

Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the New York Times and Energy Editor of the Wall Street Journal, is Managing Director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group. He can be contacted at ymibrahim@gulfnews.com
Click to expand...
Another guy with balls.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom