Current events

  • Welcome to the newest version of Trade2Win! We're running on the latest version of, what we consider to be, the best forum software available today. Our aim was to keep things as familiar as possible but focus on improving speed, security and usability. We hope you like the result! Please post your questions, comments, suggestions and feedback in the What's New and Feedback Thread - Sharky.

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,082
2,472
323
#81
ISIS has been targeting Iraq for months for morale purposes...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40191711

"In the past few months, the group has upped its anti-Iran propaganda, and aimed to recruit from the country's Sunni minority community.
Wednesday's attack will therefore significantly boost IS morale"

debunks your US/Saudia Arabia conspiracy theories about the recent Trump visit.
:eek:
Peter

Peter matey, Isis much like Al Qaida is a very useful tool for orchestrating Western policy of destabilization in the ME.

You need to be aware that US is setting the trend in every power player have their own army, private army and terrorist militia. This is how foreign policy is conducted and public opinion is hood winked into going along with policies and wars they wouldn't otherwise.

Isis was born out of freedom fighters attacking Syria. They moved and attacked Iraq, taking over army vehicles and supposedly banks with gold reserves.

So in one case you'll hear Isis and Kurdish fighters fighting each other than in another you'll hear truck loads of oil being sent through militia Kurdish territories with palms greased for sale in Turkey and even Russia.

Coming to that phoney reason for attacking Iran who may have approx 5% Sunni population along with number of other minorities, you'd think for such a clever and elaborate organisation wiht tanks and gold, holding major oil towns, they'd be trying to recruit from countries with lets say 90% Sunni population.

Even on Sky News now analysts are linking attack on Iran with Qatar and Trump visit to Sauidi Arabia and Israel.

To ignore the connection one would have to be numb in the senses. Attacks in Europe and UK are just a smoke screen imo to mould public opinion.


What I don't understand is we have Qatar and Iran who supposedly are supporting terrorism and we have Isis terrorist attacking them. :rolleyes:

Power plays devide and rule.

Once again UK sells two thirds of weapons to the ME. The US even more so.

If and when those countries run out of oil, UK and US arm sales going to need a new market.

Before then some very bad sh1t is going to happen in the region. :(
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#83
There are two assumptions through all this.

Assumption 1, that the west interferes in Middle Eastern affairs for its own benefits.

This cannot be denied. But what's the motive? Why would we interfere in the region and how do we benefit from de-stabilisation and internal conflicts?
Firstly, we prevent powers in the region militarily threatening our strategic interests or our allies. Secondly, we prevent a united initiative by oil-rich states in the region that could hold the world to ransom.

Assumption 2, that everyone would be better off if we stopped interfering in the region. This is harder to verify because its a "what if....?" I'm sure the Middle East's ruling elites would be better off, but its debatable whether the general populations would be. Meantime, we would face the risk of being much worse off.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,082
2,472
323
#84
There are two assumptions through all this.

Assumption 1, that the west interferes in Middle Eastern affairs for its own benefits.

This cannot be denied. But what's the motive? Why would we interfere in the region and how do we benefit from de-stabilisation and internal conflicts?
Firstly, we prevent powers in the region militarily threatening our strategic interests or our allies. Secondly, we prevent a united initiative by oil-rich states in the region that could hold the world to ransom.

Assumption 2, that everyone would be better off if we stopped interfering in the region. This is harder to verify because its a "what if....?" I'm sure the Middle East's ruling elites would be better off, but its debatable whether the general populations would be. Meantime, we would face the risk of being much worse off.
Point 1. If it can not be denied then it no longer is an assumption but a fact :!:

Point 2. Beg to differ with this as I strongly suspect it is the ruling elites who would suffer losing their throne as democracy would be established and people would benefit. Otherwise why do we continue with the tosh - they don't like our freedoms and way of life whilst they all want to come over to live with us?

Somethings just don't add up ;)
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#85
Agree on Point 1.

On No.2, what's the mechanism by which democracies get established in the Middle East simply because the west pulls out? They weren't democracies before we got in there.

PS: Remember that amongst the Arab people, those with stronger democratic rights than average in the region are the Israeli Arabs.
 

dbphoenix

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2003
6,901
1,142
223
#86
There are two assumptions through all this.

Assumption 1, that the west interferes in Middle Eastern affairs for its own benefits.

This cannot be denied. But what's the motive? Why would we interfere in the region and how do we benefit from de-stabilisation and internal conflicts?
For that one has to go back to the beginning, when England, France, and the US chopped up the ME as victors after WWI via Sykes-Picot. Otherwise, none of it makes much if any sense. One could say the same thing about England and Ireland and their long-term conflict. Unless one understands how it all began, it too makes little if any sense.

On No.2, what's the mechanism by which democracies get established in the Middle East simply because the west pulls out? They weren't democracies before we got in there.
The West isn't there to promote democracy. The West is there to protect what it believes are its rights (see above). There's no reason to expect that the ME gives a damn about democracy. It has always been tribal. And misogynistic in the extreme. And while the West may view all of this as primitive, the ME was considerably advanced while some Westerners were still living in caves.

There is no reason other than oil for the West to have interfered in the ME at all. But we can't expect to keep killing them week after week without experiencing some retaliation.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#87
For that one has to go back to the beginning, when England, France, and the US chopped up the ME as victors after WWI via Sykes-Picot. Otherwise, none of it makes much if any sense. One could say the same thing about England and Ireland and their long-term conflict. Unless one understands how it all began, it too makes little if any sense.



The West isn't there to promote democracy. The West is there to protect what it believes are its rights (see above). There's no reason to expect that the ME gives a damn about democracy. It has always been tribal. And misogynistic in the extreme. And while the West may view all of this as primitive, the ME was considerably advanced while some Westerners were still living in caves.

There is no reason other than oil for the West to have interfered in the ME at all. But we can't expect to keep killing them week after week without experiencing some retaliation.

Agreed. We're there because its in our interests to be there and to stay there. I'm sorry for the poor people but interests of our people come above interests of others.

There'll be no democracy generally in the Middle East if we were to pull out because we didn't need to be there any more. And, yes, we didn't go there to bring in democracy. We're not the world's police force. But if we remain involved in the region, some states may move towards democracy, e.g. Turkey, though it seems progress is 3 steps forward 2 back.
 
Aug 21, 2004
8,935
2,242
323
Manchester
#88
Agreed. We're there because its in our interests to be there and to stay there. I'm sorry for the poor people but interests of our people come above interests of others.

There'll be no democracy generally in the Middle East if we were to pull out because we didn't need to be there any more. And, yes, we didn't go there to bring in democracy. We're not the world's police force. But if we remain involved in the region, some states may move towards democracy, e.g. Turkey, though it seems progress is 3 steps forward 2 back.
As long as the EU is advising them, they will be doomed to failure.
 

dbphoenix

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2003
6,901
1,142
223
#89
Agreed. We're there because its in our interests to be there and to stay there. I'm sorry for the poor people but interests of our people come above interests of others.
The West has a propensity for assuming proprietary rights in other countries simply because it is convenient for it to do so. The West may have "interests" in the ME, but so what? What the West believes to be interests is insufficient justification for interference in other nations, much less the level of interference that it has engaged in over the past century. The English, for example, believed that its interests came above the interests of others in India. What did that accomplish? Same goes for every other outpost in the former Empire (ditto the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the Spanish (!), and so forth).

In short, ISIS did not simply "happen".
 

Pat494

Well-known member
Mar 27, 2004
13,025
1,217
223
#90
The West has a propensity for assuming proprietary rights in other countries simply because it is convenient for it to do so. The West may have "interests" in the ME, but so what? What the West believes to be interests is insufficient justification for interference in other nations, much less the level of interference that it has engaged in over the past century. The English, for example, believed that its interests came above the interests of others in India. What did that accomplish? Same goes for every other outpost in the former Empire (ditto the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the Spanish (!), and so forth).

In short, ISIS did not simply "happen".
The local politicians saw their chance for power and wealth after WW2 and they took it. Greed really. The US was waffling on about democracy and the Soviet bloc promoted their interests. Many had dedicated their lives to help in the colonies but had to give way to nationalism. Many of whom then had tin pot dictators.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#91
The West has a propensity for assuming proprietary rights in other countries simply because it is convenient for it to do so. The West may have "interests" in the ME, but so what? What the West believes to be interests is insufficient justification for interference in other nations, much less the level of interference that it has engaged in over the past century. The English, for example, believed that its interests came above the interests of others in India. What did that accomplish? Same goes for every other outpost in the former Empire (ditto the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the Spanish (!), and so forth).

In short, ISIS did not simply "happen".

As long as the west has significant dependency on Middle Eastern oil I expect my government to do what it takes to keep it flowing. The health of our economy is literally a matter of life and death for our people. I wish it wasn't so but it is.
 

dbphoenix

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2003
6,901
1,142
223
#92
As long as the west has significant dependency on Middle Eastern oil I expect my government to do what it takes to keep it flowing. The health of our economy is literally a matter of life and death for our people. I wish it wasn't so but it is.
ME oil does not belong to the West. The West cannot simply barge in and take what it wants without regard for the consequences. That's what white supremacy is all about (see Monroe Doctrine). Of course if one does have regard for the consequences and is willing to accept them, that is at least more adult than the whining about the mean ol' Muslims.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#93
ME oil does not belong to the West. The West cannot simply barge in and take what it wants without regard for the consequences. That's what white supremacy is all about (see Monroe Doctrine). Of course if one does have regard for the consequences and is willing to accept them, that is at least more adult than the whining about the mean ol' Muslims.

We don't need to barge in and take it, its better to keep Middle Eastern powers in the market to sell it to us.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#95
The West has a propensity for assuming proprietary rights in other countries simply because it is convenient for it to do so. The West may have "interests" in the ME, but so what? What the West believes to be interests is insufficient justification for interference in other nations, much less the level of interference that it has engaged in over the past century. The English, for example, believed that its interests came above the interests of others in India. What did that accomplish? Same goes for every other outpost in the former Empire (ditto the Dutch, the Belgians, the French, the Spanish (!), and so forth).

In short, ISIS did not simply "happen".

I think you should be cautious about criticising numerous countries who had historical empires, without once mentioning the US in the same light.
 

tomorton

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2002
6,982
893
173
62
Exeter
#96
We already did barge in and take it, which is the chief reason why we are in the fix we are in.

As I recall, the major oil producers in the Middle East are independent. They remain free to sell oil if they wish, or not, and to sell to who they wish, or not.
 

dbphoenix

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2003
6,901
1,142
223
#98
I think you should be cautious about criticising numerous countries who had historical empires, without once mentioning the US in the same light.
The US is part of "the West". Note my mention of the Monroe Doctrine. In any case, if one's country has made a habit of subjugating other peoples, it doesn't matter how many others have engaged in the same behavior.
 

dbphoenix

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2003
6,901
1,142
223
#99
As I recall, the major oil producers in the Middle East are independent. They remain free to sell oil if they wish, or not, and to sell to who they wish, or not.
There's no need for me to detail a history of the ME and the West's involvement in it when all of that is available online. As I said, if one wants to understand where we are and why, he has to go back to the beginning, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. If he doesn't want to do that, he will base his opinions on hearsay and myth. Which is what most people do. Which is why the situation is so screwed up.
 

Atilla

Well-known member
Nov 15, 2006
18,082
2,472
323
There's no need for me to detail a history of the ME and the West's involvement in it when all of that is available online. As I said, if one wants to understand where we are and why, he has to go back to the beginning, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. If he doesn't want to do that, he will base his opinions on hearsay and myth. Which is what most people do. Which is why the situation is so screwed up.
Very impressive and clinically concise Db.

Your knowledge and comprehension without bias but humane truth of events and history is bang on the nail imho.

It saddens me that people will trumpet injustice murder and theft based on national interest as if it is ones patriotic duty with no regard or empathy on their fellow man.

You are a rare legend. I feel one day I would very much like to meet you. :)