http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=904915 IF SEPTEMBER 11th really did change the world then one thing it changed, you might suppose, is how the West, and in particular the United States, should think about energy. America's dependence on oil imports from the Middle East has led it to see the stability of the region as a vital security interest. In defending this interest over the years, its military and political entanglements have grown more costly and more complicated. In some ways, it is argued, these policies may have become self-defeating. America's military presence in Saudi Arabia, for instance, may make the region less stable, not more. All of which leads some to conclude that America and the West should henceforth minimise their involvementâeconomic, political and military. The key fact is this: Saudi Arabia has enormous reserves of oil that can be extracted at very low cost. Regardless of western policies, its oil will flow on to the market and, in effect, set the world price. This makes âdependenceâ on Saudi Arabia an inescapable reality for years to come. On this view, dependence on Middle Eastern oil may be a fact, but it is easy to live with. America has no need to commit blood or treasure to keeping âfriendlyâ governments in power. That calculation should be made on other grounds. So far as economics goes, who controls the oil hardly matters. Saddam Hussein is as keen as anybody else to get his oil to market. This logic applies to all producers: oil will flow at affordable prices and, so long as energy markets in the West are free to adjust to fluctuations in demand and supply, all will be well.
First off, I can't forget the "15,000" deaths in Sabra an Chatila, because you bring it up ten times a day. Then you talk about the massacre of "only" 5 athletes in Munich. Well aside from the fact that you inflate the 3,500 deaths to 15,000, and deflate the athletes from 8 down to 5, well, this sort of tips me off how you will say anything to prove your point. exaggerate in both directions. Very effective. But one death is too many. I don't understand your need to keep score. That is your mentality I guess. To you, there is no difference between innocent casualties and combatants. But we have been through this too many times already. I don't call Sharon a "man of peace"...where did I ever say that? You called Arafat a great man and a pulitzer prize winner. So obviously when he is responsible for murder, it is ok. Because he is just a likeable and reasonable man. A man with a billion dollars in the bank (but still can't afford razor blades). I recently read a column Arafat wrote in the NY Times. Well it was so obviously ghost written, what is the purpose of him even pretending to stay in power? He can't express his own thoughts, no one listens to him, and he refuses peace. He has no control over the Palestinian terrorists. So what is his function? To just be a representative embarrassment for all Palestinians? The progressive and moderate Palestinians themselves think he is an old joke. You say I never have a word of compassion for the Palestinians. You are wrong. I know Palestinians...perhaps more than you do. The ones I know are Israeli citizens. They have their grievances, but they also admit that they are far better off than their counterparts that are not citizens. They have rights and social justice. Yes, they should have more, but the fact is they live in a Theocracy, so they just put up with what is not the best possible circumstances and appreciate the fact that they have it better than most. And the truth is that the palestinians in the west bank and gaza would be infinitely better off with their own country, as Israel has agreed to. But your GQ poster boy, Arafat, said no...let's fight some more. We need that extra 1% we couldn't get. A total farce and a way of avoiding peace at any cost. You say I am 'too old"...I don't know what the hell that means. I am young enough to have a family and children to worry about. I worry when they get on a school bus in Israel if they will get off in one piece. I am old enough to remember the cowardice of the aggressors in the arab - israeli conflict of 67 and 73. Too young to remember the others. But I can know the history without personal recollection. You say I finance bloody settlers? Let me tell you something my friend. The money that I send or bring to Israel is used for building day care centers that cater to both jewish and palestinian kids. Imagine that!!!! Me giving money that provides for palestinians. So keep on making assumptions about me. You think you know anything at all about me? You use the word "brainwashed" in almost every post. But you just parrot the words of those you agree with. You live in a black and white world. You think you are for peace. You say you are tolerant. But it is quite apparent that you are full of anger and hatred. Hitler was a German. Do I hold all germans responsible for the holocaust? No. Sharon is a ruthless man. Yet you hold all Israelis responsible for his actions. Arafat is a terrorist and a murderer, but that is fine with you. Me, I prefer to use information before I make an opinion. So yes, I have problems with Sharon. But what would you suggest...should I go into Israel and shoot him to make you happy? Arm wrestle him and winner gets to choose who stays and who goes? Hey, I have a problem with GW Bush being president here. But there is nothing I can do about that either. The US is still a great country despite it's current leadership. Israel is a country in turmoil but at least an oasis of freedom and democracy in the middle of a sea of nations with no liberties and no rights for the oppressed. And in the US and in Israel, the people can and do vote to change leadership. And Arafat? No arm wrestling with him. I know when a foul odor will be too overpowering to let me even try to flex an arm muscle. He makes a conscious effort to even look like he thinks....dirty and uncaring. He is a disgusting man. And what is more, Sharon will serve his time until he is voted out. Bush too. But Arafat? You say I am old, but not old enough to know who was in charge before this miserable excuse for a leader. A leader that has achieved nothing for his people. Nothing!!!! And all he had to do was just say yes! But peace would make him irrelevant. Of course he has been irrelevant for a long time, but he just doesn't know it. He has, however, managed on so many occasions to humiliate himself, and as a result, the perception world wide of his Palestinian followers. How many places did he run from? How many times has he been hiding in some dusty basement, huddling in cowardice. Just like Nasser was when they found him. But at least Nasser had the good sense to let go. Time for arafat to do he same! So now you know. Unlike you, I judge people as individuals. Not by their religion, their race, or their nationality. And yes, I have actually made donations to help the children and their parents in those day care centers in Israel. And a lot of them are palestinians. Palestinians that are welcome in the schools and in the society. Unlike how it would ever be for a Jew in a palestinian school. And Dotslash may be right. I hate war, and I think every possible alternative must be explored to avert war. But when I hear a man like you explain how things are in your view of the world, it scares me that maybe war is not avoidable. You tell us you are for peace, but your words and anger and name calling make it perfectly clear what you are really about. Why stay in France? Why not go fight for the causes you believe in. Why not make yourself feel good and help spill some blood in the middle east. Or are you just an "armchair warrior"? Speak loudly and give a big stick to a guy like Saddam, or Arafat. Or Khadafi, or Osama, or any of your other worthy heroes? And let them hand that stick (and stones) to "brainwashed" little untrained and unprepared soldiers so they can die as martyrs trying to fight sophisticated opponents, who actually train and study warfare. Opponents that are not sent off unprepared by leaders who have no concern for the welfare of their "soldiers". But the Arafats and Sadams think the more "soldiers" that die on their side, the more world opinion will sway in their favor. So they sacrifice the lives of these children for their political gain. While they themselves hide in their bunkers like the cowards they are. Sharon is an antagonistic bully. But at least he led his own troops. He marched at the front of the line through Jerusalem which started off the new infatadah. When was Arafat ever in harms way by choice? Never. He runs, they find him, and they still don't kill him. Because he is a "noncombatant", and that is not what the Israeli army does. (unlike the terrorist of Hamas who seek out civilian targets). Get a clue!!!
>> On this view, dependence on Middle Eastern oil may be a fact, but it is easy to live with >> This is exactly what I explained : there is some dependance (1/6), but it is easy to cope with it. OHLC
Salam aleykoum ! Friend of mine thought I needed more insight on Peace and Tolerance. I thought I had to share : http://islamexposed.com/Pictures/face-of-Islam.htm Too bad this fundamentalism everywhere OHLC
Or the way it should be done is organize elections for the Iraki people with the possibility for Saddam to present himself.... I think that if irakis are clever they won't elect Saddam... of course it is science fiction but has it ever been proposed ... lol I think they should make a proposal to Saddam. Maybe there is a chance.
I almost fell off my chair when I read this. I hope that others don't miss this post by TF2000. It is a truly remarkable attestation to his intelligence, and allegiance.
What's next? regime change here? US Military Operating a Secret Chemical Weapons Program Sunshine Project provides evidence for US violation of international law (Austin and Hamburg, 24 September 2002) - The Sunshine Project today accuses the US military of conducting a chemical weapons research and development program in violation of international arms control law. The charges follow an 18 month investigation of the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD). The investigation made extensive use of the US Freedom of Information Act to obtain Pentagon records that form the primary basis of the allegations. An array of documents, many of which have been posted on the Sunshine Project website, demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that JNLWD is operating an illegal and classified chemical weapons program... The Solutions: 1) UN Inspectors into the US: The Sunshine Project, while urging the United States to immediately halt this chemical weapons program, also announces its intention to take its allegations and evidence to the 7th Session of the Conference of the States Parties of the Chemical Weapons Convention, scheduled to start in The Hague on October 7th.... http://www.sunshine-project.org/publications/pr240902.html Maybe this belongs in Babak's Is this how you spell hypocrisy? thread. (great thread btw) Josh
I don't know that I have too much of a problem with a weapon that was able to provide an immediate knockout. The whole argument there is a trip. First they don't want you to kill the enemy. Now, putting the enemy to sleep is a crime too? That crap about them seeing people drop and then escalating the chemical fight to the next level is a joke though. I guess if you put your opponent to sleep, he can't fight too good.
canyonman00. If we are in violation of international weapons law ( most of which law we helped establish) then: Shouldn't the UN come in and inspect us, and even worst, following our administration directives, shouldn't another UN nation eg England or Russia or France come in and declare war against us and change our regime and destroy our illegal weapon's factory(s)? After all we are using this argument to start a war against another country. I just hope cool heads prevail. Josh
Hmm, if using that analogy, we (and most other countries) could be cited for the military development of ANY weapon. I think that there must be a litmus test of sorts that would establish the trigger for action. I think that America in its history has had many times where the failure can be proven. But we have not murdered and taken over any neighbors lately. And any country that has ever developed nuclear capacity can be a world threat. But I think that responsible governing bodies should be one of many factors in a decision of violation. I guess if you wish to loosen the definitions everyone can be in violation. For me, Iraq attempted to conquer a neighbor and killed a lot of its own peoples for disagreeing with the dictators policies. There is a key "violation" indicator for me also. If you disagree here, you would not be killed or locked up for articulating such attitudes. The fact that we can openly debate the matter is another "no violation" key. There are many things that when combined together would lower the alert status for me for the same worldwide observations. If a MAJORITY of the peoples say one thing and the government violates the edict, oh well...