Enough is Enough and you are right

[prometheus]

Like this.

Because it isn't. I just can't bend my mind around it at all how you can call it the worst act of terrorism ever. Do you know how many people have died in wars and atrocities throughout human history?
We already discussed Albright talking about half a million dead Iraqi children thanks to the US embrago, that crippled the population and thus kept Hussain in power.
And then I don't even mention Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Weren't the bombing of cities like Rotterdam, London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki acts of terror? All of them killing many. Now these may be fairly old, but human history goes back a lot furter. Ghenges Khan killed a lot of people considering the limited means of violence they had in his time.
Sudan, Congo, Uganda. But also US supported para-military organisations in South-America.
Then we have quite some genocides that took place the last century, excluding already mentioned Hitler, Mao and Stalin and the others already mentioned; Japan, Namibia, Algeria, Ottoman Empire (Turkey), East-Timor, Rwanda/Burundi, Cambodja, Bosnia, Croatia, Bangladesh, Tibet, 
And if we talk about more recent events. What about atricities in Africa?

All this is either terrorism or worse. I don't see how one can state over and over again that 9/11 was the worst terrorist attack ever.

i know there were people in the world that had hoped to see a larger number of dead, but i cant see how 3000 is a small number, every life is a world, an economy of lives is warped. would it deserve more attention if 20000 died? makes no difference to me.

I am not saying it isn't big enough. Of course not. I don't like it that people die, at all. That is why I am calling against it. I just don't like it to value western lives more than non-western lives, which of course does happen.

Yes, 9/11 was unique. But not because of the number of people that died. The unique thing is that the violence was aimed at the west. Why don't you try and make a list of western countries. Then you ignore the wars between western countries and look at the war fought by western countries against non-western countries. Let's see who does the most damage.

Do realise that the US has never had war on their territory. (Hawai wasn't their territory.) During whole world war II not a single bomb fell on the US mainland, though the Japanese tried. But at the same time Europe was reduced to rubble, so was part of Russia and Japan. Then the US has a long list of invasions in other countries and support  during civil wars in other countries. The war in Korea was not fought on American soil. The war first against South Vietnam and then against North-Vietnam and Cambodja was not fought on American soul. Cuba, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, etc etc. Never is an American city bombed. This is why 9/11 is special and this is why we all care so much about the event.

when a leader of a country who is widely believed to be in the process of aquiring new clear weapons is talking about wiping another country off the face of the earth i think it is in the right of the country he would like to see destroyed to plan for there defense, even be it pre emptive.

Well, yes. But hasn't the US also said that they want a regime chance in Iran. And in N-Korea. If everytime another country threatens another, and they are all armed, a war is justified we would be in perpetual war. For example, JFK said 'the terrors of the earth to Cuba', does that mean Cuba has the right to strike the US pre emptively? Dol you really believe that Cuba had the right to destroy the US?

Of course you don't. And neither do I. What you are doing is that you don't like Iran. But you do like Israel. And then you build a reason for a 'just war'. If you apply your reason universally you get into trouble.  In this particular case, because Ahmadinejad said what he did, you think it wouldn't be unfair for Israel and the US to strike Iran pre emptively. But surely you don't think that everytime a country threatens another it has the right to start a war?

People have been trying to construct a 'just war'-theory for a long time. But no one has been able to do so. It keeps failing when you apply the principle of universality.

[prometheus]

fine, i'll reply to this drival.

yes there are jews that want want those borders, very few, the rest are not so stupid.

Well, colonists are protected by the IDF when they settle in occupied territory. We also had zionists killing jews during the creation of the state of Israel. Now, muslim extremism may be bigger than in other religions, but only at this moment of time. Look at history.

What does believing you're the chosen people do to someone "who is not" it makes no difference to them, the same way it makes no difference to me that some christians say ill go to hell for not believing in jesus. these are questions of belief, people can beleive what they like, as long as it doesnt become imposing and violent.

It is religious extremism and bigotry. If god sends me to hell anyway why would it be bad to kill me?

There is nothing inheretly different between Judaism and its two sects, Christianity and Islam. So how can Islam naturally cause more violence or be more 'evil'? As for culture, European culture is clearly more evil. The arab world just missed out on the enlightenment, but that didn't reduce European violence. On the contrary, we caused two very destructive world wars.

what is that rubbish about potential violence? sorry i dont get that.

It is very important. All entities of power want to use their power. The more means of violence they have the more power they have and the more they can apply it. This means that the more powerful an entity is the more people it kills. The more people it kills the more innocent people it kills. The british empire always used to be the no.1 killer, starter or war and no.1 terrorist. During the cold war it was both USSR and the US. After the cold war it is only the US. Just look at the powerful nations in the world right now. US, Israel, China, etc. They cause mosts of the deaths in the world. Not OBL from a cave, even if he is more 'evil'.

The reason that zealot jews and members of other religions are not allowed to do what they wish is because the rest of the community are sane enough OR DISAGREE ENOUGH

That is not enought. In Israel there is a powerful authority and it has the most powerful army of the middle east. Palestinia doesn't have that. Neither does Lebanon. Even if they are sane enought to disagree, they can't stop extremists. Even Israel has a hard time keeping their extremists in check. And still Israel kill more people. Still they had torture legalised until 1996.

And I don't think that Israeli citizens have to condemn the actions of extremists. That goes naturally. Same for muslims. I already said that I don't understand moderates because they betray both reason and faith. But if they call out against violence, like any other rational being, great.

But, at this point a majority of the Israeli population support the IAF bombing civilian targets. Shouldn't they comdemn this as well?

Im afraid that there has not been enough said by muslims to condemn islamic terrorists, in fact i saw a poll that showed over 20% of englands muslims supported the london bombings and felt them just.

Most people in the west support western violence in the middle east. There are people who believe in 'an eye for an eye' and we should speak against that. That is what I am doing. But I also don't want to be a hypocrit.

as for your other ramblings about why arabs hate america im not wasting my time.

You should, because that is the major point.


As for the Israel-Palestine conflict in general, listen this: https://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

It is by Finkelstein and Ben-ami so it doesn't have any of my 'blabberings'.

[prometheus]

Ooh, I also don't think the critisism of Gilad not trying or whatever is fair. We are having this debate. So for all the people that are agreeing more with me than with him, you can't blame someone for not agreeing with you. while you have a debate.

[jakev2.0]

I really can't follow Prometheus' convoluted and incoherent reasoning. You manage to avoid my points with irrelevant drivel.

[gilad]

prometheus. thank you, i really respect a lot that you don’t take my decision to quit debating this issue as a concession of being wrong and closed to other views. I'm sorry if i got a bit rude with you, it was wrong of me, i felt as though my genuine reason for wanting out, that being TIME, was interpreted as a concession of defeat and/or closed mindedness.
I truly don't think i disagree with you that much, although there are a few pockets of disagreement. I read all your posts and respect your beliefs, hell; i'll even investigate them and explore them. That’s what i do, i never let myself get to comfortable with a belief, and when i find myself becoming to comfortable i challenge it.
Thanks for the all the arguing, I truly enjoyed it, was funJ.

[prometheus]

Jake, your point was largely irrelevant. Almost the whole middle east dispises the US but only a small percentage of them are extremist muslims. As for fundamentalist religion. Bush is one of them. Fundamentalists aren't always extremists. The US has a significant majority of fundamentalist religious people. About 45% of the Americans believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old.


The idea that mainstream muslims hate the west because we are allowed to vote once every four years is ridiculous. The idea that they hate us because our woman are allowed to have a job is ridiculous. The idea that they hate us because we are generally christian, which means we just don't recognise Muhammed as a prophet, while they do accept Jesus as a very important prophet, is ridiculous. The list goes on and on.
They hate the US because it supports Israel and because it keeps arab tyrranies in power. Again, even money muslims, the main target of Al Quada, strongly dislike US foreign policy in the middle-east, which means they agree with OBL. Just after 9/11 even Wall Street journal published this.

The fact that I am not accepting your analysis, which you don't even try to defend, does not mean I don't respond to your points. I have provided a long post with the reason I believe, and many many political and arab world analysts, the people in the arab world hate the US.

I don't see why you can't follow it. I think it is rather that you don't want to accept it.


Yes, this idea is not very well liked in the US because it doesn't suit the US government. I know that even at this moment the US government wants their population to see the Hezbollah-Israel conflict as part of the 'war on terror'. The rest of the world ridicules it, but at the same time they know that the US isolationistic possition combined with their veto in the SC can mean the end of the UN.

[thalbergmad]

About 45% of the Americans believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Wow, that is an amazing statistic.

I wonder if pianistimo does.

I thought it was 6500 years old, according to that man who added up the age of the prophets.

Thal

[prometheus]

Yes, but not every religious fundamentalist believes in the same data. I think this poll used the number 10,000 because it is a nice round number and this number should 'catch' all the religious fundamentalists. Try finding some people that believe the universe is one million years old.

There are scientists who have computed and reasoned it must be quite close to 13,7 billion years. And then you have the biblical creationists that have a number near 6000, 6500, 8000, etc.

[jakev2.0]

Oh goody! You actually responded to something one of us said this time!

Jake, your point was largely irrelevant. Almost the whole middle east dispises the US but only a small percentage of them are extremist muslims. As for fundamentalist religion. Bush is one of them. Fundamentalists aren't always extremists. The US has a significant majority of fundamentalist religious people. About 45% of the Americans believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Right-wing American Christians don't usually go around blowing up atheists. The vast majority of people with those strange notions are wrong, but harmless.  There are no mainstream American movements to erradicate Muslims just because they are Muslim. 

The idea that mainstream muslims hate the west because we are allowed to vote once every four years is ridiculous. The idea that they hate us because our woman are allowed to have a job is ridiculous. The idea that they hate us because we are generally christian, which means we just don't recognise Muhammed as a prophet, while they do accept Jesus as a very important prophet, is ridiculous. The list goes on and on.
They hate the US because it supports Israel and because it keeps arab tyrranies in power. Again, even money muslims, the main target of Al Quada, strongly dislike US foreign policy in the middle-east, which means they agree with OBL. Just after 9/11 even Wall Street journal published this.

Muslim extremists hate us for WHO WE ARE - not what we do. They hate their own miserable, failed societies, and seek to lay the blame on successful Western societies. They can't stand that poor little Israel, with no oil wealth, became a successful society out of their own self-determinism. Their democracy, freedom, and hard-work contrast severely to an Arab tradition of statism, tribalism, and gender apartheid.

This difference in ideology is why Israel produces dozens of Nobel Laureates and Saudi Arabia does not.

This difference in ideology is why Israel's technological advances are revered throughout the world, while the Muslim theocracies ironically import all their technology from the West.

This difference in ideology is why Israeli Jews, Israeli Muslims, and Israeli Christians enjoy a far higher standard of living in Israel than Muslims in their own countries.

This difference in ideology is why Israel and the West is hated.

The fact that I am not accepting your analysis, which you don't even try to defend, does not mean I don't respond to your points. I have provided a long post with the reason I believe, and many many political and arab world analysts, the people in the arab world hate the US.

I just defended my analysis. All I have heard from you is barely coherent rambling.

It doesn't matter what "many political [...] analysts" say. What matters, is what makes sense.

Yes, this idea is not very well liked in the US because it doesn't suit the US government. I know that even at this moment the US government wants their population to see the Hezbollah-Israel conflict as part of the 'war on terror'. The rest of the world ridicules it, but at the same time they know that the US isolationistic possition combined with their veto in the SC can mean the end of the UN.

It is part of the War on Terror. This global war, whose fires were lit in 1979 with Carter's failed attempts at dealing with Iran and the subsequent appeasement on the part of ALL Western nations, exploded on 9/11. London, Madrid, New York, Washington, Beslan, Israel....these are the battlefields. Until the West realizes this, the enemy has the upper hand.

[prometheus]

Oh goody! You actually responded to something one of us said this time!

I didn't say anything new. I was just clarifying what I already said.

Right-wing American Christians don't usually go around blowing up atheists.

There are some who did.

The vast majority of people with those strange notions are wrong, but harmless.

They aren't harmless. They brainwash their children, challenge science, propose absurd morality, And it is the reason why the US has never forced Israel to make peace.

Muslim extremists hate us for WHO WE ARE - not what we do. They hate their own miserable, failed societies, and seek to lay the blame on successful Western societies. They can't stand that poor little Israel, with no oil wealth, became a successful society out of their own self-determinism. Their democracy, freedom, and hard-work contrast severely to an Arab tradition of statism, tribalism, and gender apartheid.

All arab countries have been created by western powers through western military force. They aren't a product of the arabs themselves. Also, the US supports the tyrranies in the middle east. To get democracy, to get the money of their oil, to develop their country, etc etc they need to overthrow these tyrranies. But that means defeating the US.

Do you know how rich the Saud family is? And how they got to power? Do you know what Osama Bin Laden said about the Saud family and US troops in Saudi Arabia before 9/11 happened? Do you know how poor the people in Saudi Arabia are?

Also, Israel has violated international law, ignored SC resolutions and killed a lot of power. Thanks to the west. The west admits this injustice. The US blocked a solution and now the problem is unsolveble.

And if you don't want to believe me, listen to this: https://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml Finkelstein and Ben-Ami don't disagree that much. And Ben-Ami was foreign minister and security minister until March 2001. Maybe then you get some understanding about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Really, some Israeli moderates are getting quite sick because of the blind bibilical views of american jews and pro-zionist conservative christians in the US. At least, this is what Ben-Ami claims.

This difference in ideology is why Israel produces dozens of Nobel Laureates and Saudi Arabia does not.

Haha, Arafat won a Nobel price. Last Nobel peace price winner was Mohamed ElBaradei. In 2003 Shirin Ebadi won it. Also, in 2002 Carter won it. And in 2001 it was Kofi Annan. Now maybe you should take a look at their views on the arab world and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Especially since your high respect for Nobel Laureates.

But do you really think the majority of the people in the arab world hate the US because they can't win a Nobel prize? Come on...

This difference in ideology is why Israel's technological advances are revered throughout the world, while the Muslim theocracies ironically import all their technology from the West.

Which ideology? What is the religious dogma that prevents Islam from making scientific progress that is not found within christianity and judaism? I think all of them oppose science.

And maybe you should take a look at the scientific developments made by arabs before Muhammed and before the industrial age.

This difference in ideology is why Israeli Jews, Israeli Muslims, and Israeli Christians enjoy a far higher standard of living in Israel than Muslims in their own countries.

Israeli muslims? These people have families in the occupied territories and are being treated as second rate citizens. They are only able to bear the fruits of the wealth of Israel. But where does this wealth come from?

This difference in ideology is why Israel and the West is hated.

Maybe it is because Israel is occupying and annexing Palestinian territory.

I just defended my analysis. All I have heard from you is barely coherent rambling.

Ad hominem.

It doesn't matter what "many political [...] analysts" say. What matters, is what makes sense.

No, but there is a difference between political propaganda and honest analysis. I was refering to the latter. Your point does not make sense. Most of the arab people we are talking about know nothing about Nobel prizes. So how can they hate us because of it?

It is part of the War on Terror. This global war, whose fires were lit in 1979 with Carter's failed attempts at dealing with Iran and the subsequent appeasement on the part of ALL Western nations, exploded on 9/11. London, Madrid, New York, Washington, Beslan, Israel....these are the battlefields. Until the West realizes this, the enemy has the upper hand.

I thought the 'war on terror' was started after 9/11. And I thought that was an act of Al Qaeda. Now please tell me what Al Qaeda has to do with Iran? Maybe you should take a look at the views of Al Qaeda concerning Iran.

[BoliverAllmon]

arab nations a result of western military? HHHHMMMMM........explain

boliver

[mephisto]

They can't stand that poor little Israel, with no oil wealth, became a successful society out of their own self-determinism. Their democracy, freedom, and hard-work contrast severely to an Arab tradition of statism, tribalism, and gender apartheid.

Everything Israel does isn't correct. Think about it.

[prometheus]

arab nations a result of western military? HHHHMMMMM........explain

boliver

All countries in the world are created after the western nation-state concept. A concept we came up with after our brutal conflicts. I already said before that Iraq was created by the British to make sure Turkey/Ottoman didnt get the oil. And then Kuwait was created to deny Iraq a sea port. This way Iraq was dependable on others for exporting and they would never be able to get really powerful. Same with India. It was split up into India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, for the same reason. India and Pakistan have a border conflict and as a result both have become nuclear powers. Kashmir is also a religious conflict with both Muslims and Hindu killing each other.

Take a look at Africa. Those borders are sometimes straight lines. In Africa borders run regardless of populations. Different peoples and cultures were split by borders. This resulted into conflict as well.

Remember that the Greeks had city states? That the Roman Empire was the city of Rome ruling over other peoples. That the same goes for the Persian Empire. No, the modern concept of a 'state' is very different from that used in the history books, where all governments are called states. And a nation-state as we see them today is still even more different. A nation is an ethnic group. So a nation state is a political entity that gives sovereign territory to a particular cultural entity.

Obviously, at least half of the nation-states in the world are artificial. We see this in Lebanon, for example. In the west we often forget that many countries in the world aren't nation-states. An example is that Israel destroys the state of Lebanon because of the militia forces of a minority opposes them.

So all these borders were created, imposed, by force and they need to be maintained by force. This goes for the borders in Europe as well. There are very few exceptions. For example one could argue that Japan is a natural nation state. It is the result of the fact that is was isolated from the rest of the world because it is a set of Islands. Iceland is a good example too.

[BoliverAllmon]

who created these borders? I mean I understand what you are saying, but I want more proof. Show me how the west forced the nations into being.

boliver

[jakev2.0]

The Ottoman Turks got punished for siding with the Germans in World War I, and losing to the British.

[lisztisforkids]

Are you on crack? Or maybe you are just stupid? This wouldn`t suprise me, considering your little D on your little "Alkan story".


I think I can smell some apartheid here.

 If you are going to resort to name calling you better at least bring up some facts instead of brownnosing prometheus.

[mephisto]

 If you are going to resort to name calling you better at least bring up some facts instead of brownnosing prometheus.

Do you mean that you think that 0.000000 of American tax money goes to Israel?

I will stop the name-calling, it was imature of me.

[lisztisforkids]

Do you mean that you think that 0.000000 of American tax money goes to Israel?

I will stop the name-calling, it was imature of me.

 I am quite aware of the money that goes to Israel, although I dont know the exact amount, I do know it is in the Billions in aide.

[steve jones]

Muslim extremists want Islamic domination of the West. In other words, they want Israel, the United States, and UK, and Western society  gone. Extremists use the Qur'an to justify the idea of Jihad ('struggle') as a holy war against non-Muslims.  These extremists use extensive propaganda to incite hatred against the West - i.e., broadcasting during Ramadan a series portraying Jews slaughtering Christian children and using their blood to make Matzah. The terrorist acts that we have been seeing across the world are bound by a sick, unified ideology, comparable to Nazism.

THESE ARE INDISBUTABLE FACTS

If you think the terrorist attacks are unrelated, are committed for legitimate grievances you are not worth talking to.

-----
The movie clearly recognizes the REALITY of Islamic Fundamentalism.

Again, a very complex matter. You are quite correct, but your simplification hides a few very relevant points.

Firstly, your average suicide bomber really is little more than a mindless drone. He really cant be help responsible for his actions imo. Its like the IRA (who have bombed us for YEARS) - those guys are rock bottom working class lads who are born and raised in an environment that breeds this kind of hatred. They are just angry young men, but their entire lifes experience directs them to focus their anger on an imaginary enemy... my country!

Same with those Muslim guys. They are just normal 'peasant' types, struggling to stay alive. Some rich prick spends his days finding ways to convince them that all the wrongs in their lives are some how the fault of GW and his great land. Its basically brain washing, and its effective from a VERY early age.

You can condem these people imo.

But that said, we condem killers and sexual offenders whose crimes have resulted from their own abuse, dont we? Some guy gets raped and beaten daily as a kid, and as an adult he is so mentally destroyed that he ends up doing something similar. We send those guys to jail and label them criminals of the worst kind. So why not do the same to these guys in the middle east who are acting as lemmings to a greater evil?

See what I mean when I say its a complex situation?

Heres the only truth...

The rich will always use and abuse the poor. And this is not isolated to black slaves or Muslim sand monkies (lol, can I say that?). It applies to me aswell. My working class ancestors were enslaved in work houses during the 19th century. The same people who were buying black slaves were also getting rich off the elbow grease of my ancestors.

But I dont suicide bomb some rich muppet do I?

Maybe I would if I had been raised under a regime of brain washing and propaganda though?

So who am I to condem someone from taking actions that I myself would probably take if I were I had experienced a similar life?

Very complex situation. We cant make rash judgements about these people. All we need to know is that some powerful, rich group has a beef with some of rich and powerful group (our money people) who are equally as far removed from us.

I might even suggest that I, as a regular working class guy have nothing to do with this dispute. Its between my countries higher ups and their countries higher ups. Maybe the only true justifiable solution is to send the US and UK upper classes in with pen knives to fight with the high Muslim cleriks?

But some how I dont see that happening. After all, how blood is work less than theirs, right?

SJ

[steve jones]

Do you mean that you think that 0.000000 of American tax money goes to Israel?

I will stop the name-calling, it was imature of me.

Its a deeply complex situation you neither you, I or anyone else hear can comprehend.

Ofcourse, the US pump money into their Israeli allience. But what percentage of American is owned by Jews?

Really, this we dont have the information or the experience to debate this matter. Let alone get the arse ache over it.

SJ

[BoliverAllmon]

all this talk about giving money to Israel reminded me about something from Govt. class. Our teacher showed us a poll that was taken. 90+% of Americans think we give too much money in aide (not to any specific country just the total). When asked what percentage of our budget would be good to designate in aide the answer was somewhere around 6%. This is funny because at the time we were giving out only 3%! We give money to both Israel and Egypt. Why? Because we want access to the Suez Canal or whatever it is called. We have also said that if either country begins to fight against each other the money will cease for both sides. Hence, Egypt and Israel are not at each other's throats.

boliver

[prometheus]

Yes. That is how things work. Egypt is an US ally. Israel is a special case. But after Israel, Turkey and Egypt are major receivers of US arms. Turkey committed ethnic cleansing against the Kurds. Egypt is also not a democracy. But no one talks about this. Same with Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, OBL is in Pakistan, the Pakistani government is made up by the military that came to power after a coup in 1999, overthrowing the elected government. Same with Saudi Arabia.


The US position on Israel that has been essentially the same for 50 years, is not supported by the majority of the US population. The US population is more with Europe. But US has voted European plans for peace in the UN SC. In the General Assembly you see votes 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side.


BoliverAllmon, as for the origin of countries. Why don't find out for yourself. Just go to wikipedia and type in the names of the country you want to find out about, then go the the 'history of [xxx]' and see for yourself. Most often you need to look somewhere around 1900 or search for the word 'independence'.

If you don't trust the info wikipedia provides you can easily use google because then you know exactly what keywords to use to verify the wikipedia claims. You can also check the talk-page to see what the objections to the info in the article are.

[lisztisforkids]

Yes. That is how things work. Egypt is an US ally. Israel is a special case. But after Israel, Turkey and Egypt are major receivers of US arms. Turkey committed ethnic cleansing against the Kurds. Egypt is also not a democracy. But no one talks about this. Same with Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, OBL is in Pakistan, the Pakistani government is made up by the military that came to power after a coup in 1999, overthrowing the elected government. Same with Saudi Arabia.

 I find it ironic that my adimistration can call N.Korea and Iran the 'Axis of evil' but yet we are allied to some of the most oprresive Governments...

[BoliverAllmon]

I find it ironic that my adimistration can call N.Korea and Iran the 'Axis of evil' but yet we are allied to some of the most oprresive Governments...

i don't see Israel as more oppressive than N. Korea or Iran.

boliver

[BoliverAllmon]

i see the break up of the Ottoman Empire, but I don't see the borders being drawn for the reasons you mentioned.

boliver

[prometheus]

The axis of evil refers to Germany-Italy alliance of Fascism in WWII. Sometimes Japan is added because they were also in the alliance. But look at the Third Reich and Italy during WWII. They split Europe in half. Thus it was called an axis.

"This Berlin-Rome vertical line is not an obstacle but rather an axis around which can revolve all those European states with a will to collaboration and peace."-Mussolini

There was also a rise of fasism in other countries. Spain, for example. And Vichy France thus it was called the 'spine' around which others could 'collabarate'.

Claiming that there is a similar Iraq-Iran-N-Korea alliance is crazy. Iraq and Iran had a very bloody war, which even saw use of chemical weapons, during 1980-1988.

And then N-Korea. Well, look at a map. N-Korea hasn't really got anything to do with the two. Why was it thrown in? Probably because to try to avoid the idea that the whole idea of the 'axis of evil' was against muslims. And of course N-Korea is easily added because it it totally isolated.

S-Korea and Japan were 'not amused' to say the least that the US added N-Korea to their 'axis', as you can imagine.

It is not that strange that they switched to the use of 'rogue states' instead. Because, as you see Iran-Iraq-NKorea do not have the properties of the original axis at all.

[prometheus]

i see the break up of the Ottoman Empire, but I don't see the borders being drawn for the reasons you mentioned.

boliver

At the end of World War I, the League of Nations granted the area to the United Kingdom as a mandate. It was formed out of three former Ottoman vilayets (regions): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. However, for three out of four centuries of Ottoman Turkish rule, the vilayets of Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra were administered from Baghdad.

Iraq was granted independence in 1932, though the British retained military bases and transit rights for their forces in the country. Iraq was invaded by the United Kingdom in 1941, for fears that the government of Rashid Ali might cut oil supplies to Western nations and because of his strong leanings to Nazi Germany. A military occupation followed, and the occupation ended on October 26, 1947.

The reinstalled Hashemite monarchy lasted until 1958, when it was overthrown through a coup d'etat by the Iraqi army, known as the 14 July Revolution.


Then from the Hashemite article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite

Between 1917 and 1924, after the collapse of Ottoman power, he ruled an independent Hejaz, of which he proclaimed himself king, with the tacit support of the British Foreign Office

From Iraqi kings list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Iraq

After World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the province of Iraq came under the control of the United Kingdom. Despite the efforts of the British, the people rebelled and Iraq showed itself a hard land to govern. In order to restore order, a dynasty of Hashemite kings was established,..

So you see the the League of Nations created Iraq and gave it to the British Empire.


As for Kuwait, it is a bit more complex. These are some expects showing that the British controlled Kuwait:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait#The_Founding_of_Kuwait


Despite the Kuwaiti government's desire to either be independent or under British rule, in the Anglo-Ottoman Convention of 1913, the British concurred with the Ottoman Empire in defining Kuwait as an "autonomous caza" of the Ottoman Empire and that the Shaikhs of Kuwait were not independent leaders, but rather qaimmaqams (provincial sub-governors) of the Ottoman government.

After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and the British invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikhdom under British protectorate."

In May 1920 ibn Saud's Wahhabi Bedouins of Nejd had attacked a Kuwaiti detachment in southern Kuwait, forcing its retreat. In October they raided Jahra, 40km from the capital. In response, the British deployed gunboats, armored cars and aircraft. The Bedouins withdrew.

In response to the various Bedouin raids, the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, imposted the Uqair Protocol of 1922 which defined the boundaries between Iraq and Nejd; and between Kuwait and Nejd.

On April 19, Sir Percy stated that the British government recognized the outer line of the Convention as the border between Iraq and Kuwait. This decision limited Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf at 58km of mostly marshy and swampy coastline. As this would make it difficult for Iraq to become a naval power (the territory did not include any deepwater harbours), the Iraqi King Faisal I (of which the British installed as a puppet king in Iraq) did not agree to the plan, however, as his country was under British mandate, he had little say in the matter. Iraq and Kuwait would formally ratify the border in August. The border was re-recognized in 1927.

By early 1961, the British had withdrawn their special court system, which handled the cases of foreigners resident in Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti Government began to exercise legal jurisdiction under new laws drawn up by an Egyptian jurist. On June 19, 1961, Kuwait became fully independent following an exchange of notes with the United Kingdom.

[arensky]

who created these borders? I mean I understand what you are saying, but I want more proof. Show me how the west forced the nations into being.

boliver

Here. Read these. I was going to try to explain it myself but my wife is coming home after six weeks away on Tuesday and I have some cleaning to do. I wish to avoid my own war breaking out...  

The Ottoman Empire in 1914 controlled the area that now comprises the nation states of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The British controlled Egypt as a "protectorate", and maintained colonies at Bahrain (oil fields) and Aden. No one knew how much petroleum lay beneath the Middle East at the end of WWI in 1918, particularly in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

https://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1124.html

Saudi Arabia, considered a wasteland, was given to the Arabs as they had been promised a nation state for helping defeat the Turks, trained and organized by T.E. Lawrence. That this expanse of sand would become an economic superpower was not envisioned by the French and British when planning the vivisection of the Middle east in 1916.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement

Add to this the Zionist Federation, Jewish nationalists seeking a homeland, with the support of the Rosthchilds, the powerful and influential banking family . This resulted in the Balfour declaration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration%2C_1917

Jews began to settle in the British Palestinian Mandate before WWII, but after WWII was when the pace of immigration really picked up, owing to the displacement of most of the Jews who survived the Holocaust. The rapid decolonialisation by Britain and France (they were out of money and could not maintain their "empires") and the need to settle the Jewish refugees somewhere hastened partition of Palestine into the "Jewish State" and the "Arab State" Here is UN Resolution 181...

https://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253?OpenDocument

Note the intention of the establishment of Jerusalem as a free and independent city under international control, free for all religions, and click on the maps to see the original allotment of territory. All of this well intentioned idealism vanished on May 14th 1948 when Israel was declared independent and immediately attacked by it's neighbors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel/History#After_World_War_II

Read about the 1956 Suez War, the British and French thought they were manipulating the Israelis to attack Egypt and get rid of Nasser but they were the ones with egg on their face at the end, incurring the sharp disaproval of President Eisenhower and nearly rupturing NATO.

Between the two World Wars resistance to British and French "mandates" in Iraq and Syria and in the Egyptian "protectorate" increased to the point that the British had to occupy Syria (Vichy France) and Iraq in 1941 to prevent German paratroops from landing and used tanks and armored cars to surround the palace of Egyptian King Faruq on 2.4/42 to force him to appoint the as Prime Minister the British' choice for Prime Minister, at a time when many Egyptians viewed the nearby Axis armies as potential liberators. (James, "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire", pp.393-394).

That's it for me. Here are more Wikipedia links, they seem reliable, Wikipedia often contains spurious information imo. But you all can click, click around and read. You can and you should. Click on the blue links to follow the "info tree", you will get more information.

Palestine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Iraq

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq

Egypt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypte

Kuwait  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwait

Jordan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan

Syria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria

Lebanon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon

[arensky]

And in the middle of all of this another people without a nation, tragically disenfranchised. The Kurds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan