Crusaders and Barbaric Mozlems

[Poetess]

Prescient words MAC. To that, up a big elbow and give three cheers.

Will the towelhead Africans of Mog and Khartoum, no stranger to great orgies of slaughter, heed the time-honored lesson from the dar al-Kufr?

Might the dark continent one day soon smell the rich aroma coffee (freshly blended from the capresso fields of Abyssinia), and wake up to the sobering realization that they alone of all the nations of the civilized world are still wont to engage in internecine bloodbaths?

That so primitive a mix of ancient tribal squabbles, and time-worn religious nuttiness is inimical to societal cohesion, and scarcely the basis for an enduring peace?

Will the Mohammads, Ahmeds and Camels cease fighting yesterday's war, and attend to the example of Japan and Germany, yesterday fascist states whom the Great Satan destroyed; casting their swords into ploughshares never to draw them against one another, 50 years on they are the bosom buddies of the US, and their respective economy the envy of the civilized world?

[Padishah]

I don't think the Japanese had a choice. You 'civilised' Americans would have nuked them into non-existence, to 'Save the Troops'. Same for the Germans. You, the vanguard of Democracy, fire-bombed their cities in order to defeat 'Fascism'.

I'm sure if one were faced with genocide by psychotic self-posessed nuke-happy Neanderthals, anyone would submit as well.


However, that is not the point. The examples you provide, Poetess, are quite disingenious. There is no basis for comparison between these two nations, and the Middle-East nations.

The German and Japanese people were able to determine their future before and after American intervention. The German people voted in Hitler, and the Japanese felt it a religious duty to obey the Emperors Government. After the war, both countries were allowed to move towards democracy and determine to make something of their future.

In contrast, the majority of countries in the Middle-East were either ruled from Istanbul and their local representatives, or by Dictator stooges beholden to London or Washington. To top it off, whenever there is moves to democratic reform, like Mossadegh's Iran, or when a long oppressed people democratically elect a party like Hamas, their choices are squashed as the wrong choice, or contrary to American interests.

So really, you neo-Conservatives, however you decide to masquerade as in public, have no leg to stand on. Pointing out successes in Japan and Germany only put your record in the Middle East into stark relief.

[Poetess]

And aren't they the better for it, dearest?

The Japs and Germans today are so buttered up that the yellow peril has the second biggest economy, and the Germans enjoy a standard of living to tempt any Yankee to head for the westernmost Rhine of the Deutschland. What happens when the US picks up the tab for your defense budget.

That's beside the point.

Towelhead savagery aside, how be you Padishah kindred? Hope you're well. Has it been this long since we crossed swords about your BDS, (Bush Derangement Syndrome) ?

[Padishah]

I am quite fine, Poetess. Thankyou for asking.

Now, about this BDR. If you believe, with the record the US has in the Middle East, that American imposed democracy is going to be embraced as the Iraqi's embraced their 'liberation', then you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

[Garvey]

Poetess is molesting these cats...........Lol @ Towelhead savagery.

[Padishah]

Garvey, anyone can throw around such clever little epithets like 'towelhead'. It illustrates rather well the level of intelligence in the person who employs them. Mental shortcuts and all.

[Garvey]

If you have such a low expectation about the person employing such a ,"clever little epithets" as you put it words, then why do you all proceed to have a civilize convo as if anything worthy will come out of her mouth?

Ish make no sense.

[gurey25]

what have we here?

is poetess advocating nuking those troublesome towelheads.

[Poetess]

Padishah dearest, never once have I espoused neoconservatism, not because of its wide use by Muslims as a derogatory epithet expectorated at Republicans whatever their stripe, but owing to the fact I'm not. Were I on board with the neocon program of curtaling civil liberties at home and other grave matters of constitutional paramountcy, I would say so.

Japan has all the wherewithal, both know-how, and the technology to develop nukes at the drop of a hat. That's why the case of North Korea is so alarming, not because of any threat posed by the crumbling state of the Dear Leader who can't feed his own people and whose weaponry doesn't leave 100 feet off the ground before crashing back down, but because of the potential it has to ignite an arms race where a threatened Japan may move to counterweight regional threats.

The crucial point however is this: Wealthy and technologically capable though it is, Japan sees no need for reigniting hatreds of yore with the Great Satan. The Same is true for Germany.

[gurey25]

the difference between Germany ,Japan and the middle east is organization, and legetimacy.

these countries have always been very well organized, thats why they are easy to govern.

thats why they quickly formed governments that were able to run those countries while accepting and embracing subordination to the will of the USA, for thier greater good.


those in the middle east cannot do that becuase first of all every single government is not legitimate, and relies on the gun to maintain its rule.
they are also much more complex and hence disorganized than others.

this is why they cannot adopt policies or programs even if its good for them in the end.

we are atalking about entirely different animals here.

[Padishah]

Its called being a good human, Garvey. I labour in the hope that she will see some semblance of sense, instead of living in a contrived world of her own.

Neo-Conservatism isn't derogatory. With the Israel First mentality, and their use of the 'threat' of 'terrorism' as a convenient casus belli, neo-Conservatives seek to establish a greater and more direct hegemony on the Middle East than they have had for the past 40 years. You fit the bill cleanly.

And the idea that I use the term as a blanket anti-Republican remark flies in the face of my own Libertarian Republican cridentials. Am I also a neo-Conservative, Poetess?

[Poetess]

Harking back to past sins and grievances Padishah dearest, is child's play. Imperial slam invaded much of the world unprovoked, Europe included, but it's not often one meets hot sexy Spaniards seething about the 500 year Islamic occupation, and subsequent closing of Barcelona's vibrant gay scene and topless beaches; we'd all be fiercely bearded and throwing off Shiites from roof tops were it but not for the gallantry of a Polish general at the siege of Vienna.

The mark of civilization is a society that says to those in the business of rousing old hatreds: "up with this we will not put". If China nuked Japan for the latter's centuries-old occupation, and the French nuked Britain for the sins of their Anglosaxon forbearers, the world would be in terrible straits.

Britian with an iron fist governed 1/3 of the world's people only for Her Majesty the Queen to end up having English tea and playing footsie with Gandhi and Mandela as heads of the commonwealth.

Scarcely can one go for a quiet drink at my local bar in New Hampshire but encounter the sight of a rumbunctious group of Japs and rednecks having a whale of a time, necking Bacardi and brandy. There's no better indication the yellow peril is well and truly over.

To paraphrase my own words: might the death-to-the-Great-Satan crowd smell the rich aroma coffee and wake up to the sobering realization that so damned foolish a mix as ancient squabbles, and religious fanaticism is not the basis for an enduring and lasting peace?

[Padishah]

You've got a point.

But as I said, the experiences of Japan and Germany cannot be translated into the Middle East by America simply because America and its Western Allies have contributed heavily the boiling discontent, and nurtured the ideology that seeks to harness such moves in order to further its own hegemonic political aims.

See what I am getting at?

One does not cure a virus with more of the virus.

[qardasay]

The Real Objective Of This War Is Oil

The US led war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region consists in gaining control over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas. The Anglo-American oil giants also seek to gain control over oil and gas pipeline routes out of the region.

Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, possess between 66.2 and 75.9 percent of total oil reserves, depending on the source and methodology of the estimate.

In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves. Western countries including its major oil producers ( Canada, the US, Norway, the UK, Denmark and Australia) control approximately 4 percent of total oil reserves. (In the alternative estimate of the Oil and Gas Journal which includes Canada's oil sands, this percentage would be of the the order of 16.5%.

The largest share of the World's oil reserves lies in a region extending (North) from the tip of Yemen to the Caspian sea basin and (East) from the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to the Persian Gulf. This broader Middle East- Central Asian region, which is the theater of the US-led "war on terrorism" encompasses according to the estimates of World Oil, more than sixty percent of the World's oil reserves. (See table below).

Iraq has five times more oil than the United States.

Muslim countries possess at least 16 times more oil than the Western countries.

The major non-Muslim oil reserve countries are Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, China and Brazil. (See table)

The victims of war crimes are vilified Demonization is applied to an enemy, which possesses three quarters of the world's oil reserves. "Axis of evil", "rogue States", "failed nations", "Islamic terrorists": demonization and vilification are the ideological pillars of America's "war on terror". They serve as a casus belli for waging the battle for oil.

The Battle for Oil requires the demonization of those who possess the oil. The enemy is characterized as evil, with a view to justifying military action including the mass killing of civilians. The Middle East Central Asian region is heavily militarized. (See map). The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".

[qardasay]

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/28792
Will Muslim Nations Control the World Oil Market?
by Hichem Karoui

"Muslim nations" writes J. Hanson " will soon control virtually all of the world's oil exports. Since neither capital nor labor can create energy, the next round of energy-shortage-induced stagflation will leave central bankers helpless and they will seek military solutions to their economic problems. It's the best-kept secret in Washington, Whitehall, Brussels, and Jerusalem, but it's just a matter of time until word hits the street".[7]

The market economy receives almost 80 percent of its energy subsidies from nonrenewable fossil sources : oil, gas, and coal.[8] That makes the struggle for energy a vital issue, not only for the consumers (especially the Westerners) but also for the producers, for who the matter is most of all of political survival. That's where the strategies of the Western states intermingle with the local struggles for power between the elites of the concerned regions, until it becomes hard to distinguish between what is a local necessity and what is a priority dictated by the foreign interests.

Oil is the highest quality energy today used throughout the world, making up about 38% of the world energy supply, according to some estimations.[9] In 1977, Richard Duncan developed a new model to forecast oil production called the "Numerate Empiric Model". In the course of his research, it seems that Duncan discovered what J. Hanson holds as the "best-kept secret", which is that Muslim nations would be able to control market economies because they will control virtually all of the oil export market. Writing to President Clinton and Senator Jessie Helms in the same year, Duncan warned them that if an "alliance of Muslim petroleum exporting nations" could see the day , this alone “could cause World stock markets to fall 50 % in one day, and crucially it could ignite both (1) a World Petroleum War, and (2) a World Holy War (called Jihad by Muslims)”.

Though these sentences are tainted with a highly emotional dramatic tone, it seems that by an irony of the hazard the events gave this apocalyptic vision some weight. Indeed, the Muslim nations did not make any alliance with the clear purpose of striking at the heart of the world economy, as Duncan imagined. Yet, what was the Desert Storm if not a little World Petroleum War caused by the failed attempt of Saddam Hussein to lay his hands on the Kuwaiti oil fields? And if one of the consequences of that war consisted in implanting and broadening the American military presence in the Gulf, what was the reaction of the local opposition (or/and dissidence gathered in the radical jihadist cells) if not starting the World Holy War (jihad) against the Westerners, as Bin Laden put it? But in 1999, when he published his article, J. Hanson could very well draw his own conclusions from the course of the Gulf War that changed a lot in the political vista of the region. Never before that time, the Saudi opposition could catch the ears and the eyes of the grand public, and we can probably say the same of all those small groups of militant jihadists which spread loosely all over the Arab region. It will be 9/11 that brings to the limelight the connection between those who are inside and those who are outside. Nothing will ever be similar after that date.

So, does it really matter if we notice for example, following Hanson's steps, that the Middle East alone has 64 % of the world's proved oil reserves? Yes of course, it does. And this is not just because it is the Middle East. Nobody would care if it were the Caribbean, the northern pole, the Black Sea, or Southern America. The point is that the contemporary Middle East is mainly a region deeply influenced by two trends: religion (Islam) and nationalism. And that makes the difference. Add to that 9 % (i.e., the FSU Muslim republics, 1.7 % ; Muslim African nations, 6.7 % ; Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei, 1%) and the Muslim states would have roughly 73% of the total world's proved oil reserves. Conclusion of Hanson : " By 2010, Muslim nations could control 60 percent of the world's oil production and, more importantly, 95 percent of the world's oil exports. In short, the Muslim exporting nations have Western economies by the throat".[13]