Except that goes both ways since you seem to be ignoring the portions where he cites the problems with US intervention in the first place. He also pointed out the serious problem of US intervention by pointing out how things were going great in Pakistan until the US intervened. While he is saying that the US does have good intentions he points out how those intentions can still lead to harm. In his words how Gulliver by wiggling his toe can break the neck of a Lilliputian. I will agree he does argue for not leaving a situation up in the air but that doesn't mean he is supportive of US intervention or trusting of US good intentions.
I'll have to go back and read it again, but my recollection is that things went to hell because of the Russians in Afghanistan. The US intervention was intended to help remedy the lawlessness.
Yes, read it again. Osama bin Laden came to power because the CIA funded his group. You asked previously, isn't that what is about to happen in Iraq? Yes. It is. Unfortunately. ...and they'll be plenty of blame to go around. Of the people on the "blame" list, who would you put as 1st on that list?
No the US intervention lead to the lawlessness. From the original article: "But there is another major reason for anti-Americanism: the accreted residue of many years of U.S. foreign policies. These policies are unknown to most Americans. They form only minor footnotes in U.S. history. But they are the chapter titles of the histories of other countries, where they have had enormous consequences. America's strength has made it a sort of Gulliver in world affairs: By wiggling its toes it can, often inadvertently, break the arm of a Lilliputian. When my family moved back to Pakistan, I was given a front-row seat from which to observe one such obscure episode. In 1980, Lahore was a sleepy and rather quiet place. Pakistan's second-largest city was still safe enough for a 9-year-old to hop on his bicycle and ride around unsupervised. But that was about to change. Soviet troops had recently rolled into Afghanistan, and the U.S. government, concerned about Afghanistan's proximity to the oil-rich Persian Gulf and eager to avenge the humiliating debacle of the Vietnam War, decided to respond. Building on President Jimmy Carter's tough line, President Ronald Reagan offered billions of dollars in economic aid and sophisticated weapons to Pakistan's dictator, Gen. Mohammed Zia ul-Haq. In exchange, Zia supported the mujaheddin, the Afghan guerrillas waging a modern-day holy war against the Soviet occupation. With the help of the CIA, jihadist training camps sprung up in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Soon Kalashnikov assault rifles from those camps began to flood the streets of Lahore, setting in motion a crime wave that put an end to my days of pedaling unsupervised through the streets."
how a thread titled "why do they [arab muslims] hate us" can go 7 days without any mention of "Israel" is beyond my imagination. it just points to the sad sad failure of the american education system. honestly. go to the middle east. go to europe. go to asia. go to any mosque in america. if they had to summarize it in 1 word. it's gonna be "israel". they will never stop hating us unless we stop sponsoring the israeli govt in its incessant, blind, and utterly idiotic policies. no matter how much goodwill we buy with our billions and billions of tax dollars' worth of "rebuilding iraq", all it takes is for israel to kill one arab child and we're back to square one. yes. it REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/w...592a33de4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=18251
What I read says that the lawlessness came from the Afghan tribal leaders coming out of the mountains and roaming the streets enforcing their own brand of morality. What does that have to do with US intervention?
I agree. It was Englan and France and before then the Ottoman Empire before then was Muslims, then the Roman and Persians
I agree, Arabs see images like these and wonder why this can go unpunished. http://marwaheen.blogspot.com/2006/07/photos-section-your-discretion-is.html
Wow... errr... those were some pretty explicit pictures... Gotta admit, never saw dead kids in living color like that before...
oh, that is nothing compared to what has been removed already from websites due to the gruesome images.
Why do they hate us? Because their leaders tell them that the reason they are poor is because of us, they tell them that Western Culture's morality is a threat to their society. That, and the fact that the USA is the most powerful and richest country, people get jealous. Everyone hates the bully. DD
aside why is the richest land in the world is populated by the poorest people in the world, Who is Keeping Their Leaders in Their Seats DADA? Do you know that the Egyprian, the Jordanian, the Iraqi, the Saudi CIA trains here in the States to protect these Dictator thugs? These leaders are getting their might by buying weapons from the U.S to abuse their people. I think Middle Easterners don't Hate Americans, but rather they hate the American Government and its foreign policies.
To put it mildly, I think you are stretching it to call the middle east the richest land in the world. And the answer to that question is that there are no better options to support and quite a few that are worse. And if you wonder why the Israelis are butchers who kill children, perhaps you should look in the mirror and try to figure out why the environment made them thus.
When wasn't the Middle East the richest most important section of the world, and if it wasn't why was it always occupied????? tourism religion oil Agriculture Suez canal Straight of Gibraltar persian gulf commerce Brain power believe me I do not always blame the Israelis for doing what they do, because they are surrounded by a bunch of people that wants them dead and when anyone is faced with that situation, he will do anything to make sure that he and his family are safe.
The region, except for the riches under the earth, is mostly arid to semi-arid, and deforestation, overpopulation, and simple mismanagement of the resources there (the Aswan Dam in Egypt, for example, has in a lot of ways been an ecological disaster) have left it people rich, and except for oil and gas, resource poor. I wouldn't consider the Middle East to be rich at all. Ask the average person in the region if they think they're rich. The average answer would translate into something approximating "Hell no!" Impeach Dildo and His Battery.
I agree about the Aswan Dam, but I disagree that the land is poor. Corruption is the reason behind people being poor not the resources. over population which country in the middle east is over populated/Sq Ft in comparison with china, japan, england, US, india, france, nigeria, germany,.... it is mismanagement like you said.
From the CIA world factbook: Jordan: arable land: 3.32% Egypt: arable land: 2.92% UAE: arable land: 0.77% ------------- USA: arable land: 18.01% Romania: arable land: 39.49% United Kingdom: arable land: 23.23% So every acre of land in the USA can support 5.4x as many people as an acre in Jordan, and 23.4x as many as per acre of the UAE. These countries all have to import food to keep their populations fed. Egypt imports $4 billion in food, and 38 percent of the total wheat/flour consumed in Egypt is imported. If you look at the distribution of natural mineral resources, with the exception of oil the disparity is the same. Jordan is a good example of well run ME country which didn't have oil resources. The King, the previous King, and their advisors have done a great job of creating a modern economy. But they have no oil, and so it is still a poor country. For brain power if we agree that there are no inherent racial differences, but that education results in brain power, I would put the ME well behind Europe, China, and the USA in that regard. With tourism, most of that is generated stuff like the towers in Doha or religious tourism. The desert is not a fun place to hang out. Essentially the oil and the religious significance are #1 in the world, but in all the other categories that you mention I would put it in the middle of the pack to the lower part of the pack. I don't say these things to be disparaging of the ME. There is a very good book whose name I can't remember which basically attributes the dominance of European civilization, as well as other civilizations throughout history to the natural resources. It is very well researched and an enlightening read.
