Ask the Experts

[Schmeltz]

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security (http://www.harpers.org/sb-seven-michael-scheuer-1156277744.html)

I lifted this link from This Modern World, (www.thismodernworld.com) which is one of the only political blogs I find time for (and which is really good because several different people contribute to it regularly). It's a quick read and well worth the time. The following statement, in particular, really struck a chord with me:


We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies.


I'm currently reading William Blum's Killing Hope, about American military and CIA policies during the Cold War, and it focuses on a similar thesis: that the current global state of affairs has proceeded, in large measure, as a response to the stimulus of American foreign policies that have yielded relentless misery for untold millions of people. The misuse of the most complex and powerful feat of national and social organization in human history has, in turn, stirred up a hornets' nest of fundamentalism and reactionary violence in a massive swath of the human population. The clash of civilizations, in other words, is a two-way street. And it didn't just come out of nowhere.

What do you guys think?

[Qdrop]

yes, yes.... burn America.

we cause cancer too.

and kick puppies for fun.

[Qdrop]

seriously, this has become a game now for virtually all far-left liberals and non-americans....
like "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"...

only replace "Kevin Bacon" with "US"....


just give them ANY global ill....and they will link it ot the US in under 6 connections...

[Schmeltz]

Did you read the link? Scheuer worked for the CIA for 22 years and headed up the bin Laden section in the later 1990s. You can castigate him as a "far-left liberal" if you like, but I think he probably knows what he's talking about. Your trivialization of his approach to a very real global dilemma just goes to show that you'd rather pretend to feel like a victim than engage in any serious discussion.

Anybody else?

[Qdrop]

Did you read the link? Scheuer worked for the CIA for 22 years and headed up the bin Laden section in the later 1990s. You can castigate him as a "far-left liberal" if you like, but I think he probably knows what he's talking about. Your trivialization of his approach to a very real global dilemma just goes to show that you'd rather pretend to feel like a victim than engage in any serious discussion.

Anybody else?

what's the serious discussion?
it goes without saying that ANY global (or regional) superpower is gonna leave it's mark everywhere...and some will resent that mark, or any of it's ills that it leaves behind.

the issue i have with this mentallity, is not that it is patently false per say (American certainly has done plenty of meddling and exploiting in it's history), but rather that they never balance it out with all the good this country has done for the world, and virtually ever nation in existence today.

Rome killed christians....and it also linked all of europe together with the most advanced road system of it's time...pushing the world together in the first ever "global" (well, regional) network...technology and inovation increased 100 fold, markets sprang up overnight....

not only that, but people of this mentality always pretend that they are being completey objective when they know GOD DAMN WELL that much of it is purely perspective.

[drizl]

schmeltz i couldnt agree with you more. and its unfortunate that this sort of material isnt taught in normal school curriculumns. everyone should be aware that there is more to america than words like freedom, democracy, and terrorism.

q is right, we really do have it great here. but i would doubt q has ever experienced any other part of the world, and that is why he is so drunk on america. we have done more harm than good for the rest of the world. for our country, and to the prosperous lives we lead, america has provided us with lots...but to those who stand in our path, the innocent millions, the story is murder. this is why this shit is behind the scenes and takes place within secretive agencies like the cia...because if americans knew of this, they would not except it.

[drizl]

the killing done by americans is on a vastly larger scale than anyother regime i have ever heard of.

[Qdrop]

we have done more harm than good for the rest of the world. for our country, and to the prosperous lives we lead, america has provided us with lots...but to those who stand in our path, the innocent millions, the story is murder.

see, one cannot look at that statement ^ and not admit that it's plainly biased opinion, not fact.

[Qdrop]

"At the core of the debate is oil. As long as we and our allies are dependent on Gulf oil, we can't do anything about the perception that we support Arab tyranny—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, and other regimes in the region. Without the problem of oil, who cares who rules Saudi Arabia? If we solved the oil problem, we could back away from the contradiction of being democracy promoters and tyranny protectors. We should have started on this back in 1973, at the time of the first Arab oil embargo, but we've never moved away from our dependence. As it stands, we are going to have to fight wars if anything endangers the oil supply in the Middle East.

What you want with foreign policy is options. Right now we don't have options because our economy and our allies' economies are dependent on Middle East oil."

^that's really the key. THAT'S the A1 reason we support tyranny, start false wars, subvert anyone who won't do Oil business with us in the middle east..... we need the Oil.
it's not that the US is a malevolant entity at it's root, any more than a junkie is.....
but we are addicted to oil....we have little choice at this point.

the truth of the matter, is that if we devoloped alternative fuel sources that could supplant or even somewhat supplant Oil....our entire middle east policy could change...and would change.


and i think it was suspected before, and is being mashed in our face in Iraq and Afghanastan, that middle eastern countries that are packed with religioius sects, NEED near despotic control to keep the bees nest from going ape shit.
look at Iraq right now...half the insurgency isn't even fighting US troops anymore, they're FIGHTING EACH OTHER! when we removed the dictator from power, we removed the keystone to Iraqi religious stability....now look at that shit.

but we did so, at it's root, BECAUSE WE NEED THE MIDDLE EAST OIL! we are simply too dependant on it to simply back away and let soveriegn nations who are not our allies, do what they wish.

[D_Raay]

Publicly promoting democracy while supporting tyranny may be the most damaging thing we do. From the standpoint of democracy, Saudi Arabia looks much worse than Iran. We use the term “Islamofascism”—but we're supporting it in Saudi Arabia, with Mubarak in Egypt, and even Jordan is a police state. We don't have a strategy because we don't have a clue about what motivates our enemies.

We have a dozen years of reliable polling in the Middle East, and it shows overwhelming hostility to our policies—and at the same time it shows majorities that admire the way we live, our ability to feed and clothe our children and find work. We need to tell the truth to set the stage for a discussion of our foreign policy.
It's quite simple really. There are of course those who wish us harm. The question is why? OUR POLICIES.

The flawed reasoning here would be that "far-left" loonies are barking because they hate their country, rather they love their country and would see it as a beacon to the world.

As so often happens, dissent is being confused with some sort of agenda to undermine. The leadership is the problem, and oil is at the root of it.

[Qdrop]

The leadership is the problem, and oil is at the root of it.

i certainly won't disagree with that.

and i certainly won't sit here and defend every move we've made in the middle east, because obviously our motivation was not necessarily "freedom for all"...it was to supply a resource our country is in dire need of.

but when people take some of our middle eastern stategies, and some spotty ones in south/latin america throughout history...and decry that THOSE ALONE exemplify our entire foreign policy...i take great issue....
yes, such actions have created enemies...

but what about our benevolant actions that have created allies? is the US devoid of benevolant actions?
if one truly believes that...then i don't understand why you are here for, what you are fighting for....cause the America you claim to love must never have existed in the first place.


and i DO, however, think that to claim that our policies and policies alone dictate muslim fundamentalist violence, unfairly lets the violent and imperialist-like roots of Islam off the hook....which is dangerous as well.

[STANKY808]

and i think it was suspected before, and is being mashed in our face in Iraq and Afghanastan, that middle eastern countries that are packed with religioius sects, NEED near despotic control to keep the bees nest from going ape shit.
look at Iraq right now...half the insurgency isn't even fighting US troops anymore, they're FIGHTING EACH OTHER! when we removed the dictator from power, we removed the keystone to Iraqi religious stability....now look at that shit.



No doubt about the oil dependency, but your assertion here at least as it pertains to Iraq I think is flawed. Most now agree that the biggest reason for the sectarian violence now engulfing parts of the country was the wholesale disbanding of the military. Thanks Mr. Bremmer and enjoy your Freedom Medal.

[D_Raay]

i certainly won't disagree with that.

and i certainly won't sit here and defend every move we've made in the middle east, because obviously our motivation was not necessarily "freedom for all"...it was to supply a resource our country is in dire need of.

but when people take some of our middle eastern stategies, and some spotty ones in south/latin america throughout history...and decry that THOSE ALONE exemplify our entire foreign policy...i take great issue....
yes, such actions have created enemies...

but what about our benevolant actions that have created allies? is the US devoid of benevolant actions?
if one truly believes that...then i don't understand why you are here for, what you are fighting for....cause the America you claim to love must never have existed in the first place.


and i DO, however, think that to claim that our policies and policies alone dictate muslim fundamentalist violence, unfairly lets the violent and imperialist-like roots of Islam off the hook....which is dangerous as well.
Who's letting them off the hook? I certainly don't see that happening in the world right now except amongst other fanatics.

What other reason do you think they would have attacked us?

If not for our policies, then what? Don't give me that freedom shit, we all know that is bullshit.

Oil dictates our policies and our policies in turn dicate their aggression. Like the author said it is a "two-way street".

[Qdrop]

Most now agree that the biggest reason for the sectarian violence now engulfing parts of the country was the wholesale disbanding of the military.
yes, saddam's army...the source of his despotic control.
that's exactly what i'm saying.

[Qdrop]

Who's letting them off the hook?
i feel YOU are by saying thier violence is simpy a response to our malevolant actions...as if they are purely defending themselves.


What other reason do you think they would have attacked us?

If not for our policies, then what? Don't give me that freedom shit, we all know that is bullshit.

so you feel the fundementalist teachings and beliefs in the Islamic relgions, jihad, etc...have no effect on thier behavior?

the literal teachings of the koran, the teaching of islamic proliferation and dominance, hatred and death to all non-muslims (infidels)...
all western myths created by the GOP and xenophobic american culture?

[drizl]

while i agree that oil is the big issue here, i would hesitate to say that our addiction is the reason why we are over there. we were brought up to be addicted to cars here in the us, our entire country is crisscrossed with roads, our suburban areas drive to work everyday towards the cities...we were made to need cars, and to be addicted to oil.

but i think the reason why we are over there is because of a greater foreign policy geared towards securing democracy in the middle east, replacing threatening regimes with "democratic" foundations so that we can exploit their resources and have a strategic military outpost in the middle east to remain proactive, and preemptive as china rises to power in the near future. of course, this is all pnac.

the oil issue, is an issue of profit. those at the top profit immensely. and they care not to gear america towards a sustainable energy infrastructure. they dont care about the environment because their business is too important.

i believe the oil issue is a secondary, but hugely important in this conflicts.

[drizl]

No doubt about the oil dependency, but your assertion here at least as it pertains to Iraq I think is flawed. Most now agree that the biggest reason for the sectarian violence now engulfing parts of the country was the wholesale disbanding of the military. Thanks Mr. Bremmer and enjoy your Freedom Medal.



the administration was the catalyst for this civil war.

[Qdrop]

but i think the reason why we are over there is because of a greater foreign policy geared towards securing democracy in the middle east, replacing threatening regimes with "democratic" foundations so that we can exploit their resources and have a strategic military outpost in the middle east to remain proactive, and preemptive as china rises to power in the near future. of course, this is all pnac.


the ONLY value the middle east has to the rest of the world is OIL.
nothing else.

the only reason we look to set up democratic systems that would act as strategic partners....is because of the oil.
the market value is extremely limited....it's not like china.
we want the oil, we want to control the oil...and we want it cheap.

when the oil is gone, or when the world finally switches primarily to an alternative fuel source....much of the middle east will become a barren wasteland once all foreign interest pulls outs, and the Middle eastern countries that failed to invest in thier infrastructure, will crumble into civil war and famine.

there will always be a need for petrolium, if not for energy...for plastics, etc...
but the day will come when the middle east no longer holds the value it does today to the rest of the world.
and then, what will those fragile countries do? with billions to feed and no product to sell, and no self-sustaining infrastructure to fall back on....
they'll be making shoes for nike.......and will be far more desparate then they are now.
nothing fuels terrorism like desperation.

[Qdrop]

the administration was the catalyst for this civil war.

religious divide was the root of this civil war....saddam's despotic regime was what was keeping the lid on....
we took that away....
now look what we got.

same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. and that didn't have much to do with Oil...and there were no lies that were used to get us in there...
we were going after the man who organized 9/11 and the people protecting him.
but without the Taliban....that hornet nest got riled as well.
we're learning a similar lesson that Russia learned years ago over there....

[drizl]

religious divide was the root of this civil war....saddam's despotic regime was what was keeping the lid on....
we took that away....
now look what we got.

same thing with the Taliban in Afghanistan. and that didn't have much to do with Oil...and there were no lies that were used to get us in there...
we were going after the man who organized 9/11 and the people protecting him.
but without the Taliban....that hornet nest got riled as well.
we're learning a similar lesson that Russia learned years ago over there....


you like that word, despotic dont ya. you know my opinion on the matter- we knew that civil war would break out, and that would give us reason to keep troops in the mideast even longer, and eventually to go to war with iran, and maybe even others (syria, lebanon (hezbollah) etc...)....then maybe a little further down the line, we will have allies and bases in the middle east to prevent china from flexing their muscles.

i really doubt that we would destroy two entire countries just for oil. i think theres much more to the story, we will see, time will tell.

[drizl]

afghanistan not about oil?

From the 1998 Congressional Record.
Emphasis added to text.

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

Next we would like to hear from Mr. John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations, Unocal Corporation. You may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.

Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Two major infrastructure projects are seeking to meet the need for additional export capacity. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, plans to build a pipeline west from the northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. Oil would then go by tanker through the Bosporus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company, a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies, including four American companies, Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. This consortium conceives of two possible routes, one line would angle north and cross the north Caucasus to Novorossiysk. The other route would cross Georgia to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea. This second route could be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future. Nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010.

Asia is a different story all together. It will have a rapidly increasing energy consumption need. Prior to the recent turbulence in the Asian Pacific economies, we at Unocal anticipated that this region's demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, we stand behind our long-term estimates.

I should note that it is in everyone's interest that there be adequate supplies for Asia's increasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.

For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.

The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we have worked very closely with the University of Nebraska at Omaha in developing a training program for Afghanistan which will be open to both men and women, and which will operate in both parts of the country, the north and south.

Unocal foresees a pipeline which would become part of a regional system that will gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. The 1,040-mile long oil pipeline would extend south through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast. This 42-inch diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. The estimated cost of the project, which is similar in scope to the trans-Alaska pipeline, is about $2.5 billion.

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link gas resources with the nearest viable markets. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. But these projects also face geopolitical challenges. Unocal and the Turkish company Koc Holding are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to Turkey. The proposed Eurasia natural gas pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Of course the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region's residents, and provide energy for growth in both Europe and Asia. The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant. Without peaceful settlement of the conflicts in the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the U.N.-led peace process in Afghanistan. The U.S. Government should use its influence to help find solutions to all of the region's conflicts.

U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business success. We thus also encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. Specifically, we urge repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. Government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective export routes for Central Asian resources is a formidable task, but not an impossible one. Unocal and other American companies like it are fully prepared to undertake the job and to make Central Asia once again into the crossroads it has been in the past. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


as far as i know, the pipeline was never started for fears of it being a lost investment due to instability in the region. oil is an issue in afghanistan, but not the main one.

[drizl]

it is important to note that the first 'elected' president of afghanistan is hamid karzai, former consultant for unocal, the company attempting that pipeline project.

[D_Raay]

i feel YOU are by saying thier violence is simpy a response to our malevolant actions...as if they are purely defending themselves.


so you feel the fundementalist teachings and beliefs in the Islamic relgions, jihad, etc...have no effect on thier behavior?

the literal teachings of the koran, the teaching of islamic proliferation and dominance, hatred and death to all non-muslims (infidels)...
all western myths created by the GOP and xenophobic american culture?
You really aren't that dumb are you?

It is the US determination to undermine freedom and democracy in that region that holds more weight than any perceived translation of what the Qu'ran says. It's the opposition to democratic tendency,the ties to Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the continued support of Israel.

We do more to give relevance to radicals than the muslims do.

They are allowed to be free as well aren't they?

[drizl]

word.

[Schmeltz]

the issue i have with this mentallity, is ... that they never balance it out with all the good this country has done for the world


Actually, Scheuer made explicit reference to that in the interview and I think this is one issue that is always at the crux of any debate about American foreign policy. One thing that D_Raay (of course) touched on, which I often think about, is the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Americans, or the number of Olympic medals awarded to Americans, or the number of global philanthropic projects that have originated in America and could not exist without America. In point of fact, the USA is the contemporary heir of all that is wonderful and beautiful about Western civilization, and it ought to serve as a beacon of cultural and social accomplishment for the rest of the world. To some extent it does because it is undeniable, as Scheuer pointed out, that the American lifestyle is admired and emulated the world over.

But the fact of the matter is that, for all the benevolent contributions American society may have made to the rest of the world, the malignant militarist interventionism that has defined its foreign policy for the last five or six decades vastly outweighs its achievements as an exemplar of the Western tradition. What does capitalism or democracy or the principle of liberty mean to somebody who has lost his family to an American missile? How can somebody who has watched the CIA dismantle his democratically elected government possibly consider America to be a beacon of freedom? When America, the most powerful national entity on earth, interacts with other societies purely on the basis of service to its own interests, how is it supposed to present itself as an example to which other members of the international community can aspire?

I think there is a measure of truth to what drizl said - that the price for American global supremacy has been paid by a great many ordinary, perfectly innocent people who have happened to be on the receiving end of the military-industrial power that maintains America's dominance of the planet's economic and cultural patterns since the Second World War. This counts just as much for Americans too, because it's Americans who are sent to Third World shitholes to "liberate" the people from their own governments, and it's Americans who are employed in the delivery of the most unimaginably powerful instruments of violence ever created. And that takes its toll as well.


and i DO, however, think that to claim that our policies and policies alone dictate muslim fundamentalist violence, unfairly lets the violent and imperialist-like roots of Islam off the hook


Oh please, Q. Muslims were enjoying the most advanced and sophisticated lifestyle in history while our European ancestors were picking lice out of their pubes between jousting matches. When the monarchs of Europe expelled or murdered the Jews, the Muslims took them in and elevated them to a status they didn't attain in Europe until the last century - just to point out one example. The Judeo-Christian societies of the West have behaved in a far, far more violent, destructive, and imperialist manner than any Muslim society in history. It has more to do with human nature than with any religious ideology - more than almost anyone else, I would expect you to pick up on that.

There is as much good and benevolence in the past history of Islam as there is violence and malignance - as with any human society, anywhere, anytime. It does no good to trace the current global state of affairs back fourteen centuries; that's the Osama bin Laden tactic, meant to sway ignorant minds and knee-jerk emotions. But it is fully possible to trace our history back just a few decades, when Islamic terrorism and American global preponderance were in their starting phases, and to see that the two are intimately linked.


the literal teachings of the koran, the teaching of islamic proliferation and dominance, hatred and death to all non-muslims


Of course these are problematic issues, but they would be completely contained within the Islamic world - if it weren't for Western meddling in the affairs of that world. Wahhabism, the extreme fundamentalist branch of Islam favoured by the Saudi royal family and Osama bin Laden (among others), goes back almost three hundred years. But nobody really cared about it - until Western imperialist powers started taking an interest in the affairs of the Middle East. You're right to assert that the root of all this trouble is fossil fuels, but you're wrong to think that that somehow makes everything understandable and OK. It doesn't matter how badly America needs oil to keep your SUV running, what matters is the consequences derived from the foreign policies enacted to secure that oil, or to deny it to America's perceived enemies. Because those policies have turned relatively minor disputes within one religion into a global catastrophe inches away from overturning all the progress made by humanity in the last thousand years.


It is the US determination to undermine freedom and democracy in that region that holds more weight than any perceived translation of what the Qu'ran says. It's the opposition to democratic tendency,the ties to Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the continued support of Israel.


This, by D_Raay, gets basically to the heart of the matter. The radical fundamentalists would be just one voice among many in the Islamic world, if only the Islamic world was not continually interfered with and meddled in by self-absorbed, arrogant, imperialist foreign powers hell-bent on preserving the interests of their elite classes at the expense of every single other person on the planet, you and me included. But the violence and instability engendered by projects like Iraq and Afghanistan have given these extremists free reign over the hearts and minds of an increasingly broad segment of the world's population, and created the clash of civilizations that we are witnessing right now.

And one more point:


Rome killed christians....and it also linked all of europe together with the most advanced road system of it's time...pushing the world together in the first ever "global" (well, regional) network...technology and inovation increased 100 fold, markets sprang up overnight


Holy shit, do you ever have a lot of reading to do if you think about the Roman Empire in those terms.

[Qdrop]

One thing that D_Raay (of course)
*swoon*

touched on, which I often think about, is the number of Nobel prizes awarded to Americans, or the number of Olympic medals awarded to Americans, or the number of global philanthropic projects that have originated in America and could not exist without America. In point of fact, the USA is the contemporary heir of all that is wonderful and beautiful about Western civilization, and it ought to serve as a beacon of cultural and social accomplishment for the rest of the world. To some extent it does because it is undeniable, as Scheuer pointed out, that the American lifestyle is admired and emulated the world over.
*sniff*
that's better.

But the fact of the matter is that, for all the benevolent contributions American society may have made to the rest of the world, the malignant militarist interventionism that has defined its foreign policy for the last five or six decades vastly outweighs its achievements as an exemplar of the Western tradition. opinion.

What does capitalism or democracy or the principle of liberty mean to somebody who has lost his family to an American missile? How can somebody who has watched the CIA dismantle his democratically elected government possibly consider America to be a beacon of freedom? When America, the most powerful national entity on earth, interacts with other societies purely on the basis of service to its own interests, how is it supposed to present itself as an example to which other members of the international community can aspire? again, perception and opinion.

but of course your point is taken.
i guess i don't quite understand how people expect the US to achieve some kind of Utopian global community.
yes, yes...we are the beacon of light and all that blah blah...
jesus man...you, as much as anyone, know we have NEVER lived up the ideal set forth by the philosophers who started this country...and NEVER could have become a world power if we did engage in purely benevolant practice.
far too idealistic.
the rules of nature exist the in the political world as well.

^and don't confuse that with an excuse, or pride in the wrong we have wrought.

but this isn't fucking Star Trek:the next generation.....where they always talk of a world gov't that eliminated poverty and war in the blah blah century.

there will always be a king of the mountain....and no king is withouth blood on his hands.

I think there is a measure of truth to what drizl said - that the price for American global supremacy has been paid by a great many ordinary, perfectly innocent people who have happened to be on the receiving end of the military-industrial power that maintains America's dominance of the planet's economic and cultural patterns since the Second World War. This counts just as much for Americans too, because it's Americans who are sent to Third World shitholes to "liberate" the people from their own governments, and it's Americans who are employed in the delivery of the most unimaginably powerful instruments of violence ever created. And that takes its toll as well. all true.


Oh please, Q. Muslims were enjoying the most advanced and sophisticated lifestyle in history while our European ancestors were picking lice out of their pubes between jousting matches. When the monarchs of Europe expelled or murdered the Jews, the Muslims took them in and elevated them to a status they didn't attain in Europe until the last century - just to point out one example. this has NOTHING to do with my statement.
i was not using the word "root" in a historical sense.
by "root", i was referring to the literal translation of the Koran.

The Judeo-Christian societies of the West have behaved in a far, far more violent, destructive, and imperialist manner than any Muslim society in history. who said they didn't? i just mentioned in another recent thread how i believe christianity to be nearly on par with Islam in violence and military justification. understand i am against ALL religion, not just Islam.

It has more to do with human nature than with any religious ideology - more than almost anyone else, I would expect you to pick up on that. as i would expect you to understand human nature's relevance when discussing how nations strive to, and become world powers....and exactly what that entails.
instead you speak of idealogical beacons and how the US is shirking it's "responsibility" to establish a Utopian world order of some sorts.

There is as much good and benevolence in the past history of Islam as there is violence and malignance - as with any human society, anywhere, anytime. It does no good to trace the current global state of affairs back fourteen centuries; that's the Osama bin Laden tactic, meant to sway ignorant minds and knee-jerk emotions. sure sure....i'm not stating any of this. you're going off on a tangent to fight a strawman here.

But it is fully possible to trace our history back just a few decades, when Islamic terrorism and American global preponderance were in their starting phases, and to see that the two are intimately linked. as i stated before, i'm not dismissing a link....
just pleading that one does not dismiss the violent underpinnings of Islam (from a fundamentalist perspective) as a genuine factor.


Of course these are problematic issues, but they would be completely contained within the Islamic world - if it weren't for Western meddling in the affairs of that world. pretty bold statement. i don't really agree.
i think religion can and is be used as a "tool" to rally and round up people for certain agendas (one can say the same for christianity in the US).... but you hear these fundamentalists...you hear them throw "infadel" and "jihad" around...at the root of terrorism from the middle east is Islamic fundamentalism. the agenda of those in charge is one of religious imperialism.
now, at the same time....when the US kills innocents in collateral damage or takes down a uncooperative regime...it is the US's percieved malevolance that really rallies much of the masses...and the fundamentalists channel that and use it as fuel.
all true...all true..

You're right to assert that the root of all this trouble is fossil fuels, but you're wrong to think that that somehow makes everything understandable and OK. understandable but NOT ok.

It doesn't matter how badly America needs oil to keep your SUV running, what matters is the consequences derived from the foreign policies enacted to secure that oil, or to deny it to America's perceived enemies. Because those policies have turned relatively minor disputes within one religion into a global catastrophe inches away from overturning all the progress made by humanity in the last thousand years. so, what's the solution in the meantime...until a viable alternative fuel source is established?
we can't pay $6/gallon at the pump.
our economy can't take that.
in the meantime, we NEED cheap oil to maintain our standard of living.


This, by D_Raay, gets basically to the heart of the matter. seriously, why don't you just ask him out on a date already? everyone knows.

The radical fundamentalists would be just one voice among many in the Islamic world, if only the Islamic world was not continually interfered with and meddled in by self-absorbed, arrogant, imperialist foreign powers hell-bent on preserving the interests of their elite classes at the expense of every single other person on the planet, you and me included. But the violence and instability engendered by projects like Iraq and Afghanistan have given these extremists free reign over the hearts and minds of an increasingly broad segment of the world's population, and created the clash of civilizations that we are witnessing right now. again, i can meet you halfway....
but i don't believe that without US meddling, islamic terrorism would have no teeth, be irrevlevant, and a non-threat.


Holy shit, do you ever have a lot of reading to do if you think about the Roman Empire in those terms.
obviously it's a pretty generic take, condensed historical value, retard.

oh please, schmeltzy...impose upom me, your mighty Roman Empire historical knowledge....
save me from myself.

[Qdrop]

You really aren't that dumb are you?

It is the US determination to undermine freedom and democracy in that region that holds more weight than any perceived translation of what the Qu'ran says. It's the opposition to democratic tendency,the ties to Saudi Arabia, the sanctions on Iraq, and the continued support of Israel.

We do more to give relevance to radicals than the muslims do.

They are allowed to be free as well aren't they?

sooo....like i said...
you ARE letting the violent (literal) roots of Islam off the hook.

we're just going around in circles.

[drizl]

q you go around in circles.


schmeltz i like what you have to say and im glad you made the post. so many americans live in complete ignorance of these sort of things, which so much of the rest of the world has come to hate us for...and rightfully so. and the typical reaction that you here in the media, the reason for them hating us is not because we have done those things, but because they supposedly hate us for being free and want to attack our freedom. i heard dubya say that the other day.
when you start to understand the middle east (and practically every other issue in american foreign policy), you see there is so much more than what we are told...and you start to realize, maybe we arent as free as we think we are.

[Schmeltz]

opinion.


Not really; if the influence of America on the world was actually more positive than negative there wouldn't be this sort of blowback against American foreign policy. Terrorists don't attack Canadians, ever wonder why that is?


i guess i don't quite understand how people expect the US to achieve some kind of Utopian global community.


Who does? I certainly don't and never said I do. But I do feel that American society is capable of providing a much more substantial example of the core values that make Western society really great. That's really as much as can be expected, and I don't think it unrealistic to hope for such a future.


and NEVER could have become a world power if we did engage in purely benevolant practice.


What does being a world power get you? Scorn, derision, terrorism. I'm glad my country isn't a world power; if it was, I'd move. It's ridiculous to think that there has to be a "king of the mountain" in every age - that might be the pattern esablished thus far in international relations, but there's no reason to think that that should always be so and in point of fact the contrary idea has been expressed and evolved for centuries.


as i would expect you to understand human nature's relevance when discussing how nations strive to, and become world powers


Cop-out. The atrocity of the Iraq War cannot merely be passed off as "human nature;" nor can any of the excesses of American foreign policy in the last few decades. People aren't simply slaves to instinct and the most complex human society in the world is governed by cold, clear calculation, not insatiable genetic drives for power and dominance.


so, what's the solution in the meantime


Well, we could all try and cut down on our energy consumption. Come to think of it, wasn't there some kind of international accord that had exactly that as its goal? But of course big oil got that shut down because the oilmen are the Congressmen. That would be another solution - elect people who represent interests other than those of the financial elite.


but i don't believe that without US meddling, islamic terrorism would have no teeth, be irrevlevant, and a non-threat.


You may be right - doubtless there would still be an extremist branch of Islam that sought to export its regressive vision to other countries. But I think it would be much more on a par with the extremist Christians and Hindus out there - a McVeigh here and there, instead of a bin Laden or al-Zarqawi.


impose upom me, your mighty Roman Empire historical knowledge


I can't claim much in the way of that, but I did spend a semester studying Roman technology fairly intensively. The fact is that the Romans introduced absolutely nothing new in terms of technology or innovation over the entire thousand-plus year span of their society's existence. They merely provided a framework of social and political stability under which extremely ancient ideas could be implemented more widely, but not improved on or developed in any significant way. The Roman economy was backward, inconsistent, exploitative, and traditional; Roman methods of production were inefficient and slow; Roman trade was minimal and geared toward satisfying the demands of a tiny elite while 99.9% of the Empire's citizenry got by on a day-to-day basis.

Furthermore, even the primitive Roman economy did not "spring up overnight;" it evolved over centuries of extremely brutal warfare and in some cases virtual genocide of foreign peoples who may have been initially reluctant to embrace the benefits of access to Roman markets - especially given that those benefits often came at the cost of their political and economic autonomy and their enforced dependence on Rome for survival. You see this in the gradual disintegration of the Empire in its later centuries: as Rome's control over various regions was loosened, the provinces started to trade independently with one another, shunting Rome itself out of the picture and foreshadowing the split between East and West that spelled the doom of Roman society.

I always find it kind of funny when people compare America to Rome: the two societies are almost totally incomparable. The world has changed drastically since those days and the gulf that separates our experience from that of the Romans precludes any attempt to find a solution to our problems simply by avoiding the Romans' mistakes.


schmeltz i like what you have to say


Careful, Qdrop might consider that a come-on or something.


the reason for them hating us is not because we have done those things


Well, don't blame yourself. You didn't do them. Qdrop didn't do them. The gommint did.

[D_Raay]

sooo....like i said...
you ARE letting the violent (literal) roots of Islam off the hook.

we're just going around in circles.
You really surprise me sometimes when you are actually pragmatic on some topics. Not because I don't think it is in you, rather because it escapes you when it probably shouldn't.

I'm not trying to insult. Maybe I am wrong, but you may be wrong as well and there is no point fighting about it. A solution, however small and inconsequential as it may be here on BBMB, is the goal I assume.

Schmeltz makes some excellent points that you dismiss rather expediently even though they should hold a great deal of weight with you if you are passionate about the subject. Real debate should be what we strive for, not Hannity and Colmes style partisan hackery.

[Qdrop]

You really surprise me sometimes when you are actually pragmatic on some topics. Not because I don't think it is in you, rather because it escapes you when it probably shouldn't.

I'm not trying to insult. Maybe I am wrong, but you may be wrong as well and there is no point fighting about it. A solution, however small and inconsequential as it may be here on BBMB, is the goal I assume.

Schmeltz makes some excellent points that you dismiss rather expediently even though they should hold a great deal of weight with you if you are passionate about the subject. Real debate should be what we strive for, not Hannity and Colmes style partisan hackery.

i happen to be having a rather pleasant conversation with schmeltz, as i often do. i'm not completely dismissing anything he is saying off-hand....in fact i beleive i made some consessions and "meet you in the middle"s...

you just have such a negative view on me, you see what you want.
read the thread again.

[Qdrop]

Not really; if the influence of America on the world was actually more positive than negative there wouldn't be this sort of blowback against American foreign policy. Terrorists don't attack Canadians, ever wonder why that is? because you're not the poster boy for western ideals?

and i believe Canada/US just recently foiled a plot on killing Canada's prime minister in Toronto or something to that effect...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/03/canada.terror/index.html

you are no longer immune, why is that?


What does being a world power get you? Scorn, derision, terrorism. also ecomonic oppurtunity and luxary...i'm living a pretty good life here, that i couldn't guaruntee i'd have in Iraq, or Brazil, or France or Canada...
and again, you are plainly looking at that from ONE pessimistic angle.

I'm glad my country isn't a world power; if it was, I'd move. It's ridiculous to think that there has to be a "king of the mountain" in every age - that might be the pattern esablished thus far in international relations, but there's no reason to think that that should always be so and in point of fact the contrary idea has been expressed and evolved for centuries. i doubt that...it's just not natural.
but perhaps man can overcome such innate urges someday.



Cop-out. The atrocity of the Iraq War cannot merely be passed off as "human nature;" nor can any of the excesses of American foreign policy in the last few decades. People aren't simply slaves to instinct and the most complex human society in the world is governed by cold, clear calculation, not insatiable genetic drives for power and dominance. well it's not a cop-out.
i'm stating that it's understandable, knowing man's nature....
but not acceptable.

we are not a slave to our genes, i agree.


I can't claim much in the way of that, but I did spend a semester studying Roman technology fairly intensively. The fact is that the Romans introduced absolutely nothing new in terms of technology or innovation over the entire thousand-plus year span of their society's existence. They merely provided a framework of social and political stability under which extremely ancient ideas could be implemented more widely, but not improved on or developed in any significant way. The Roman economy was backward, inconsistent, exploitative, and traditional; Roman methods of production were inefficient and slow; Roman trade was minimal and geared toward satisfying the demands of a tiny elite while 99.9% of the Empire's citizenry got by on a day-to-day basis. i guess we are reading some pretty differant texts...
Howard Bloom's accounts of Roman contributions to the Global Brain (see also Lucifer Principle) seem to contradict alot of what you say.
so do virtually every history book or TV Doc show i've ever seen on Roman history.

and building connections between regions is one of the best accomplishments a civilization can do....
"... merely provided a framework of social and political stability under which extremely ancient ideas could be implemented more widely," is fucking huge.
and i challenge your account that the roman empire provided no innovation or technology or cultural practice.
come on now..

Furthermore, even the primitive Roman economy did not "spring up overnight;" it evolved over centuries of extremely brutal warfare and in some cases virtual genocide of foreign peoples who may have been initially reluctant to embrace the benefits of access to Roman markets - especially given that those benefits often came at the cost of their political and economic autonomy and their enforced dependence on Rome for survival. You see this in the gradual disintegration of the Empire in its later centuries: as Rome's control over various regions was loosened, the provinces started to trade independently with one another, shunting Rome itself out of the picture and foreshadowing the split between East and West that spelled the doom of Roman society. yeah..no shit.
every empire falls.
this discounts nothing.

I always find it kind of funny when people compare America to Rome: the two societies are almost totally incomparable. The world has changed drastically since those days and the gulf that separates our experience from that of the Romans precludes any attempt to find a solution to our problems simply by avoiding the Romans' mistakes. have you read Jared Diamonds newest book "Collapse" ?
i'm just starting it...

[Qdrop]

..

[drizl]

Well, don't blame yourself. You didn't do them. Qdrop didn't do them. The gommint did.


i know its not the fault of ordinary americans that these atrocities have occurred. but one has to make the connection that if the people were more educated and aware, these things would not be tolerated. i know q didnt do it. and i understand a right to opinion, but there are great divisions in american society between those who are supportive of our foreign policy, and those who are outraged by it. the longer we support such actions, the more terrorism, the more war, the more destruction. that is why i choose to argue with q on these points.

[D_Raay]

i happen to be having a rather pleasant conversation with schmeltz, as i often do. i'm not completely dismissing anything he is saying off-hand....in fact i beleive i made some consessions and "meet you in the middle"s...

you just have such a negative view on me, you see what you want.
read the thread again.
Well it certainly doesn't appear that way to me. I wouldn't call goading and taunts pleasant conversation. It's your overall prickiness that gets you a negative view.

[D_Raay]

i know its not the fault of ordinary americans that these atrocities have occurred. but one has to make the connection that if the people were more educated and aware, these things would not be tolerated. i know q didnt do it. and i understand a right to opinion, but there are great divisions in american society between those who are supportive of our foreign policy, and those who are outraged by it. the longer we support such actions, the more terrorism, the more war, the more destruction. that is why i choose to argue with q on these points.
Yeah and I really cannot see why you would choose to be in a perpetual war that is not winnable, versus anything else. We would have our freedoms regardless of what our foreign policy is because that is what we sprung from. If anything, these chickenhawks seek to dismiss what we have held for well over 200 years while claiming to be champions of it. It's despicable to kill and maim and then claim to walk the righteous path.

[Schmeltz]

you are no longer immune, why is that?


Funny you should mention that, since Canada's role in the global conflict against terrorism has recently been massively expanded, resulting in a big jump in Canadian military casualties in Afghanistan. I've read lots of commentary to the effect that our new Prime Minister is bringing Canadian foreign policy more in line with that of the USA and seeking to assert Canada as a more "relevant" player on the world stage, and lots of interesting debate between historians who alternately consider this to be perfectly in line with our national past or a sharp break with traditional Canadian international practice. But I don't think I've yet seen it suggested that this attack might not have happened had Canadians maintained their more casual military stance in Afghanistan - even though the two, to me, seem more than coincidental.

I agree that Canada is hardly a perfect incarnation of Western culture, but nobody is and I think our general national outlook is one of the most progressive and relaxed in the world. These are things I like best about where I live.


also ecomonic oppurtunity and luxary


There are plenty of countries on the Human Development Index with excellent standards of living who are not world powers by any stretch of the imagination. Naturally their demographic and economic structures are different, but global supremacy is not a prerequisite for comfort.


i doubt that...it's just not natural.


There's plenty about human society that isn't at all strictly natural. Civilization itself is an unnatural thing, technically. I don't doubt that the pattern of history has been profoundly influenced by human genetic drives and somewhat instinctual impulses, but it has been shaped equally, if not more so, by humanity's purely intellectual and abstract thought processes. And the latter, I think, represent the only way forward.


i'm stating that it's understandable, knowing man's nature


I suppose I can see it as historically "understandable," but I think that word carries a moral connotation. I can understand the how, but not the why.


and i challenge your account that the roman empire provided no innovation or technology or cultural practice.


Check out Healy (1999), Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology, which shows how the Romans thought about and interpreted reality in very conservative, traditional ways. Stahl (1978) shows that Roman science was actually even more primitive than that of ancient Greece and failed to make use of even the limited innovations theorized (and almost never practiced) by the best minds of the era. And White (1984) is a very thorough documentation of all the major Roman feats of architecture, engineering, infrastructure, artwork, military applications, farming, metallurgy and so on - as well as detailed analysis of the economic context in which they were employed, and why they failed to sustain Roman society for longer.

All these scholars, and many more I could give you, who unlike Bloom and Diamond are experts in the field, tell the same story: Roman technology and economics were primitive and backward even at the peak of the Empire. This had lots to do with the mythological, superstitious, wholly unscientific thinking that dominated their perception of reality. Things are way, way different now.


Well it certainly doesn't appear that way to me.


Meh, it's as pleasant a discussion as any other I've had.