49 replies to this topic

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 18 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

So the West is a suicidal entity?  We create the seeds of our own destruction?  Works for me I guess.  I don't quite see the humor in it though.

It works for you does it? How?

[Helen of Annoy]

The New Richard Nixon, on 18 January 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Kosovo has not lead to a peaceful outcome, before it came independent, NATO troops were still stationed there.

Maybe I misunderstood that sentence.
Kosovo is already an independent state and NATO intervention made it possible by stopping the war that would result with attempted genocide, like it was in other states attacked by Serbia.
Those who follow the situation know that Serbian government and even more their president still stick to the same aggressive rhetoric, and for as long as that doesn’t change, NATO is more than needed in the neighbourhood.

The war with Russia (mentioned by LV) was out the question, which is clear to anyone who knows about Pristina airport episode, but not to digress too much, what does it all have to do with Mali?

[The New Richard Nixon]

Helen of Annoy, on 18 January 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Maybe I misunderstood that sentence.
Kosovo is already an independent state and NATO intervention made it possible by stopping the war that would result with attempted genocide, like it was in other states attacked by Serbia.
Those who follow the situation know that Serbian government and even more their president still stick to the same aggressive rhetoric, and for as long as that doesn’t change, NATO is more than needed in the neighbourhood.

The war with Russia (mentioned by LV) was out the question, which is clear to anyone who knows about Pristina airport episode, but not to digress too much, what does it all have to do with Mali?

I mean Serbia has not let Kosovo or tried to help Kosovo. For some reason they hate them

[and then]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 January 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

It works for you does it? How?

Mild attempt at sarcasm BRLD.  It just gets tiresome when people repeat the same old same about the West being responsible for all it's own ills - as though no other group on the planet might leave an odor after going potty...   And if they truly believe that then they don't have to raise a finger to try and make their own governments better I guess, so who am I to complain?

[Helen of Annoy]

The New Richard Nixon, on 18 January 2013 - 09:50 PM, said:

I mean Serbia has not let Kosovo or tried to help Kosovo. For some reason they hate them

Of course Serbia won't let Kosovo, it's the corner stone of their myth and the myth is the corner stone of their politics. It would be easier if they had economy or stuff like that, but since only myth remained, with Kosovo goes the credibility of their ethnically clean movement and any hope that Serbia will be reinstalled for the „leading authority in the region“. As I usually say, they'll lead my country only over my dead body.
Of course Serbia won't try to help Kosovo, because the only help Kosovars need is the help to defend themselves from Serbian ethnic cleansing, still very present in their radical dreams, very openly presented for anyone who wants to see and hear it.

A little example:
Ban Ki Moon had to issue formal apology for Vuk Jeremic, Serbian diplomat currently the president of something at UN, bringing a choir to some UN event that merrily sung “Mars na Drinu”, infamous chetnik song used by collaborationist Serbian forces in WWII and while slaughtering Bosnians in the 1990s.
No one bat an eyelid at his provocation, until Bosniak Council formally complained.
It’s too sad to see what childish actions are tolerated to some people... he made UN diplomats clap at fascist song, synonym for literal slaughter to anyone but Jeremic who said it was a message of peace (?!).

In short, with neighbours whose “message of peace” implies genocide, Kosovo needs NATO protection.  

We’re off topic, except that maybe my neighbourhood situation shows that NATO is not evil or into business of wrecking countries. Ex-Yugoslavia wrecked herself, the only real effort to help resolve the mess came from the West, from few NATO members. Not all of them. But that would be too much of a digression, too off topic.

I don’t want to spoil the discussion or something, but this neighbourhood is directly my business so I hope you’ll understand why I’m so nitpicky about it.

[Black Red Devil]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

And Devil you might want to actually do a bit of research into the situation in Mali since a lot of your claims are false. The African Union was going to get involved before France decided to take action. This is not a Western only action. The MNLA is fighting the Islamic rebels not working with them, not anymore. As for those being gullible and naive you might want to look at yourself since you're repeating the lie about who's running Libya. Should all pleas for help from Mali be ignored? Better to let the country burn than to give the impression of Western "imperialism"?

All my claims are false are they?

The MNLA,

Quote

]The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad or the Azawad National Liberation Movement ^[4] (Tamasheq: ⵜⴰⵏⴾⵔⴰ ⵏ ⵜⵓⵎⴰⵙⵜ ⴹ ⴰⵙⵍⴰⵍⵓ ⵏ ⴰⵣⴰⵓⴷ^[5] Tankra n Tumast ḍ Aslalu n Azawd, Arabic: الحركة الوطنية لتحرير أزواد‎, French: Mouvement National pour la Libération de l'Azawad; MNLA), formerly National Movement of Azawad^[6] (French: Mouvement national de l'Azawad; MNA) is a political and military organisation based in Azawad/northern Mali. The movement is made up of Tuareg, and some of them are believed to have previously fought in the Libyan army,^[7] during the 2011 Libyan civil war (though other Tuareg MNLA fighters were also on the side of the National Transitional Council^{[citation needed]}) and returned to Mali after that war.
The movement was founded in October 2011 and had stated^{[citation needed]} that it includes other Saharan peoples. The Malian government has accused the movement of having links to Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.^[8] However, the MNLA deny the claims.

Link

The MNLA have denied the claim so I suppose that's good enough for you isn't it?

Who is claiming Al Queda is running Lybia (not at the moment at least)??  I said that there was no Al Queda in Lybia before when Ghaddafi was in power, now there is.

MNLA fighting Ghaddafi, links to Al Queda, Ghaddafi defeated, Al Queda now in Lybia.  Adds up don't you think?

Don't try to twist arguments to suit your debate and then call others liars.  That's what you call being deceitful.

Also, it's good that the African Union was going to get involved before France.  It should have stayed that way.

I mean, you go sprouting around how some of us are anti-western, conspiracy theorists, liars because we don't believe in the official version and when we see the results of this version we become even more skeptical and yet, I'm still waiting for you to prove us wrong and highlight all these false claims.

We went in Iraq under a false pretense (WMD). Yes?  Your answer.....
There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the west went there.  Yes?  Your answer.....
We left a trail of destruction.  Yes?  Your answer....
We subsidised the Mujadeen (means jihadists in arabic) to fight off the Russians?  Yes?  Your answer....
The Taliban were a splinter group of the Mujadeen. Yes? Your answer....
The ISI and CIA helped build and train the Taliban.  Yes?  Your answer....
We helped resistence overthrow Mubarak.  Yes?  Your answer....
We helped resisitence overthrow Ghaddafi.  Yes?  Your answer....
Now, in both Egypt and Lybia there is radicalisation (respectively MB & Al Queda).  Yes?  Your answer...
In Egypt radicals are in power, we have yet to see things eventuate in Lybia.  Yes?  Your answer...

Let's see where your answers differ from mine.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 18 January 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[Black Red Devil]

and then, on 18 January 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

Mild attempt at sarcasm BRLD.  It just gets tiresome when people repeat the same old same about the West being responsible for all it's own ills - as though no other group on the planet might leave an odor after going potty...   And if they truly believe that then they don't have to raise a finger to try and make their own governments better I guess, so who am I to complain?

The difference is our potty becomes massive diarrhea.

If we must assist the African Union, this article gives an indication on how things should unfold from a western perspective. Get stuck in but don’t get stuck.

Don't take sides with radical factions and groups, just help drive the jihadists into the ground and then hand back the hot potato to the Govt and African Union.

[Corp]

Lord Vetinari, on 18 January 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

come up with an alternative course of action to perpetually having to intervene in other people's civil wars. can you think of one such intervention since, perhaps, Kosovo where it's led to a happy and peaceful outcome? Iraq? is that really stable and peaceful? And even if it is, how long did it take to get to that stage and at what cost? Afghanisatn? er...still waiting ... Libya? Stable and peaceful?

A country is falling to a radical group that doesn't have much widespread support. They are putting in harsh laws and are killing anyone who refuses to go along with them. They're also destroying important historical and cultural sites because it offends them. The government can't get its crap together and seems powerless to stop the rebels. The surrounding governments don't want the rebels to win but can't quickly pull together a response. The government goes to the international community and begs for immediate help. How would you resolve this situation?

I'd love for there to be solutions besides military interventions in these types of situations but sometimes force ends of being the lesser evil.

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 18 January 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

The MNLA have denied the claim so I suppose that's good enough for you isn't it?

No it's not. Thankfully a bit more reading means I don't need to rely on just their word:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Battle_of_Gao

Quote

Who is claiming Al Queda is running Lybia (not at the moment at least)??  I said that there was no Al Queda in Lybia before when Ghaddafi was in power, now there is.

MNLA fighting Ghaddafi, links to Al Queda, Ghaddafi defeated, Al Queda now in Lybia.  Adds up don't you think?

Several members have made the claim that Al Qaeda is running Libya, all evidence to the contrary. And I'm sure Al Qaeda is trying to get themselves involved in any regional conflict or rebellion. Doesn't mean they're calling the shots.

Quote

Don't try to twist arguments to suit your debate and then call others liars.  That's what you call being deceitful.

I'm doing nothing of the kind. And when people claim that Al Qaeda is ruling Libya, when they're not, they're lying. Or at the very least misinformed.

Quote

Also, it's good that the African Union was going to get involved before France.  It should have stayed that way.

I would have much rathered it went that way as well. However the AU force was still months away from deployment and it was an open question on if the government would have been able to hold off that long. Seems the morale of their army is shot to hell. So the French stepped in to try and keep the government afloat, and perhaps recapture some territory, until the AU force could go in.

Quote

I mean, you go splouting around how some of us are anti-western, conspiracy theorists, liars because we don't believe in the official version and when we see the results of this version we become even more skeptical and yet, I'm still waiting for you to prove us wrong and highlight all these false claims.

Some people have honest and reasonable concerns about Western foreign policy and present them in a calm and thoughtful manner. Other comes off as supporting anyone no matter what they do as long as they condemn Western foreign policy. It's the latter group that gets under my skin.

Quote

We went in Iraq under a false pretense (WMD). Yes?  Your answer.....
There was no Al Queda in Iraq before the west went there.  Yes?  Your answer.....
We left a trail of destruction.  Yes?  Your answer....
We subsidised the Mujadeen (means jihadists in arabic) to fight off the Russians?  Yes?  Your answer....
The Taliban were a splinter group of the Mujadeen. Yes? Your answer....
The ISI and CIA helped build and train the Taliban.  Yes?  Your answer....
We helped resistence overthrow Mubarak.  Yes?  Your answer....
We helped resisitence overthrow Ghaddafi.  Yes?  Your answer....
Now, in both Egypt and Lybia there is radicalisation (respectively MB & Al Queda).  Yes?  Your answer...
In Egypt radicals are in power, we have yet to see things eventuate in Lybia.  Yes?  Your answer...

Let's see where your answers differ from mine.

1) Yes
2) Debateable but I'd lean towards yes.
3) Yes, though the various Iraqi factions helped in a huge way.
4) Yes. Soviets were seen as the greater evil at the time.
5) Yes. The country was hardly united in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion.
6) In a way yes but in a way no. The US provided funds for all of the anti-Soviet fighters. They didn't single out the Taliban for special treatment and Pakistan who did most of the training. Plus at the time the Taliban were just one of many militia groups. They didn't start really organizing into the group we know now until later. So while outside powers helped with the training, they did most of the building themselves.
7) No. Mubarak was pushed out by popular protest. The West took no direct action when it came to Egypt aside from political presure.
8) Yes, though the radicalisation is very different. Egypt is moving to be more radical but there's also a far bit of push back which I hope will grow. As for Libya while there are radicals in the country they're in the minority. Radical parties have been banned, the major Islamic party lost the election, and following the death of the US ambassador several Islamic militia were encouraged to peacefully disarm by protesters. At the moment I think Libya is in better shape than Egypt when it comes to radical having a say in things.
9) It appears that radicals are trying to run Egypt, though they seem limited in how far they can go. But then they did win the election. We kind of have a bad track record in messing with election results we don't like. As for Libya it's still a work in progress but what I've heard makes me hopefully. Doesn't look like the Islamics groups are calling the shots, let alone radicals like Al Qaeda.

[ExpandMyMind]

and then, on 18 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

So the West is a suicidal entity?  We create the seeds of our own destruction?  Works for me I guess.  I don't quite see the humor in it though.

Indeed. It sets up a situation that will ensure perpetual war that we cannot in reality lose, endlessly feeding the military industrial complex and building on the much needed public distraction and fear factor.

It's all textbook stuff really.

[and then]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 January 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

Indeed. It sets up a situation that will ensure perpetual war that we cannot in reality lose, endlessly feeding the military industrial complex and building on the much needed public distraction and fear factor.

It's all textbook stuff really.

So you contend that the forces arrayed against the west are phantoms of some kind?  That if we in the western democracies were to stop fighting they would simply disappear and leave us in peace?

[Black Red Devil]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

No it's not. Thankfully a bit more reading means I don't need to rely on just their word:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Battle_of_Gao

So they don't follow the same philosophies. They're not brothers in arms with Al Queda but they have a common goal, to defeat the Malian Govt for their independence.  I suppose beggars aren't choosers.

As also highlighted in my previous "Get stuck in but don't get stuck" link.

Quote

Rebellious tribes such as the Tuareg, whose desire for autonomy the jihadists have exploited, may never be entirely pacified. Diplomacy must thus be applied in an effort to prise the Tuareg away from their alliance with the jihadists. ECOWAS and the African Union could provide mediation, though the UN Security Council may also have to weigh in.

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

Some people have honest and reasonable concerns about Western foreign policy and present them in a calm and thoughtful manner. Other comes off as supporting anyone no matter what they do as long as they condemn Western foreign policy. It's the latter group that gets under my skin.

Don't know what the difference is between the two.  The fact that people have become so skeptical about their western Govts due to all the lies, deceptions, cover ups, denials and double standards is a concern in itself.
All it takes is one lie to create doubt in people's mind, to lose their belief and faith, add to that that it was the biggest lie in living history (the Iraqi invasion and WMD), add to that it caused the death of hundreds of thousands, the world on the brink of a deep financial depression and the creation of an increasing radicalisation and anti-western hatred in Nth Africa and the ME.  All consequences of that one single lie.  And the guy (GW Bush) is still running around healthy and free as ever together with all his cronies (including Blair, Howard etc.).

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 11:49 PM, said:

6) In a way yes but in a way no. The US provided funds for all of the anti-Soviet fighters. They didn't single out the Taliban for special treatment and Pakistan who did most of the training. Plus at the time the Taliban were just one of many militia groups. They didn't start really organizing into the group we know now until later. So while outside powers helped with the training, they did most of the building themselves.
7) No. Mubarak was pushed out by popular protest. The West took no direct action when it came to Egypt aside from political presure.
8) Yes, though the radicalisation is very different. Egypt is moving to be more radical but there's also a far bit of push back which I hope will grow. As for Libya while there are radicals in the country they're in the minority. Radical parties have been banned, the major Islamic party lost the election, and following the death of the US ambassador several Islamic militia were encouraged to peacefully disarm by protesters. At the moment I think Libya is in better shape than Egypt when it comes to radical having a say in things.
9) It appears that radicals are trying to run Egypt, though they seem limited in how far they can go. But then they did win the election. We kind of have a bad track record in messing with election results we don't like. As for Libya it's still a work in progress but what I've heard makes me hopefully. Doesn't look like the Islamics groups are calling the shots, let alone radicals like Al Qaeda.

So, we're basically down to these four "lies".

6) They armed jihadists (mujadeen). They new they were arming radical extremists.  Doesn't matter what they are called now.
7, 8 & 9) This is because you don't understand the politics in the region.  You're just sucking in what the media wants you to believe.  The US abandoned Mubarak.  Obama wanted a new beginning and Mubarak belonged to the past.  The US' biggest ally in the arab world are the Saudi's.  Saudi's are Sunni's. The Saudi's biggest enemy is Iran and it's ally Hezbolah (Iranians/Hezbolah are Shia's.).  Iran's biggest enemy is Israel and the US and obviously the Sunni's.  The MB are Sunni's and are allies with the Saudi's.
See the connections?  Obama just recently gave the MB 450 million US$ and Saudi Arabia have just recently started investing heavily to help them build their declining economy.
Ghaddafi being a true dictator, similar to Saddam Hussein, wasn't going to relinquish his power to a bunch of Islamic extremists he didn't believe in.  With him gone watch this space. Lybians are Sunni's as well.

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 19 January 2013 - 05:35 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

So you contend that the forces arrayed against the west are phantoms of some kind?  That if we in the western democracies were to stop fighting they would simply disappear and leave us in peace?

No, but the forces that are arrayed against the West aren't a cohesive, organised organisation (?) under one leadership, like, for example, the Germans in WWII or indeed the Communists; they're individual, unrelated small groups, or even individuals who are "inspired" by the ideals that what we like to call Al Q represent. (Which is after all one translation of what Al Qaeada means, an idea or inspiration). How could that be defeated by means of Military intervention? Even if we (the West) do succeed in wiping out a local group declaring allegiance to Al Q in our current preferred country of choice in which to intervene, would that make the slightest difference to any of the other countries in which they are, or so we say, involved? Are they likely to be so discouraged they'll just lay down their arms, if they're as insane and fanatical as people like to claim? Even if they are motivated by a fanatical hatred of Christianity, how on earth would an endless series of one intervention after another deter them? Surely it wuld do just the opposite and just perpetually antagonise them even more

[ExpandMyMind]

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

So you contend that the forces arrayed against the west are phantoms of some kind?  That if we in the western democracies were to stop fighting they would simply disappear and leave us in peace?

No, these forces are here to stay now, and definitely not phantoms. What I am saying is that our successive governments have created this problem, both directly and indirectly - both deliberately and by accident - due to our foreign policy in the region.

[Corp]

BlackRedLittleDevil, on 19 January 2013 - 05:35 AM, said:

So they don't follow the same philosophies. They're not brothers in arms with Al Queda but they have a common goal, to defeat the Malian Govt for their independence.  I suppose beggars aren't choosers.

As also highlighted in my previous "Get stuck in but don't get stuck" link.

The point is that they're currently fighting the al Qaeda groups. And I don't want to get stuck in Mali either. But I don't see anything wrong with France stepping up and trying to help.

Quote

Don't know what the difference is between the two.  The fact that people have become so skeptical about their western Govts due to all the lies, deceptions, cover ups, denials and double standards is a concern in itself.
All it takes is one lie to create doubt in people's mind, to lose their belief and faith, add to that that it was the biggest lie in living history (the Iraqi invasion and WMD), add to that it caused the death of hundreds of thousands, the world on the brink of a deep financial depression and the creation of an increasing radicalisation and anti-western hatred in Nth Africa and the ME.  All consequences of that one single lie.  And the guy (GW Bush) is still running around healthy and free as ever together with all his cronies (including Blair, Howard etc.).

There's a huge difference. Being skeptical is fine. Blaming the Western governments for every bad thing that happens in the world is not.

Quote

So, we're basically down to these four "lies".

6) They armed jihadists (mujadeen). They new they were arming radical extremists.  Doesn't matter what they are called now.
7, 8 & 9) This is because you don't understand the politics in the region.  You're just sucking in what the media wants you to believe.  The US abandoned Mubarak.  Obama wanted a new beginning and Mubarak belonged to the past.  The US' biggest ally in the arab world are the Saudi's.  Saudi's are Sunni's. The Saudi's biggest enemy is Iran and it's ally Hezbolah (Iranians/Hezbolah are Shia's.).  Iran's biggest enemy is Israel and the US and obviously the Sunni's.  The MB are Sunni's and are allies with the Saudi's.
See the connections?  Obama just recently gave the MB 450 million US$ and Saudi Arabia have just recently started investing heavily to help them build their declining economy.
Ghaddafi being a true dictator, similar to Saddam Hussein, wasn't going to relinquish his power to a bunch of Islamic extremists he didn't believe in.  With him gone watch this space. Lybians are Sunni's as well.

What they knew was that they were providing weapons to people who wanted to fight the Soviet Union, the big bad at the time. I don't think anyone said 'by the way we're also going to try and kill Americans in the future'. Sadly the whole 'anything is better than commies' was very much the centre of American foreign policy at the time.

So the US saying that the Egyptian government should listen to protesters and not try to attack them was a bad thing in your mind? Should the the US have made a statement urging Mubarak to kill them all? And as bad as the media is they're better than the paranoid blogs are are sometimes used as sources around here. And I do try use other sources such as articles and blogs from the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy holds no water. If the goal was to annoy Iran, gain American allies, and ensure that the Sunnis are running the show in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood then they're doing a crappy job of it. Iraq under Saddam didn't like Iran. The new government has been improving relations with Iran. So if the goal is to isolate Iran, well that failed. Egypt was a fairly solid US ally. Now with the MB in charge they're much more shaky. Getting rid of an ally to put in an unknown is just stupid. And I'm sure that money was giving to the government of Egypt, not solely to the MB. Would you have preferred Obama tell Egypt that they aid was getting cut off until they elect a proper government? Seems they did that with Gaza and everyone condemned them for it. Now they're respecting election choices and they're still getting condemned? So no matter what the US does it's wrong? That's hardly fair. As for Libya the Islamic party lost the election. So there are no Islamic extremists running the country. Plus the events in Egypt and Libya were triggered by the whole Arab Spring movement, something that seemed to surprise everyone. I'm hoping you're not suggesting that the US and Saudis secret created these protests.

Edited by Corp, 19 January 2013 - 04:31 PM.

[Black Red Devil]

Corp, on 19 January 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

The point is that they're currently fighting the al Qaeda groups. And I don't want to get stuck in Mali either. But I don't see anything wrong with France stepping up and trying to help.

There's a huge difference. Being skeptical is fine. Blaming the Western governments for every bad thing that happens in the world is not.

They're fighting with and against. The alliance is there when it suits them (and I'm sure it will in the future).

Corp, on 19 January 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

What they knew was that they were providing weapons to people who wanted to fight the Soviet Union, the big bad at the time. I don't think anyone said 'by the way we're also going to try and kill Americans in the future'. Sadly the whole 'anything is better than commies' was very much the centre of American foreign policy at the time.

You make a clear allegation that some of us are out there to blame western Govts for anything that goes wrong in the world (not true) and when we do provide you with the evidence, you find reasons to justify their actions and on top of it all you're still adamant that people still see, what you call conspiracy theories everywhere and are persistently witch hunting.
You surely are a true believer.  Unfortunately after a couple of lies here and coverups there, I do start becoming skeptical.  Sorry, can't help it.

Corp, on 19 January 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

So the US saying that the Egyptian government should listen to protesters and not try to attack them was a bad thing in your mind? Should the the US have made a statement urging Mubarak to kill them all? And as bad as the media is they're better than the paranoid blogs are are sometimes used as sources around here. And I do try use other sources such as articles and blogs from the region.

The Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy holds no water. If the goal was to annoy Iran, gain American allies, and ensure that the Sunnis are running the show in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood then they're doing a crappy job of it. Iraq under Saddam didn't like Iran. The new government has been improving relations with Iran. So if the goal is to isolate Iran, well that failed. Egypt was a fairly solid US ally. Now with the MB in charge they're much more shaky. Getting rid of an ally to put in an unknown is just stupid. And I'm sure that money was giving to the government of Egypt, not solely to the MB. Would you have preferred Obama tell Egypt that they aid was getting cut off until they elect a proper government? Seems they did that with Gaza and everyone condemned them for it. Now they're respecting election choices and they're still getting condemned? So no matter what the US does it's wrong? That's hardly fair. As for Libya the Islamic party lost the election. So there are no Islamic extremists running the country.

Look, your eyes see what to want to see.  You call it conspiracy, I call it dirty international politics and there is plenty of it which us commoners only know a small percentage of.  Your faithful to the official versions, fine with me.
It's not about gaining more American or western allies it's about control and alliances.  The MB can be controlled by the Saudi's.  Hamas can be controlled by the MB.
Iraq is currently run by a Shia President, Al Maliki.  Under Saddam (a Sunni), Iraq and Iran were mortal enemies (it was all about oil but that's another conspiracy theory), now they're not.  Is it because both are Shia's that they like each other?  Probably yes.  But you can't disregard a fifth of Iraqi Sunni's and another fifth of Kurds.  So, does having a majority Shia Govt satisfy the Saudi's?  Probably not but 3/5's of the population are Shia's.  As long as the Americans have a foothold in the place and it doesn't impact on Saudi oil agreements, that's fine.

Corp, on 19 January 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Plus the events in Egypt and Libya were triggered by the whole Arab Spring movement, something that seemed to surprise everyone. I'm hoping you're not suggesting that the US and Saudis secret created these protests.

We'll never know will we.  What do you put the arab uprise in most ME and NA countries to?  Evolutionary progress, new spiritual awakening?
Considering they've become more radical, I would disregard the two.  So what's driving the up rise, because I'm not sure.

Could it be they way you simply perceive things, that people got sick after decades of thievings and dictatorships, ALL AT ONCE??  Maybe

Edited by BlackRedLittleDevil, 20 January 2013 - 12:52 AM.