Posted on 11/16/2012 12:03:01 PM PST by SargeK
A top Iraqi diplomat urged Arab states to “use the weapon of oil” against the United States because of its alliance with Israel, raising more questions about the Middle Eastern nation's allegiance to the nation that freed it from a ruthless dictatorship.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It’s amusing to see so many of you now quoting the liberal talking points about President Bush that have been used for the last 4 years in their incessant attack and blame game. Immediately after 9/11 the country was united and almost to a man wanted to go after those who attacked us, and that is exactly what he did. Early on we had little or no intelligence on radical islamic terrorist so we didn’t exactly know the enemy. That was a learning process and took time to gain a clear picture of what we were up against. People were still pissed and on Bush’s side when he defined the axis of terror, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Bush did not have the luck of Obama in seeking out and killing/capturing Osama Bin Laden. If he had had the fortune of achieving that, I honestly think the world would see him in a different light now. I mean during Bush’s presidency interest rates were low, unemployment was low, and deficit spending was a fraction of what Obama has done every year. Bush really didn’t do much wrong. Actually he did most things right. That is why it is amusing to me to see so many conservatives fall onto the liberal talking points and spin that has deluged the news stream over the past 4 years. I’m not buying it. I had rather have Bush 10000 to 1 over Obama, or Carter, or Clinton. He was a decent christian and patriotic president that was all in for our armed forces. It is amazing how quickly people forget.
2. The thing is that Christians now in Lebanon have it better than at any time -- Assad is weaker.
3. The best scenario in my opinion would be for Assad to be too weak to affect Israel or Lebanon and yet strong enough to fight the jihadists.
I don’t disagree with the decision to go into Iraq or Afghanistan. I don’t disagree with the attempt at building a functioning democratic nation state there. Because I know that the alternative is extermination either of them or us.
Regrettably, the answer is now clear and events are beginning to accelerate rapidly. The long, terminal struggle now begins. With the current state of the country and the “leaders” we have in the government and institutions, the outcome is not at all clear to me.
First, lets talk about the thing we agree on -- the French suck :)
I used to be a francophile when I was learning French in high school but then I learnt more about how the French have screwed over christendom ever since Philip the Fair.
They screwed over the knights Templars, who were defenders of Christendom
Then during the 30 years war, France, supposedly Catholic, supported the Calvinists/Lutherans against the Catholic Austrians, just to weaken the Hapsburgs and at the same time courted the Moslem Ottomans
If they hadn't done this, the Austrians would have pushed out the Turks from Europe in the 1690s itself
Then of course Napoleon and 1914, 1939, 1955 etc
And don't forget that Vietnam was triggered by the French not leaving their colonies in time (compare the former colonies of the English to that of the French -- the US, India, Canada, Australi etc. may have a fierce rivalry with England, may even fight it, but they have a grudging respect, or at worst a love-hate relationship -- in contrast nearly all the French colonies detest France)
I think your conclusion there was reasoned.
IMO, there is no acceptable resolution to the Syrian problem, considering what it does in it’s own country, and what it does in others. Would the Muslim Brotherhood be any better? I don’t think so. Invigorated, it could easily be much worse.
What I keep coming back to, is the idea that Assad allowed Iran free supply access to Hezbollah. Hezbollah finally grew strong enough to take over Lebanon’s government. And now it constantly storing arms in Southern Lebanon to do proxy work for Iran and Syria. So Assad can’t be seen as some diminished leader who is no longer a threat. He probably is best of Christians. He may even be best for Israel considering the alternative.
On the order of dumb and dumber, this could be seen as worse and worser.
The rebels in Syria are doing one thing, and that’s taking Assad’s attention off Israel for the moment, although I’ve recently seen some signs of Syrian moves in the Golan Heights area.
The U. N. is worthless in the buffer zones. Israel would never be allowed to do what Hezbollah is doing with the U. N.’s help (essentially).
In conclusion as with the start of my post, I don’t see a better outcome right now than what you touched on, Assad in power weak enough but strong enough.
"Lets say we do become energy independent. What will happen in the Middle East then?...becoming energy independent may be creating unrest.There will always be unrest in the middle east because it is primarily Muslim Islamist except for Israel.
We get less than 50% of our oil from Saudi Arabia
And there is an ever growing global market they can sell to.
We have built many military bases in their country, and have supplied them with a bunch of stuff that they can use to fight their own battles.
Of course they hate that outcome because they are used to sitting around letting their riches take care of them.
We need not be concerned with SA and their problems that may get worse if we become energy sufficient.
The House needs to clamp down on Barark "Bin Ghazi" Obama and his hard line against Oil, Coal and Natural Gas and let the energy flow.
Millions...yes MILLIONS of jobs will be created once the clamp of Marxism is taken off of our ability to produce from our almost unlimited reserves of natural occurring resources.
The EPA needs to be stopped with their phony screaming about the dangers to the environment. They are the cause of more pollution than all the issues they are fighting against.
The whole reason we started getting oil from the middle east was to stabilize the region. Now, in hind sight, Ike screwed that up. But the Soviets were trying to spread in that area and we wanted to stop them.
As a result, we created the problems we now face. Just like the British did a century ago.
I think the best plan would of have been to leave them alone, but that might have not turned out well either.
However, pulling out totally today will create a massive power vacuum. China, Russia, and maybe a few other players will rush in to fill that vacuum. Do we want that?
Not saying that we shouldn’t do it. Just saying there needs to be some high level strategic thought before hand.
With all these forces on the ground, it still took over 2.5 years for the allied forces to bring the war to Berlin. -- well, that's because the punch up from Italy is difficult -- Italy is difficult to conquer (and that's what the Romans also found out, it took them centuries) due to its mountainous nature
On the other hand, once you get east of the Rhine you are on the vast Eurasian flatland that extends all the way to the ural mountains
From the Rhine to the Volga, armies can walk across easily, there are just rivers that slow down armies, not mountains.
That's why this area has been a constant struggle between Germanics, Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Mongols, etc.
Operation Dragoon was the left hook to the right hook Normandy landings
But then breaking out of the French region was halted due to the failure of the invasion of the Netherlands (Operation Market Garden)
The Rur river and the nature of Flanders territory slowed the movement as did the Gothic line along the Italian mountains -- that was how 1944 ended
But by June 1944 the Soviets had taken over Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe (Eastern Poland, etc.) and southern Europe -- Greece, Albania, Yugoslavia --> they were halted by the Finns in the continuation war
With the Eastern front lost, the Germans desperately tried to launch a counter-offensive in the Ardennes in the Battle of the Bulge but failed and at the same time the Soviets pushed through to the Oder and invaded Germany proper
Ok, I'm rambling -- I repeat that the bloodletting on the eastern front is what "broke the back" of the Germans -- but they kept fighting. They lost when they lost nearly a million experienced men on the Eastern Front. They could not recover
But they kept fighting
in a way it was good -- it taught the Germans an everlasting lesson that war is not the way.
Assad is bad, but the alternative is worse....
But then the Vietminh were hte ones who defeated the Japanese in 1945, and then the French just walked in and seized control
So in may ways the communists were the freedom fighter as the non-Communist parties had been decimated by the French -- unlike the Brits who realized that some political freedom can ease tensions (as the Brits did in India with the foundation of the Indian national Congress)...
Thanks for the additional comments Cronos. You touched on some informative points there. I agree.
The U. S. S. R. had it tough. It was touch and go for a while there, and the supplies really did arrive just in time for the U. S. S. R. to regroup and start taking it to the Germans.
I’ve read about the experiences with Russia against Germany, and it’s a tough read.
Thank you for the additional comments here too Cronos. You’ve touched on individual fronts much better than I could. Nice.
That’s my take too, but Assad is very bad.
Thanks. I hadn’t realized the dynamics of the French presence as it related to the Japanese invasion of World War II, and the follow-up.
the Cure of Ars -- thank you for pointing out that information. I found this on wikipedia As parish priest, Vianney realized that the Revolution's aftermath had resulted in religious ignorance, due to the destruction of the Catholic Church in France. At the time, Sundays in rural areas were spent working in the fields, or dancing and drinking in taverns. Vianney was astonished, especially since Sundays were meant to be reserved for religion.
The Old Regime in France was too tied to the Church. Note that in all of the countries where the Church (whether Catholic or Anglican or Calvinist or Lutheran) was tied to the government), in all of those places, the Church has been weakened severely
in contrast in Italy where the Church was strong but seen as an outsider to the government and in Poland where even in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (the largest country in Europe from 1410 until 1634 and one of the largest until its partitions in 1773-1792) was one where Churches were held in importance but was not dominant
In France post the excesses of Louis XIV, the people turned against everything old.
As an aside in 1783 the population of France was 25% of the population of Europe at 24 million people. Italy was another 18 million, but the UK was 7 million, Germany was 18 million, Poland-Lithuania was 8 million, Russia including its Asian parts (which were small at that time) was 12 million, the lowland countries were 8 million
France had this population explosion but did not have any people's rights.
Incidently do note that the first "people's revolution" was in the UK and the slaughter that followed and the rise of a dictator (Oliver Cromwell) who threatened other parts of Europe mirrors the role of Napoleon 150 years later and Stalin 250 years later...
Religion was banned in many places and Churches were converted into "temples to the higher righteousness"
for 20 years Christianity was hit and in many places -- especially the north, it never recovered in France
The Church tried to push back in the 1880s but due to the unforeseen passing of laicite in the early 1900s, the anti-clerical movement reached its peak and that's what we see now in France
In Germany the destruction started with the forced Prussian Union when the elector-King of Prussia (a Calvinist) forcibly made the Calvinists and Lutherans unite and then due to the insurmountable differences, this essentially made the Union Church a branch of the government. Toss in Bismarck's anti-Catholic Kulturkampf and the Germans were ripe for Aryan Christianity -- it was ordered by the government after all...
In the UK, I don't really understand it at all and see no explanation beyond the flower-power generation (but that's also very vague)
Anyway, back to the topic, post the Revolution, the French were signed off religion, forcibly in many cases and religion died off with the killing of religious people etc. It recovered to some extent by the late 1800s and early 1900s, but then WWI and WWII struck and then the 60s and from the 60s onwards we see the massive decline.
I don't know why they didn't realize their own history
They could have imported Christians from Africa and Asia or other parts of Europe if they needed cheap labor
I don't understand it except if I look at it as a result of the secularization of life in France-Germany-the UK.
The Knights Templars were a professional standing Army along with the Knights Hospitallers etc.
The French kingdom until Phillip the Fair (under the senior house of the Capetians) was little more than a cult of personality and with control over only a small part of France -- the Angevin kings controlled the entire western coast until King John's time. diverting -- the Angevin kings in the period 1140 - 1400 built up an impressive set of holdings -- they ruled in England and controlled Scotland, Ireland and Wales, they ruled in Normandy, Gascony, Anjou (the entire Atlantic coast of France), they ruled the house of Aragon and all of eastern Spain, they ruled over Sardinia, Sicily, southern Italy. One branch became king of Hungary and of Poland and his daughter, Jadwiga married Duke Jagiełło of Lithuania to form the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth
Philip the Fair created a bureaucracy and combatted this. He created much of the "idee France" but he needed money to do this -- and the Templars had this. In the end it was a sordid affair to get money and he destroyed the finest standing army in Europe to get it
The curse put upon his house also held and after him, the senior line of the Capetians died out....
The best European conquerors were the Russians,Portuguese, Brits and Spanish in that order -- even those who hated them like the Irish or Indians -- grudgingly took some of their standards as their own (* in Russia's case, note that this is actually the empire of Muscowy and it conquered the Finnic lands to the north and conquered the other Rus lands to the south and west and then conquered Kazan, Astrakhan, Crimea from the Tartars - or as some say assimilated with the Tartars and then conquered the native peoples of Siberia -- they still rule their empire)
The French were mediocre and the worst were the Dutch and Belgians -- their former colonies hate them for the utter rape of these lands
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.