TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why are Terrorists so pissed off! Behold... The answer!
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

words fail to describe my disgust at anyone who thinks that America and its foreign policy are superior to that of the arab dictatorships or even Al-Qaeda.

America, Israel, Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia, Iraq. Every country/organisation run by cynical, duplicitous, EVIL, religous fanatics who think nothing of murder, theft and destruction to promote some delusional fantasy of what an ideal world should be, (ZIONISM=an ethnically pure Israel, safe for land stealing settlers, GLOBALISATION=a world safe for american corporations but where workers in the third world are nothing but serfs to provide cheap labor for multinationals, ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM = a world run by sharia law where women are treated like animals).


Globalisation/Americanisation = Fanaticism
Zionism= Fanaticism
Islamic Fundamentalism= Fanaticism

rupert = fanaticisim

that the best you can say. Truth hurts doesnt it mate.

Even if everything I said was a complete lie, exaggeration, the fact is the palestinians WILL have an independent state, the settlers WILL leave the occupied territories and if the USA goes to war in the middle east, it WILL end with its long term decline both economically and militarily.

thank you for proving the thesis equation in my last point true with your previous reply. Verifying my statement's authenticity, to me and the other readers of this thread.

I've proved me statements, it would be kind if you could in turn do the same to yours.

lets just keep it at that, I don't want to drag this thread into areas it doesn't belong. well keep it as to why terrorist are angry.

I tend to agree with rupert's last post, although his first one was a bit radical. As long as the palestinians don't get their state, there will be no peace in Israel and Palestine, and if America attacks Iraq, it will lead to more terrorism because it will piss of the terrorists.
But, as you said, let's keep it to why the terrorists are angry.
Now, in the 1970's CIA agents ignited a revolution against at that time peaceful and progressive government of Iran, for many reasons, one of which was that it was turning to nuclear energy. The new government was a backwards islamistic one, under which no progress would be made, and in a 50 years or so when the oil supplies were thought to have run out, it will be completely irrelevant.
A decade later, the Soviets attacked Afganistan and forced a more or less normal government there, but it was pro-soviet oriented. The CIA then trained rebel islamic fanatics, and one of them was Osama Bin Laden himself. Ten years later, the Talibans defeated regular government, and it seemed like not much will be heard of them anymore, except when they enact a new retarded law every once in a while, like for example banning paper bags cause they could be made of recycled kuran pages. But, unexpectedly, they started to seek islamic justice beyond their countries borders, and started attacking the US and Israel because of their sympathy for the palestinians.
Now about the western part of the arab world. US was the largest ally of Israel, a country which when appeared took the territory of the palestinians. Now, I agree that the Jews have a right for their country, but I think that the palestinians do as well. And they don't have it so they're pissed off at Israel, and indirectly at the US, as Israel's biggest ally. Not to mention here that all the neighbouring countries except Jordan (i think, or is it Syria) have large territorial disputes with Israel, and also indirectly dislike americans.
And, we have Saddam, who is still pissed off at the americans, because of the gulf war, in which he was defeated by them. Not to mention that prior to his attack on Kuwait he was insured by the americans that they won't interfere in case of Iraq's invasion on Kuwait, an agreement which americans dishonoured. All that time, americans have been supporting radical islamic groups in Iraq, which are against Saddam, because, for all he might be, he's not an islamic radical.
In all the other islamic countries, some of which are formally allies of US, civil discontent is growing because they see americans interfere in countries frendly to them. Not to mention that up to the end of cold war, the CIA was actively supporting radical islamists in all the muslim countries, not just Afghanistan, and it continued to do so until the WTC incident.
All that was in the interest of oil companies, ofcourse.
So basically, it is the US that trained terrorists and gave them reason to attack. Not that I justify their actions, they are insane, but the US made those insane maniacs, and now they turned against the creators.

Drug_tito, you dont seem to give a good explanation as the why the radical terrorist are committing acts agaisnt the US

i agree when you said that the US has helped out radical islamic movements in achieving their aid in the past. why then would these same group of people turn their backs and attack those who have helped them in the past? the only two reasons i found in your statement are indirect ones:
1) the US is interested in oil, a small price to pay for letting your movement come into national power, imo
2) the US siding with the nation of israel, agian a small price to pay seeing as these islamic movements had nothing to do with palestine to begin with.

add those up and that still doesnt really come to a good reason as to why they commit those acts.

both issues

We wouldn't have a problem with terrorism if we took thesame approach as Swizterland(pardon my spelling).Now that's a country that has their sh!t together.

The "war on drugs" is bogus. The gov. pretends to fight drugs,but in reality they are the ones pushing the goods.That is the reason why the "war on drugs" is so bent on anti-Mary Jane campains.It is to draw attention from cocaine,heroin,and crack, the drugs that U.S. gov.
officals get there pocket money.

one point I would like to make.

America funded many inserections during the cold war, amoung them were the Muhajin, and Bin Laden. But across the dozens of inserection movements during the era, only these terrorist turned on their master.

Why must we ask did this happen? Is this indeed because the master had treated them any differently then any of its other rebels? After all, if the Muhajin turned, who really ended up USING who?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus thank you for proving the thesis equation in my last point true with your previous reply. Verifying my statement's authenticity, to me and the other readers of this thread. I've proved me statements, it would be kind if you could in turn do the same to yours. lets just keep it at that, I don't want to drag this thread into areas it doesn't belong. well keep it as to why terrorist are angry.

Nothing better than the good ol' cold dry cynicism

quote:

these islamic movements had nothing to do with palestine to begin with.

I wouldn't agree with you, most of the terrorist activity is in Israel, and all because of Palestine.

quote:

America funded many inserections during the cold war, amoung them were the Muhajin, and Bin Laden. But across the dozens of inserection movements during the era, only these terrorist turned on their master.

Because there is a difference in mentality of the insurrection movements the US supported. Now, the insurrections in Africa and Latin America were not islamic, because an islamic movement in those places would fail, it could not find supporters. Now, in muslim countries, the only large movement that could be made and that would want to overthrow the government is the islamic movement. Now, if you put a small dictator in some african country, there's no way he's going to be a threat for the US, he will be more concerned about stealing money from his countries cash reserves, and waging wars against his neighbours than the US, the only interest in US will be as a weapons manufacturer.
On the other hand, radical islamists believe in Jihad, their holy war against all non-muslims. If someone is not a muslim, he should either be brougth to right faith, or killed if he refuses. They accept the help of the infidels from the US, but only because it serves the higher purpose, bringing people to faith in their country. But after they accomplish their goal, they're not going to stand by and watch as the decadent west world full of heretics not only allows, but supports a non-muslim country in the heart of their territorry. Not to speak that the west itself should be destroyed as well because it doesn't believe in the Kuran and all that crap.
So the first group of terrorists is more or les introvert, minding their own business. The other group however wants to change the whole world and either bring people to muslim faith or kill them, and to do that, they must strike at the heart of the western world, the US.
It's like letting a serial killer out of jail and tell him to kill someone you hate, and then be surprised when he comes after you.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I wouldn't agree with you, most of the terrorist activity is in Israel, and all because of Palestine.

not really, how was the taliban's movement set up beacuse of the palestinian conflict for example? the movements who have specificaly been set up to use terror agianst israel, like the hamas and hizbollah have, yet to specifically attack an american target.

I've been wanting to reply to this thread for awhile, after yoepus remarks a page or so ago, but i didn't have the time. but, i just found a good article that pretty much outlines my thoughts, and will most likely help to enlighten people on some history.

quote:

The United States and Middle East: Why Do "They" Hate Us? (revised, 12 Dec. 2001) By Stephen R. Shalom The list below presents some specific incidents of U.S. policy in the Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against the United States in the region because it excludes more generalized long‑standing policies, such as U.S. backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list also excludes many actions of Israel in which the United States is indirectly implicated because of its military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel. Whether any of these grievances actually motivated those who organized the horrific and utterly unjustified attacks of September 11 is unknown. But the grievances surely helped to create the environment which breeds anti-American terrorism. 1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return. 1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected government of Syria.1 1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically‑elected Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized the British oil company) leading to a quarter‑century of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. 1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms. 1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S. does not support invasion, but the involvement of its NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's reputation in the region. 1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve "stability". early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.2 1963: U.S. supports coup by Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) and reportedly gives them names of communists to murder, which they do with vigor.3 1967‑: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war. 1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and U.S. discuss intervening on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO. 1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel. 1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt. 1973‑75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work."4 1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.5 1978‑79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup to save the Shah, but to no avail.6 1979‑88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec. 1979.7 Over the next decade U.S. provides training and more than $3 billion in arms and aid. 1980‑88: Iran‑Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the U.S. opposes any Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S. soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly (though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in 1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq. 1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking Iraq's side; an overly‑aggressive U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290. 1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan plane fires a missile and U.S. shoots down two Libyan planes. In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing 72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub, killing three, the U.S. charges that Qaddafi was behind it (possibly true) and conducts major bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.8 1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of Lebanon,9 killing some 17 thousand civilians.10 U.S. chooses not to invoke its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons except in self‑defense. U.S. vetoes several Security Council resolutions condemning the invasion. 1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine barracks. 1984: U.S.‑backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on civilian airliner.11 1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security Council resolution condemning Israeli repression. 1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq. 1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and repression in Lebanon. 1990‑91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any attempt to link the two regional occupations, of Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure targeted.12 To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid post‑war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north, denying the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi helicopter flights.13 1991‑: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on Iraq. U.S. and Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions would remain as long as Saddam remains in power. Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked about the horrendous human consequences of the sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the price is worth it."14 1991-: U.S. forces permanently based in Saudi Arabia. 1993‑: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming self‑defense against an alleged assassination attempt on former president Bush two months earlier.15 1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of weapons inspections, even though Security Council is just then meeting to discuss the matter. 1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was involved in chemical warfare. Evidence for the chemical warfare charge widely disputed.16 2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians. Notes 1. Douglas Little, �Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945‑1958,� Middle East Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, Winter 1990, pp. 55‑57. 2. Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA, New York: Knopf, 1979, p. 130. 3. Andrew Cockburn and Patrick Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, New York: Harperperennial. 1999, p. 74; Edith and E. F. Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Boulder: Westview, 1978, p. 288; Hanna Batatu, The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq, Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978, pp. 985‑86. 4. U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Intelligence, 19 Jan. 1976 (Pike Report) in Village Voice, 16 Feb. 1976. The Pike Report attributes the quote only to a �senior official�; William Safire (Safire's Washington, New York: Times Books, 1980, p. 333) identifies the official as Kissinger. 5. UN Doc. # S/11898, session # 1862. For a full list of U.S. vetoes in the Security Council on Middle East issues, along with full text of the draft resolutions, see the compilation by David Paul at http://www.salam.org/policy/veto.html. 6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977-1981 (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), pp. 364-64, 375, 378-79; Gary Sick, All Fall Down: America's Tragic Encounter with Iran (New York: Penguin, 1986), pp. 147-48, 167, 179. 7. Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76. 8. See the sources in Stephen R. Shalom, Imperial Alibis (Boston: South End Press, 1993, chapter 7. 9. Ze'ev Schiff, "Green Light, Lebanon," Foreign Policy, Spring 1983. 10. Robert Fisk, "The Awesome Cruelty of a Doomed Poeple," Independent, 12 Sept. 2001, p. 6. Fisk is one of the most knowledgeable Westerners reporting on Lebanon. 11. UPI, �Afghan Airliner Lands After Rebel Fire Hits It,� NYT, 26 Sept. 1984, p. A9. 12. See, for example, Barton Gellman, "Allied Air War Struck Broadly in Iraq; Officials Acknowledge Strategy Went Beyond Purely Military Targets," Washington Post, 23 June 1991, p. A1. See also Thomas J. Nagy, "The Secret Behind the Sanctions," Progressive, Sept. 2001. 13. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 1. 14. Cockburn and Cockburn, Out of the Ashes: The Resurrection of Saddam Hussein, chap. 5. Albright quote is from CBS News, 60 Minutes, 12 May 1996. 15. On the dubious nature of the evidence, see Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Nov. 1, 1993. 16. See Seymour Hersh, New Yorker, Oct. 12, 1998.

hehe brian, come on, by the very first and last example of US intervention the article gave i could tell the opinion wasnt based on objective facts

"1947-48: U.S. backs Palestine partition plan. Israel established. U.S. declines to press Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return."

EXPELLED??? you knew i wouldnt let that one slide... (insert well written, researched and factually backed paragraph here )

"2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians."

right and Egypt, Jordan, Suadia doesnt use american arms? how about the taliban who used arms sold to the mujahdin by the CIA in the 80's to defeat russia....


agian we know that US involvment in the mid-east is a reason for terrorism but not THE reason, the heart of the matter imo lies within the extremely oppressive culture and religous growings within dictatoriships in some of the arab nations. terrorism should not be a reason for the US to stop involvement in the mid-east, but infact become more involved.

brian? i don't know any brian

as for the point of view of this article, i will admit it is biased.

however, that's irrelvant, whether you want to say that palestinians were expelled, or had no right to be there in the first place, doesn't make much difference. they were there, and now they israel sprang up and it was no longer there land.

anyway.. i don't have time for a well researched paragraph on this either, but i'm just trying to say, look at it however you want, the facts remain.

as for terrorism and arms sales..

i have the same answer for both you and yoepus:

quote:

Yes, but you miss the assertion that the USA sells weapons across the world to many nations (pakistan, philipines, Japan, Indonesia, Taiwan, Columbia, etc..) at the same high levels, yet the tensions created by these sale of arms in those regions don't result in the terrorism we see from the middle east.

I'm sorry, i just don't buy this argument. first off, just because guns are sold all over the world doesn't make it OK. you know i'm a pacifist, and if i had my way, exporting and importing of guns would be illegal in the first place. but let's not bring my ideologies into this.

more importantly the US is not "selling weapons" to israel like they are just any other nation, they are GIVING the weapons to them, in order to sway the battle to their side.

The same way that they supported afghanistan against russia, and iraq against iran. their motivations are not profit, but rather control of the middle east situation, and that is what I take exception too.

whether they drop their own bombs, or merely provide them to other countries doesn't matter, in fact i see the latter as being worse, simply because of the loss of life on both sides. And that is what is pissing off terrorists as well.

quote:

I've proved me statements, it would be kind if you could in turn do the same to yours.

Fine, So be it. I will try to be as brief as possible to address complex issues. I will tell you why the terrorists will win this war.

Wars are almost invariably fought over and decided by economic issues far more than issues of right and wrong. Here are the economic reasons why are closely related to political issues.


Firstly America.

Despite impressions the United States is a country in decline. The glory days of american power are over. Why is this so.

There are any number of economic criteria to show that the United States is in decline in comparison to its rivals, the Europeans, Chinese, Japanese. Which isnt to say those countries dont have serious economic, political problems of there own, but they pale in comparison to the USA.

1)rising levels of poverty. For the large majority of working americans, the 90s boom improved their lives not in the slightest, in fact it made things worse. The lower/middle class manufacturing jobs disappeared and moved to Mexico, China to cut costs. The jobs they obtained to replace the lost manufacturing jobs were jobs on lower pay without benefits. It is important to note that health care in the United States is not a right. Over 40 million americans literally cannot afford to get sick, because their employers do not provide health benefits. Whereas other OECD countries have a sophisticated welfare systems to look after the poor, the United States has a different solution for the poor. Prison.

2) The United States has over 2 million people in prison. This population of prisoners exploded in the nineties. A very large percentage are minorities. They have no jobs, they have no future, they suffer vicious, albeit silent racism, so no wonder they turn to crime. Of course every prisoner costs an enormous amount of money to keep behind bars and they dont pay taxes.

3) a declining tax base. The major corporations shifted their headquarters offshore to avoid paying tax, meaning that the burden of taxation falls more and more on the middle/working class. How did Clinton deal with this. He cut government services, including welfare. The US government also benefited through increased tax receipts during the nineties as a result of the booming economy. So when the economy turns bad what does George W do. The absolute worst thing he could do, he cuts taxes to benefit the rich and dramatically increases spending.

4)So how is this funded. By issuing bonds. Governments pay for their borrowing by issuing debt which can be bought by individuals. They are bought because they are typically more secure than private/corporate debt. Fund managers (the people who run pension plans, managed funds)will typically have a portfolio of assets including stocks, bonds, cash and property. America funds its deficits by selling its bonds to anyone. America was traditionally seen because of its size and its mature and stable economic system as the safest place to invest.

5) People with money are starting to question this assumption. Markets work on presumptions, the downturn in the economic cycle was exacerbated by the collapse of Enron and Worldcom etc, they think well if big succesful american companies can go under, where is my money safe. People will pull there money from a company or country if they think it is insecure. Globalisation allows for the free transfer of capital in an instant. They have largely kept their money in the USA because they havent got better returns on their investment elsewhere.

So what does all that have to do with terrorists then.

Oil. Economic growth is dependant on stable energy prices. A war in the middle east will dramatically increase oil prices. A World Bank report speculated up to $80 per barrel. Because the USA is so dependant on cheap fuel, dramatic increases in the oil price affect economic growth. Note the last two major downturns in the USA happened at the same time that there was a spike in the oil price.

Iraq. Im sure that no-one really believes that there wont be a war in Iraq. The USA wants any pretext to attack IRAQ. Unlike the last war, the USA is going to have to stay there for years. Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi opposition is going to set up a stable multi-party democracy is deluding themselves. Iraq will disintergrate just like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union pulled out.

The wider middle-east. Once Iraq is beaten all bets are off. The stuff they dont tell you on CNN is that most of the regimes in the Middle east are very unstable and it would only take a small trigger to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Just like Israel those countries are constructs from the collapse of empires, the boundaries of those countries are but lines on the map.

So if Iraq is replaced what is the USA going to do when Saudi Arabia or Jordan is run by people who are its sworn enemies. Why the war goes on. All the while Japan, China, Europe focus on their economies getting there own house in order, whilst the USA is preoccupied with wars in the middle east.

So what about Israel then. Israel is heavily dependant on support from the United States. It can only continue its settlement building and occupation with money and weapons from the United States.

The suicide bombings have meant that tourism and foreign investment have evaporated. However the Israeli government needs money to pay for all those F16s, soldiers and bulldozers. So it will have to cut spending on social services and spend the money it would spend on hospitals and welfare on security. The intifada wont end unitl the occupation ends. So money spent on defence just like the USA can only increase. As the years go on, the violence doesnt end, the economy gets worse, the well to do israelis will leave. Just like the afrikaaners in South Africa.

The Israelis will never willingly abandon the settlers, the arabs will not stop until they are gone. A fight to the finish then. And who will win. The arabs. Why? A few million Europeans in a sea of hostile arabs. The only reason Israel has lasted as long as it has given its geographic vulnerability is its superior weaponry, tactics and more importantly arab disunity. The arabs in every war with israel fight amongst each other, allowing the Israelis who are numerically inferior to beat them.

The arabs who want to destroy Israel are united by Islamic fundamentalism. I have read the religious websites from Saudi Arabia with transcripts of the friday prayers, I have read how much they hate Israel and the United States. The average arab who would go to the mosque and hear those sermons would want to kill every israeli, american they lay their hands on. They are only kept in check by their brutal repressive governments. Remove the brutal governments, you remove any check that they hold on the average arab who reveres Osama Bin Laden.

This has been somewhat disjointed and fragmentary but it does summarise why the terrorists will win this war. I can elaborate on any issue of economics if neccessary.

quote:

Originally posted by PeacefulWarrior Perhaps it's the fact that the U.S. has turned an eye on everything Isreal has done, while ignoring all other voices in the Middle East and most of the world.

which is ironic, because the rest of the world turns an eye to the terror the Palastinians have done... The US at least respects Israel's right to defend itself against these barbariands, if it kills a few innocents along the way, it means less suicide bombers in the end... Remember, dead men wont blow themselves up in your disco.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert Fine, So be it. I will try to be as brief as possible to address complex issues. I will tell you why the terrorists will win this war. Wars are almost invariably fought over and decided by economic issues far more than issues of right and wrong. Here are the economic reasons why are closely related to political issues. Firstly America. Despite impressions the United States is a country in decline. The glory days of american power are over. Why is this so. There are any number of economic criteria to show that the United States is in decline in comparison to its rivals, the Europeans, Chinese, Japanese. Which isnt to say those countries dont have serious economic, political problems of there own, but they pale in comparison to the USA. 1)rising levels of poverty. For the large majority of working americans, the 90s boom improved their lives not in the slightest, in fact it made things worse. The lower/middle class manufacturing jobs disappeared and moved to Mexico, China to cut costs. The jobs they obtained to replace the lost manufacturing jobs were jobs on lower pay without benefits. It is important to note that health care in the United States is not a right. Over 40 million americans literally cannot afford to get sick, because their employers do not provide health benefits. Whereas other OECD countries have a sophisticated welfare systems to look after the poor, the United States has a different solution for the poor. Prison. 2) The United States has over 2 million people in prison. This population of prisoners exploded in the nineties. A very large percentage are minorities. They have no jobs, they have no future, they suffer vicious, albeit silent racism, so no wonder they turn to crime. Of course every prisoner costs an enormous amount of money to keep behind bars and they dont pay taxes. 3) a declining tax base. The major corporations shifted their headquarters offshore to avoid paying tax, meaning that the burden of taxation falls more and more on the middle/working class. How did Clinton deal with this. He cut government services, including welfare. The US government also benefited through increased tax receipts during the nineties as a result of the booming economy. So when the economy turns bad what does George W do. The absolute worst thing he could do, he cuts taxes to benefit the rich and dramatically increases spending. 4)So how is this funded. By issuing bonds. Governments pay for their borrowing by issuing debt which can be bought by individuals. They are bought because they are typically more secure than private/corporate debt. Fund managers (the people who run pension plans, managed funds)will typically have a portfolio of assets including stocks, bonds, cash and property. America funds its deficits by selling its bonds to anyone. America was traditionally seen because of its size and its mature and stable economic system as the safest place to invest. 5) People with money are starting to question this assumption. Markets work on presumptions, the downturn in the economic cycle was exacerbated by the collapse of Enron and Worldcom etc, they think well if big succesful american companies can go under, where is my money safe. People will pull there money from a company or country if they think it is insecure. Globalisation allows for the free transfer of capital in an instant. They have largely kept their money in the USA because they havent got better returns on their investment elsewhere. So what does all that have to do with terrorists then. Oil. Economic growth is dependant on stable energy prices. A war in the middle east will dramatically increase oil prices. A World Bank report speculated up to $80 per barrel. Because the USA is so dependant on cheap fuel, dramatic increases in the oil price affect economic growth. Note the last two major downturns in the USA happened at the same time that there was a spike in the oil price. Iraq. Im sure that no-one really believes that there wont be a war in Iraq. The USA wants any pretext to attack IRAQ. Unlike the last war, the USA is going to have to stay there for years. Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi opposition is going to set up a stable multi-party democracy is deluding themselves. Iraq will disintergrate just like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union pulled out. The wider middle-east. Once Iraq is beaten all bets are off. The stuff they dont tell you on CNN is that most of the regimes in the Middle east are very unstable and it would only take a small trigger to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Just like Israel those countries are constructs from the collapse of empires, the boundaries of those countries are but lines on the map. So if Iraq is replaced what is the USA going to do when Saudi Arabia or Jordan is run by people who are its sworn enemies. Why the war goes on. All the while Japan, China, Europe focus on their economies getting there own house in order, whilst the USA is preoccupied with wars in the middle east. So what about Israel then. Israel is heavily dependant on support from the United States. It can only continue its settlement building and occupation with money and weapons from the United States. The suicide bombings have meant that tourism and foreign investment have evaporated. However the Israeli government needs money to pay for all those F16s, soldiers and bulldozers. So it will have to cut spending on social services and spend the money it would spend on hospitals and welfare on security. The intifada wont end unitl the occupation ends. So money spent on defence just like the USA can only increase. As the years go on, the violence doesnt end, the economy gets worse, the well to do israelis will leave. Just like the afrikaaners in South Africa. The Israelis will never willingly abandon the settlers, the arabs will not stop until they are gone. A fight to the finish then. And who will win. The arabs. Why? A few million Europeans in a sea of hostile arabs. The only reason Israel has lasted as long as it has given its geographic vulnerability is its superior weaponry, tactics and more importantly arab disunity. The arabs in every war with israel fight amongst each other, allowing the Israelis who are numerically inferior to beat them. The arabs who want to destroy Israel are united by Islamic fundamentalism. I have read the religious websites from Saudi Arabia with transcripts of the friday prayers, I have read how much they hate Israel and the United States. The average arab who would go to the mosque and hear those sermons would want to kill every israeli, american they lay their hands on. They are only kept in check by their brutal repressive governments. Remove the brutal governments, you remove any check that they hold on the average arab who reveres Osama Bin Laden. This has been somewhat disjointed and fragmentary but it does summarise why the terrorists will win this war. I can elaborate on any issue of economics if neccessary.

yes but there is one wildcard in this scenario : Russia

you choose to ignore Russia, because Russia is a potential alternative source for oil to the US, and Russia has terrorist problems of it's own in Chechyna, which is oil rich. Recently Putin criticized George Bush for his alliances with Saudi Arabia, because even our so-called arab allies are terrorist strongholds. Putin understands this, he has a terrorist stronghold in his backyard. Israel understands this, they have the terrorist problem with all those Palastinians. Misery loves company, so Russia & Israel understand our plight, as does Great Britain who has problems with the IRA, one of the most vile terrorists in the world, and what has the US done to help Britain fight the IRA since 9/11, nothing that I'm aware of.

I wont speculate on who will win the war on terror, it could very well last as long as the Cold war, and involve many, many nations, including North Korea, which we've been hearing a lot about lately in the news. Iran also has this gigantic complex we're worried about.

To win, we need to work a deal & help the Russians develop oil projects, to threaten the arab monopoly/ that will crack the entire arabian gameplan, and we can immediately end all our ties to the middle east and start cracking down on all these terrorist nations without worring about our oil sources being cut off. The Arabs are nothing without their oil, & that should be the principle strategy to win the war on terror.

Now, I think you overexaggerate Russia's role here. True, they do have lot of oil, but most of that oil they use for themselves, so they do not have huge amounts to export, not nearly as much as the middle east. If a war starts, and it seems like Bush the warmonger really wants it to, Russia's oil may only make the crisis milder, but not stop it. The only secure way would be resorting to alternative energy sources, ie. electric/hydrogen/methane... cars and nuclear/solar/wind etc power.

thanks for the excellent post rupert.

If you guys would like to learn more about this stuff, check out this radio program, it's excellent.

http://www.webactive.com/webactive/cspin/cspinarch.html

it deals with a lot of these issues:

RUSSIA

IRAQ WAR PR

IRAQ SANCTIONS

quote:

Originally posted by rupert 1)rising levels of poverty. For the large majority of working americans, the 90s boom improved their lives not in the slightest, in fact it made things worse. The lower/middle class manufacturing jobs disappeared and moved to Mexico, China to cut costs. The jobs they obtained to replace the lost manufacturing jobs were jobs on lower pay without benefits.

if theres one thing i wont stand for is unbacked information supposedly presented as fact. as you can see what you have stated is basicly false, poverty levels havent nessacarly risen. Since 1994 the have steadly DROPPED, and only in the past year have they risen in most part (and in my opinion soley) due to the ressecion.

quote:

It is important to note that health care in the United States is not a right. Over 40 million americans literally cannot afford to get sick, because their employers do not provide health benefits. Whereas other OECD countries have a sophisticated welfare systems to look after the poor, the United States has a different solution for the poor. Prison.

you can not say absolutely that the american health care is not 'right'. thats is your opinion
the citizens of the US have elected presidents and congress-men to represent themselves, seems like americans (selfish as they may be) would rather get their tax money back and pay for their own health services. that is not to say the poor dont get it. anyone and everyone will be admitted to the ER and for less mortal incedents there are public health care facilities avialable (all be it very under-employed)

quote:

3) a declining tax base. The major corporations shifted their headquarters offshore to avoid paying tax, meaning that the burden of taxation falls more and more on the middle/working class. How did Clinton deal with this. He cut government services, including welfare. The US government also benefited through increased tax receipts during the nineties as a result of the booming economy. So when the economy turns bad what does George W do. The absolute worst thing he could do, he cuts taxes to benefit the rich and dramatically increases spending.

if you were to check your books agian on monetary policy, it is the duty of the government to increase taxes during economic growth and decrease taxes during ressecions. what you propose as the absolute worst thing Bush could do was actually the right and smart thing to do.

quote:

4)So how is this funded. By issuing bonds. Governments pay for their borrowing by issuing debt which can be bought by individuals. They are bought because they are typically more secure than private/corporate debt. Fund managers (the people who run pension plans, managed funds)will typically have a portfolio of assets including stocks, bonds, cash and property. America funds its deficits by selling its bonds to anyone. America was traditionally seen because of its size and its mature and stable economic system as the safest place to invest. 5) People with money are starting to question this assumption. Markets work on presumptions, the downturn in the economic cycle was exacerbated by the collapse of Enron and Worldcom etc, they think well if big succesful american companies can go under, where is my money safe. People will pull there money from a company or country if they think it is insecure. Globalisation allows for the free transfer of capital in an instant. They have largely kept their money in the USA because they havent got better returns on their investment elsewhere.

america still is a stable economic system to invest in. Bonds are federally insured to pay the amout that was agreed upon, period, nothing to worry about.
what has really changed in the macro economy scale since bush came in?
in case you havent noticed, basicly the whole world is in an economic slow down. furthermore americas economy has strong effects on other countries economies.
about the investments of course people will naturally go and invest in places that are more secure and yield higher profits, duh. i dont see how this point really applies to terrorism.

quote:

So what does all that have to do with terrorists then. Oil. Economic growth is dependant on stable energy prices. A war in the middle east will dramatically increase oil prices. A World Bank report speculated up to $80 per barrel. Because the USA is so dependant on cheap fuel, dramatic increases in the oil price affect economic growth. Note the last two major downturns in the USA happened at the same time that there was a spike in the oil price.

ahhh, so the point of all this was to get to oil. why didnt you say so, this doesnt have much to do with US issued bonds ...
you say that by going to war in iraq, america will experience a further drop in the economy because of higher oil prices. then why would america be doing this? surely not to have access to free-er oil reserves, and by thus actually decreasing oil prices.... naa cant be

quote:

Unlike the last war, the USA is going to have to stay there for years.

and this is a bad thing? firstly the actual war wouldnt take longer then the first gulf war seeing as iraqs military is far weaker then it has been in past times. but secondly america should stay in the region for years if nessacry to make sure the transitional government gets up on its feets and succeeds in governing its people. first you guys complain that america never stays after its wars and helps out but then you say america shouldnt stay in there to help ensure peaceful life for the natives? afghan is a perfect example of how america is staying involved, years if need be, to make sure the intern government sets up its full authority.

quote:

Anyone who thinks that the Iraqi opposition is going to set up a stable multi-party democracy is deluding themselves. Iraq will disintergrate just like Afghanistan did after the Soviet Union pulled out.

its been i think a year since american involvement in afghan (wow time flies). i dont see Afghan disintergrating, but in fact quite the opposite. i do not belive i am deluding myself by beliving that iraqi opposition will set up a stable multi-party democracy.

quote:

The wider middle-east. Once Iraq is beaten all bets are off. The stuff they dont tell you on CNN is that most of the regimes in the Middle east are very unstable and it would only take a small trigger to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. Just like Israel those countries are constructs from the collapse of empires, the boundaries of those countries are but lines on the map. So if Iraq is replaced what is the USA going to do when Saudi Arabia or Jordan is run by people who are its sworn enemies. Why the war goes on. All the while Japan, China, Europe focus on their economies getting there own house in order, whilst the USA is preoccupied with wars in the middle east.

and this is a bad thing? if those countries are already unstable (as i agree with you whole-heartitly) then i belive now would be a better time to deal with it then later. by delaying it you will only let the pot boil hotter and hotter until sadly it made explode with no reason. setting up a democractic government in the heart of arabia (iraq) might be a wonderful catalyst to bring about freedom and liberty to most the neighbouring countries.

quote:

The intifada wont end unitl the occupation ends.

"the occupation wont end until terrorism ends." which one makes more sense to pursue, obviously mine. israel has proved it is a respectable peace partner and is willing to create a palestinian state and "set it free from occupation". however the palestinians in all these years have never proved they can end terrorism.

quote:

And who will win. The arabs.

i'll bet for the other side

quote:

The arabs in every war with israel fight amongst each other, allowing the Israelis who are numerically inferior to beat them.

this doesnt look like its going to change anytime soon so israel will still hold the edge there

quote:

The arabs who want to destroy Israel are united by Islamic fundamentalism.

its sad that there are those who want to destroy all of israel, isnt it? when all israel wants to do is live in peace on a mere 20,330 sq km, which is about the size of New Jersey, and about half that of switzerland.

quote:

I have read the religious websites from Saudi Arabia with transcripts of the friday prayers, I have read how much they hate Israel and the United States. The average arab who would go to the mosque and hear those sermons would want to kill every israeli, american they lay their hands on. They are only kept in check by their brutal repressive governments. Remove the brutal governments, you remove any check that they hold on the average arab who reveres Osama Bin Laden.

wouldnt it just be easier for these "brutal repressive governments" to just say to the mosques that they are only hurting their own people by spreading propoganda, myths and blatant lies, and god forbid, actually show the populace how peaceful relations with the US and Israel might actually be benifical to them
these governments are part of the problem imo

quote:

if theres one thing i wont stand for is unbacked information supposedly presented as fact. as you can see what you have stated is basicly false, poverty levels havent nessacarly risen. Since 1994 the have steadly DROPPED, and only in the past year have they risen in most part (and in my opinion soley) due to the ressecion.

Well its a good thing I dont make things up then.

Just a cursory search of the internet shows that issues of poverty are hotly debated in the USA. Just looking at the sites below demonstrates that poverty is a matter of definition, if the government says you need to earn above x amount of dollars to be out of poverty, then by definition you are not living in poverty. However if x amount is unrealistic then you are in poverty.

http://www.ameristat.org/Content/Na...tyInAmerica.pdf see pages 6-8 which support what you are saying.

http://www.epionline.org/report_poverty_04-2002.pdf

http://www2.ari.net/home/poverty/mh9523.html

http://www.loga.org/HungerPoverty.html This one has especially useful stats

quote:

you can not say absolutely that the american health care is not 'right'. thats is your opinion

Oh yes I can. As far as I am aware USA is the only OECD country without universal health care. If you are part of the working poor in america who work without benefits you cannot afford to be sick. The USA could easily afford a universal health care system, but the political system blocks it. I'm sure that if working americans had their real choice they would want decent health care and education.

quote:

if you were to check your books agian on monetary policy, it is the duty of the government to increase taxes during economic growth and decrease taxes during ressecions. what you propose as the absolute worst thing Bush could do was actually the right and smart thing to do.

The government has a duty to effectively manage the economy on behalf of not only its current citizens but future citizens.

The Bush tax cuts flow predominantly to the wealthy and this is coupled with dramatic increases in expenditure on worthless products. A missile defence shield which wont work, more stealth bombers, more cruise missiles. How many hospitals could they build with that money. The United States already spends more on weaponry than all its major rivals- COMBINED. And yet the government increases the money spent on defence.

In a recession, traditional conservative policy is to trim taxes to promote spending(without blowing out the budget) and cut government spending on social policies whilst increasing spending on infrastructure/wealth generation projects(roads,dams, bridges etc). The USA cuts taxes whilst dramatically increasing spending.

Something has to give, of course that involves spending on social policies. Money spent on weapons is money wasted

quote:

america still is a stable economic system to invest in. Bonds are federally insured to pay the amout that was agreed upon, period, nothing to worry about.

I wouldnt be so sure. Markets are about perceptions. Worldcom and Enron show that even big corporations can go under. Their is nothing guaranteed about federal bonds. Governments have defaulted on their debt countless times in the past.

The heart of what I was saying is that america is vulnerable because of the way it pays for its debt. A large percentage of american debt is bought by foreigners. A declining tax base caused by declining real wages, tax evasion by major corporations who use tax havens to avoid tax as well as tax cuts means america pays for any war by going into massive debt. Their is no unlimited credit card to spend on weapons. Going into debt now means the future is paying for the bills of today. National debt is between 40-50% of GDP, in Australia its 5%.

You can spend on the credit card now if you think your income tommorrow will increase sufficiently to pay the interest. That just isnt going to happen this decade. No sane economic commentator thinks the growth rates of the 90s are going to be repeated anytime soon. Dont believe me, turn on Bloomberg or CNBC.

This massive debt will be a lag on US economic recovery. Just like the third world countries, money that could be spent on wealth generation will be spent on paying debt.

Currently federal bonds are attractive because of volatility on the equity markets, low interest rates and stagnant activity in Japan and Europe. If their was to be a major fall in the value of the US dollar, the consequences for the US may well be dire, if there were to be a major stampede of investors out of the USA.

quote:

ahhh, so the point of all this was to get to oil. why didnt you say so, this doesnt have much to do with US issued bonds ...

It has everything to do with the bonds. The americans arent going to attack Iraq because of the oil, Iraqi oil itself wont really affect the oil price. War in Iraq is all about teaching the arabs whose top dog. Its all about saying "you fuck with us, we'll do to you what we did to Iraq and Afghanistan." That plus cynical domestic politics, war diverts attention from the state of the economy.

Currently their is a oversupply of oil,were the war in Iraq to be prolonged, dragging other Middle East into the conflict this will force oil prices dramatically upwards, pushing the US economy into deep recession(as well as the rest of the world)

quote:

but secondly america should stay in the region for years if nessacry to make sure the transitional government gets up on its feets and succeeds in governing its people.

Americans are already hated in the Middle East, if you think the arabs are going to want more yanks in the middle east you are sorely mistaken. They will be a hated occupying power, giving ammunition to every arab that thinks america is an anti-muslim imperialist.

quote:

its been i think a year since american involvement in afghan (wow time flies). i dont see Afghan disintergrating, but in fact quite the opposite. i do not belive i am deluding myself by beliving that iraqi opposition will set up a stable multi-party democracy.

I think the jury is out on that one.

quote:

then i belive now would be a better time to deal with it then later. by delaying it you will only let the pot boil hotter and hotter until sadly it made explode with no reason.

Iraq may be the catalyst to create massive upheavel in the middle east. You will probably get your wish sooner rather than later.

I would suspect that a large percentage of arabs yearn for regimes which impose shar'ia law and are willing to take on the Israelis and the americans.

quote:

"the occupation wont end until terrorism ends."

The occupation wont end until the settlers leave.

quote:

this doesnt look like its going to change anytime soon so israel will still hold the edge there

Dont count on it. I saw an Israeli documentary, so you cant say I am biased which interviewed "palestinian terrorists" in Israeli jails. One guy said we are born with one foot in the grave and the other in jail. The highest honour for those people is to die as a martyr in the name of Islam. One guy who was caught before blowing himself up said he felt nothing but shame at letting his people down. September 11 and Jenin changed everything. The arabs now believe they can win and they dont care if they die, in fact many want to die.

Despite everything that Israel throws at them, Hamas grows in popularity and they will never compromise until they win or until they are all dead.

quote:

wouldnt it just be easier for these "brutal repressive governments" to just say to the mosques that they are only hurting their own people by spreading propoganda, myths and blatant lies, and god forbid, actually show the populace how peaceful relations with the US and Israel might actually be benifical to them

No, it wouldnt. If you are a repressive regime you want your peoples attention diverted elsewhere, you want scapegoats that the punters can blame for their problems, Israel and the USA are such easy targets. They represent everything that the average arab hates. Saudia Arabia for example has a leadership which is deeply corrupt and decadent. By supporting religious schools which support extremism and by encouraging religous conservatism, the radical elements in society are less likely to want to overthrow the government.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The government has a duty to effectively manage the economy on behalf of not only its current citizens but future citizens. The Bush tax cuts flow predominantly to the wealthy and this is coupled with dramatic increases in expenditure on worthless products. A missile defence shield which wont work, more stealth bombers, more cruise missiles. How many hospitals could they build with that money. The United States already spends more on weaponry than all its major rivals- COMBINED. And yet the government increases the money spent on defence. In a recession, traditional conservative policy is to trim taxes to promote spending(without blowing out the budget) and cut government spending on social policies whilst increasing spending on infrastructure/wealth generation projects(roads,dams, bridges etc). The USA cuts taxes whilst dramatically increasing spending. Something has to give, of course that involves spending on social policies. Money spent on weapons is money wasted

That's pretty much true, but where conservative policy goes wrong is strictly on who gets the tax cuts. Middle class tax cuts have been well established to benifit the economy more than tax cuts on the rich. Cause the middle class is the spending class for which the corporations have their products purchased. Most economists know this already.

They way Bush is going he'll rack up $300 billion dollar deficits like Reagan did and Perot will run in 2008 bringing up the deficit issue again like he did in 1992. Deficits are a bad thing, esp the interest. The sheer massive interest we pay on that ridiculous $4 trillion debt is pure financial waste. I think we should raise taxes on the rich, since the original tax cuts on the rich helped create this debt in the first place... Hence, the debt was caused by Republicans who strive to pad corporate bank accounts.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The heart of what I was saying is that america is vulnerable because of the way it pays for its debt. A large percentage of american debt is bought by foreigners. A declining tax base caused by declining real wages, tax evasion by major corporations who use tax havens to avoid tax as well as tax cuts means america pays for any war by going into massive debt. Their is no unlimited credit card to spend on weapons. Going into debt now means the future is paying for the bills of today. National debt is between 40-50% of GDP, in Australia its 5%.

yeah the US national debt is ridiculous, but that happens when you merge tax cuts for the rich, increased social spending, & a big military budget like under Reagan. Again, Reagan was a baffoon, he even made secret deals with the Arabs to end alternative energy programs so Arabs could continue their oil monopoly. A real Benidict Arnold that Reagan.

On a different note are their any stats on taxes in the US. I specifically want to know the breakdowns between how much each class pays in income. Like do the richest 1% who control 99% of the wealth pay 99% of the taxes, which is their fair share BTW. I'm interested in those kind of stats.

rupert, i agree to some extent with most you say, i appreciate this time you backing up you points. i dont have much time as i have my last final of the semester looming tomorrow mourning and im supposed to be studying now.

i still hold that cutting taxes is the right thing to do, although true it was directed mostly at the upper class and not the middle class as it should have. BUT i'd like to point out that even if the middle class is the "spending" class, the upper class is the "investing" class, BOTH are nessaccry for economic turnaround. hence the drop in federal intrest rate over the year (its like at 1.5%) - to increase investing (getting more people to loan money and do something with it)

quote:

Originally posted by rupert The occupation wont end until the settlers leave.

near sighted-ness imo. if arabs are living in israel, why cant a few dumb jews (the settlers) live in palestine? settlers are not the issue because just like my last point, israel has proved they can make deals and be respectable partners when dealing with settlements (Sharon himself, as a general, was in charge of bringing back all settlers from sinai when it was given back to egypt after the peace talks, '78 i think, he managed to do so, even with those who brought up resistance agianst the move). the settlement issue is another thing the palestinians use to divert the conflict from the real problem.

quote:

On a different note are their any stats on taxes in the US. I specifically want to know the breakdowns between how much each class pays in income

For basic statistical information in the USA try, I havent looked myself at the Department of the Treasury webpage, The Federal Reserve Bank or the GAO, which controls the federal US budget.

For comparative statistical information on how the USA compares internationally, try any of the usual suspects, the IMF, World Bank, or the OECD.

All of those sites will give you statistical information but if you want analysis maybe this site might help

http://www.taxsites.com/policy.html

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.