Fighting Terror with Affluence

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 2, 2004, 4:06 pm

It is clear from our ongoing discussions on the War on Terror that some of our members are not even considering alternative approaches to fighting terror.

Iraq was a wealthy Middle Eastern oil nation. There was a strong middle class presence as recently as 15 years ago. One of the major networks aired a special report several years ago showing how the sanctions have affected the former middle class. There were men and women in their early twenties that were growing up hating America; these people were old enough to remember the times when their parents had nice houses and cars and they had a future with an education in a good university in Iraq or abroad ahead of them. However, all of that was shattered as their country was sanctioned.

It is my opinion that these people would have turned out to be good allies to Western ideas had their livelihood not been ruined so young.

I believe that people grow more offended by crime and terrorism as their wealth increases because they, personally, have more to lose.

It seems to me that conquest by military force breeds generational hatred and collateral resentment that is not present if one invades with Nike, MacDonald's, and Starbucks. The West did not defeat the Soviets in the Cold War with guns or an invading force: the West won with free trade and consumerism. This is our best weapon in the War on Terror; this is the biggest strength of America.

This may be obvious to some of you and permanently unintelligible to others, but I thought that it was worth raising as something that may be often thought but never said during our discussions.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · November 2, 2004, 4:10 pm

Yes. Blame everyone but yourself. Typical.

The sanctions were there because of their governement. If the people were pissed off at how bad their life became, then they should have overthrown Saddam.

Blaming others only turns you further away from the solution within your grasp.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » November 2, 2004, 4:10 pm

The bombs are to clear the way of those old, historical buildings in order to make room for the franchises of which you speak.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » November 2, 2004, 4:13 pm

I believe that is how Iran will eventually be won over. Although the americanization of Iran has been set back because of the Iraq situation, I still believe that McDonalds and Levi Strauss will be our biggest and best weapons against Iran

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » November 2, 2004, 4:20 pm

I agree. The first step is to fatten them up with McDonalds. Then their women will wear Levis....and that will eventually lead them to wear tighter and tighter Levis. At some point, the fattening of the women and the tightening of the Levis will collide with a terrible and destructive camel-toe. This will cause the abundance of camels in the region to rise up and stamp out the darkies for us.

Post by **Sylvus** » November 2, 2004, 4:28 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yes. Blame everyone but yourself. Typical.

The sanctions were there because of their governement. If the people were pissed off at how bad their life became, then they should have overthrown Saddam.

Blaming others only turns you further away from the solution within your grasp.

So your defense to someone's accusation that we (a group to which both you and the original poster belong) could be doing things differently is to tell them not to blame other people. Do you not see the irony in that statement?

Sometimes you boggle my mind.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » November 2, 2004, 4:29 pm

Iran would have been won over by now/was already won over back in the 50's. The US with Brittish help changed Iran from a secular democracy to a monarchy that failed and ultimately led to the theocracy in Iran now. In the late 40s we helped kick the Soviet Union out of post-war Iran, where they had set up an occupation in Northern Iran. All we had to do was continue to support the democratically elected government there and Iran would still be a Western allied secular democracy. Brittian needed oil, we decided to help by overthrowing the Iranian government and poof - a good friend becaume an embittered enemy in less than a decade.

What the US needs to stop doing is playing kingmaker and world policeman. When that stops, hatred of America will stop with it (after a few decades to show that we are serious about not fucking with people). Sanctions had nothing to do with Iraqi hatred of the US, or if it did - it was nothing more than misplaced hatred. It was not the US that put the sanctions in place - it was the UN. Unilateral sanctions are pointless unless you have a monopoly on something vital (no one does - not even the US. OPEC comes the closest to weilding that sort of power, but even they know if Oil becomes too scarce that there are other options), then the only thing unilateral sanctions do (e.g. U.S. refusal to trade with Cuba) is to limit the US economy.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » November 2, 2004, 4:29 pm

I agree. The first step is to fatten them up with McDonalds. Then their women will wear Levis....and that will eventually lead them to wear tighter and tighter Levis. At some point, the fattening of the women and the tightening of the Levis will collide with a terrible and destructive camel-toe. This will cause the abundance of camels in the region to rise up and stamp out the darkies for us.

wtf?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » November 2, 2004, 4:34 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:Iran would have been won over by now/was already won over back in the 50's. The US with Brittish help changed Iran from a secular democracy to a monarchy that failed and ultimately led to the theocracy in Iran now. In the late 40s we helped kick the Soviet Union out of post-war Iran, where they had set up an occupation in Northern Iran. All we had to do was continue to support the democratically elected government there and Iran would still be a Western allied secular democracy. Brittian needed oil, we decided to help by overthrowing the Iranian government and poof - a good friend becaume an embittered enemy in less than a decade.

What the US needs to stop doing is playing kingmaker and world policeman. When that stops, hatred of America will stop with it (after a few decades to show that we are serious about not fucking with people). Sanctions had nothing to do with Iraqi hatred of the US, or if it did - it was nothing more than misplaced hatred. It was not the US that put the sanctions in place - it was the UN. Unilateral sanctions are pointless unless you have a monopoly on something vital (no one does - not even the US. OPEC comes the closest to weilding that sort of power, but even they know if Oil becomes too scarce that there are other options), then the only thing unilateral sanctions do (e.g. U.S. refusal to trade with Cuba) is to limit the US economy.

Your second paragraph is the reason for the failure of your first comments. America tried to impose Western ideas on Iran rather than letting them naturally develop on their own. It did not work at the time, and I find it difficult to believe that it will work now. The first sentence of your second paragraph is also the whole point of this thread. I appreciate your comments, thank you.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » November 3, 2004, 6:42 am

IT's all fucking bullshit. If it wasn't for the oil the middle east would be as big a blip on the western world's radar as, say, central africa. Israel would have colonised most of it cos they wouldn't have had any modern super-power supplied weapons etc.

If the people were pissed off at how bad their life became, then they should have overthrown Saddam

But waiting for them to do so didn't fit with your warlords' timetable did it?