quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Again, this soviet bear bullshit ? First of all, the Soviets had oil, so they were never so desparate as to start wars over ME oil.

The US can protect any number of other demo-elected govts. from the soviets without sending in the CIA but oh no, we just had to take down the ME govts. to ensure western oil interests because of the Russian bear ? Bullshit.

History is soaked with wars justified by such imaginary enemies and what they might do.

Hell it wasn't long before Rome as much as told its neighbors that they knew they weren't a threat because Rome was too busy attacking and conquering first.

Only in the mind of a far left useful idiot, was the cold war "nothing"

Have it your way MR, the Soviets werent interested in ME real estate

For the rest of us, there is reality. Any Google search reveals myriad Soviet dealings with ME powers with a mind toward fomenting wars and unrest that they could capitalize upon

From the first random link -

quote:



The Cold War’s Arab Spring: How the Soviets Created Today’s Middle East

Stolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today's Middle East conflicts




The dominant narrative of modern Middle East history emphasizes the depredations visited upon the region by European colonization and accepts as a truism that the former colonial powers prioritized the protection of their material interests—in oil, above all—above the dignity and self-determination of the region’s inhabitants. Thus did botched decolonization result in endless instability. The most intractable of the regional conflicts to which this gave rise, that between the Arabs and Israelis, is attributed in this narrative to Israel’s unwillingness to accede to Palestinian national aspirations. Thus did the region become a breeding ground for radicalism, intensified by Cold War rivalry between the superpowers, who replaced the European colonizers as the region’s meddling overlords. Then came Mikhail Gorbachev—a Westernizing reformer. At last, the Cold War was over. A new world order was at hand.

What if this conventional wisdom is nonsense? Russian exile Pavel Stroilov argues just this in his forthcoming book, Behind the Desert Storm. “Not a word of it is true,” he writes. “It was the Soviet Empire—not the British Empire—that was responsible for the instability in the Middle East.”

Stroilov, a historian now living in London, fled Russia in 2003 after stealing 50,000 top-secret Kremlin documents from the Gorbachev Foundation archives, where he was working as a researcher. He was given access to the archive in 1999, but Gorbachev refused him permission to copy its most significant documents. Having observed the network administrator entering the password into the system, Stroilov reproduced the archive and sent it to secure locations around the world.

Stroilov’s cache includes hundreds of transcripts of discussions between Gorbachev and foreign leaders, politicians, and diplomats. (The originals are still sealed under Kremlin pressure.) There are notes from Politburo and other top decision-making meetings, notes written by Gorbachev’s aides Anatoly Chernyaev and Georgy Shakhnazarov and by Politburo member Vadim Medvedev. None were ever available to independent researchers, although some were published by the Gorbachev Foundation in a heavily censored version. Stroilov also stole the 1972-1986 diary of Anatoly Chernyaev, deputy chief of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union International Department and Gorbachev’s principal aide on international affairs from 1986 to 1991. He stole reports dating from the 1960s by Vadim Zagladin, who was deputy chief of the International Department until 1987 and Gorbachev’s adviser from 1987 to 1991. (Stroilov also draws upon Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky’s vast, stolen collection of documents, as well as the Mitrokhin Archive, a collection of notes taken secretly by the defector Vasili Mitrokhin during his 30 years as a KGB archivist in the foreign intelligence service and the First Chief Directorate.)

Stroilov’s book about these documents, many only now translated into English, challenges the conventional wisdom that Western colonialists are to blame for the chaos in the region. All of its major conflicts, he argues, were caused by Soviet expansionism. Terrorism and the rabid anti-Israeli animus of the Arab world were Soviet inspirations. And the revolutions we are seeing now were inevitable, for the Soviet client states were socialist regimes, and sooner or later socialism exhausts economies and thus the patience of the people who live in them.

Stroilov focuses upon Gorbachev’s intrigues in the Middle East, explaining the Arab Spring as the “final act of the Cold War.” This thesis is overstated—Stroilov is a bit too enamored of his own collection to admit the complexity of these events—but there is nonetheless much in his archives to support this description. The documents clearly suggest that many contemporary conflicts in the Middle East were fomented by the Soviet empire, particularly in the final years before its break-up. And the events he describes have had a significant impact upon the current state of the region—from the conflict in Iraq to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, to the development of a de facto alliance between the European Union and the Arab states. Perhaps most significantly, there is much here to suggest that it is past time to reexamine Gorbachev’s reputation as a reformer and liberalizer. Stroilov’s book suggests that in the Middle East, Gorbachev’s policy was old-school Kremlin imperialism, all the way to the end...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Unmitigated BULLSHIT !! This piece talks of the ME and the Soviets during the cold war and long after...generations after what made up the ME left over after the Ottomans and British empires were ending any re-drawing of any lines.

The whole ME map and geopolitical status que had long been established before the 60's period. And it wasn't the KGB that went in...it was the CIA, in the 50's. So again, we,. only a few years after WWII, as Kant predicted...felt, might was right and never sought to partner with the ME like say eastern or western Europe, we just went in and dictated who was and what was their govt.

Not even a nice try and this guy whoever he is, Stroilov, is just trying to sell books and will bring hos own history or even revise it accordingly.

It's almost equivalent to saying manifest destiny was 'saving the Indians for the Spanish.'

quote:

Soviet Union and the Arab–Israeli conflict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Russia and the Iran–Israel proxy conflict
Israel–Soviet Union relations Map indicating locations of Israel and Soviet Union


Israel
Soviet Union

The Soviet Union played a significant role in the Arab-Israeli conflict as the conflict was a major part of the Cold War. For related developments after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, see Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The official Soviet ideological position on Zionism condemned the movement as akin to bourgeois nationalism. Lenin, claiming to be deeply committed to egalitarian ideals and universality of all humanity, rejected Zionism as a reactionary movement, "bourgeois nationalism", "socially retrogressive", and a backward force that deprecates class divisions among Jews.

For Soviet foreign policy decision-makers, pragmatism took precedence over ideology. Without changing its official anti-Zionist stance, from late 1944, until 1948 and even later, Joseph Stalin adopted a pro-Zionist foreign policy, apparently believing that the new country would be socialist and would accelerate the decline of British influence in the Middle East.[1]

The USSR began to support Zionism at the UN during the 1947 UN Partition Plan debate. It preferred a Jewish-Arab binational state. But if this proved impossible it indicated that it would support partition and a Jewish state. On 14 May 1947, the Soviet ambassador Andrei Gromyko announced:

"As we know, the aspirations of a considerable part of the Jewish people are linked with the problem of Palestine and of its future administration. This fact scarcely requires proof.... During the last war, the Jewish people underwent exceptional sorrow and suffering....
The United Nations cannot and must not regard this situation with indifference, since this would be incompatible with the high principles proclaimed in its Charter....
The fact that no Western European State has been able to ensure the defence of the elementary rights of the Jewish people and to safeguard it against the violence of the fascist executioners explains the aspirations of the Jews to establish their own State. It would be unjust not to take this into consideration and to deny the right of the Jewish people to realize this aspiration." [2]

Shortly after this speech, the Soviet media temporarily stopped publishing anti-Zionist material.[3]

It followed this policy and gave support to the UN plan to partition the British Mandate of Palestine, which led to the founding of the State of Israel.

On May 17, 1948, three days after Israel declared independence, the Soviet Union legally recognized it de jure, becoming the first country to grant de jure recognition to the Jewish state.[4][5] In addition to the diplomatic support, arms from Czechoslovakia, part of the Soviet bloc, were crucial to Israel in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Effects of the Cold War

The USSR soon switched sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. After it tried to maintain a policy of friendship with Israel at first, abstaining from and allowing the passage of Security Council Resolution 95 in September 1951, which chastised Egypt for preventing ships bound for Israeli ports from travelling through the Suez Canal, asking them to cease interference on shipping for political purposes, in the latter part of 1953 it began to side with the Arabs in armistice violation discussions in the Security Council. As late as December, 1953, the Soviets were the first state to instruct their envoy to present his credentials to the President of Israel in Jerusalem, the Israeli annexation of and usage as the capital being controversial. This move was followed by other nations and strongly protested by the Arabs as "flouting" UN resolutions.[6] On January 22, 1954 the Soviets vetoed a Security Council resolution (relating to a Syrian-Israeli water dispute) because of Arab objections for the first time, and soon after vetoed even a mild resolution expressing "grave concern" that Egypt was not living up to Security Council Resolution 95. This elicited Israeli complaints that resolutions recognizing its rights could not pass because of the Soviet veto policy. At the same time, however, the Soviets did support the Israeli demand for direct negotiations with the Arab states, which the Arab states opposed.[7] Like the earlier deal with Israel, a major episode in the Soviet relation to the conflict was the Czech arms deal with Egypt for arms from the Soviet bloc in August 1955. After the mid-50's and throughout the remainder of the Cold War the Soviets unequivocally supported various Arab regimes over Israel.

With Israel emerging as a close Western ally, Zionism raised Communist leadership fears of internal dissent and opposition arising from the substantial segment of party members who were Jewish, leading to the declaration of Zionism as an ideological enemy. During the later parts of the Cold War Soviet Jews were persecuted as possible traitors, Western sympathisers, or a security liability. Jewish organizations were closed down, with the exception of a few token synagogues. These synagogues were then placed under police surveillance, both openly and through the use of informers.

As a result of the persecution, both state-sponsored and unofficial anti-Semitism became deeply ingrained in the society and remained a fact for years: ordinary Soviet Jews were often not being allowed to enter universities or hired to work in certain professions. Many were barred from participation in the government, and had to bear being openly humiliated.

The official position of the Soviet Union and its satellite states and agencies was that Zionism was a tool used by the Jews and Americans for "racist imperialism." The meaning of the term Zionism was defined by the ruling Communist Party of the Soviet Union: "the main posits of modern Zionism are militant chauvinism, racism, anti-Communism and anti-Sovietism... overt and covert fight against freedom movements and the USSR."[8]

Howard Sachar described the allegations of global Jewish conspiracy resurrected during the Soviet "anti-Zionist" campaign in the wake of the Six-Day War:

"In late July 1967, Moscow launched an unprecedented propaganda campaign against Zionism as a "world threat." Defeat was attributed not to tiny Israel alone, but to an "all-powerful international force." ... In its flagrant vulgarity, the new propaganda assault soon achieved Nazi-era characteristics. The Soviet public was saturated with racist canards. Extracts from Trofim Kichko's notorious 1963 volume, Judaism Without Embellishment, were extensively republished in the Soviet media. Yuri Ivanov's Beware: Zionism, a book essentially replicated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, was given nationwide coverage."[9]

A similar picture was drawn by Paul Johnson: the mass media "all over the Soviet Union portrayed the Zionists (i.e. Jews) and Israeli leaders as engaged in a world-wide conspiracy along the lines of the old Protocols of Zion. It was, Sovietskaya Latvia wrote 5 August 1967, an 'international Cosa Nostra with a common centre, common programme and common funds'".[10] The Israeli government was also referred to as a "terrorist regime" which "has raised terror to the level of state politics." Even regarding the Entebbe hostage crisis, Soviet media reported: "Israel committed an act of aggression against Uganda, assaulting the Entebbe airport."[11]

In March 1985 Mikhail Gorbachev became the Secretary General of the CPSU and in April he declared perestroika. It took more than six years before Moscow consented to restore diplomatic relations with Israel on October 19, 1991, just 2 months prior to the collapse of the USSR.
Six-Day War

Although the Soviet Union had adopted a foreign policy of détente, easing of hostility, in the mid 1960s, it played a key role in the instigation of the Six-Day War in Israel. Soviet Union pursued détente because of the need for economic stability in order to create domestic change. Furthermore, as stated in Brezhnev’s foreign policy speech given to the central committee on December 1966, a key goal of Soviet foreign policy was the consolidation the post-World War II borders. Thus, it was believed that the Soviet Union should be cautious in its foreign engagement in an attempt to prevent any political instability from reaching Europe.[12]

In the 1950s the Soviet Union became allies with Egypt and Syria due to the “Anglo-French debacle at Suez, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the use of the Soviet rouble.”[13] Later Egypt and Syria developed a defense treaty, in which if one of them declared war on Israel the other would get involved.[14]

Soviet Relations with Israel had declined since Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. When Levi Eshkol became the Israeli prime minister in 1963, Moscow was nervous, because they weren’t sure what direction Eshkol would take in his foreign policy, specifically Soviet-Israeli relations.[15] Initially things seemed to be going better with representatives from Soviet and Israeli governments meeting in June 1965 and January 1966. However relations soon fell apart. On February 23, 1966 Syria had a military coup, in which the new regime Neo-Ba’ath took a more radical position towards Israel, both in rhetoric and action, supporting Palestinian guerilla activity against Israel.[16] Disagreements about Israel led to the development of tensions in the Soviet-Syrian relationship, eventually leading to the Soviet’s delaying their arms shipments to Syria, and slowing down on the previously promised Euphrates dam loan.[17]

In the 1960s there were numerous clashes between the Syrians and Israelis on the Syria-Israel border. In October 1966 Palestinian guerilla operation against Israel intensified. One of the most serious of these incidents occurred on April 7, 1967 when Israel destroyed seven of Syria’s modern Russian MIG planes.[18] Although the Soviets provided the Syrian army with weapons, they made it clear that they wanted to avoid war.[19] After several more Palestinian guerilla operations, Soviet foreign ministry adopted a “two pronged approach”, demanding that Israel stop its aggressive policy toward the Arab countries and telling Iraq, Jordan and Syria that a warning had been sent out and explaining that the Soviet government disproved of any Chinese involvement in the Middle East and the actions of the Palestinian guerrilla organizations.[20]

As tensions between Israel and Syria increased, Israel felt the threat of force was the only deterrent left.[21] On May 12 the Politburo was told that the IDF had formulated a large-scale attack on Syria and was simply waiting for a good time to begin it.[22] A day later, on May 13, 1967 the Soviet’s gave the Egyptian President, Gamal Abd al-Nasser an intelligence report that claimed there were Israeli troops gathering on the Syrian border.[23] Dmitri Chuvakhin, Soviet ambassador to Israel, refused an Israeli Invitation to visit the border in order to disprove the report.[24] On May 14, Nasser sent his chief of staff, General Mohamed Fawzi to the border to investigate the report, and was told there were no Israeli troop concentrations.[25] Although, Nasser knew that the Soviet report was wrong, he perhaps interpreted it to indicate Soviet support of an Egyptian offensive towards Israel.[26] On May 15, Nasser sent the Egyptian army to Sinai and on May 18, 1967 Nasser requested that the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF) withdraw from Egypt.[27] Furthermore on May 22 he closed the Tiran straits to Israeli ships. The Israeli's interpreted the closing of the straits of Tiran as an act of war, and attacked Egypt on June 5, 1967, destroying hundreds of airplanes.[28] Russia reacted to Israel’s offensive in two ways. Firstly it severed diplomatic relations with Israel and threatened sanctions if fighting with Syria did not cease immediately. Secondly, it told the White House that unless Israel stopped military operations, the Soviet Union would get involved. In the following six days Israel achieved massive victories, until the war ended on June 10, 1967 with a cease-fire.[29]

The role the USSR played in the June 1967 war, between the State of Israel and the surrounding Arab countries, remains fiercely debated. Some scholars have argued that Moscow started the war in order to further its position in the area and increase Arab reliance on Soviet Aid. Expanding on the notion that a key goal of the Soviet Union in the Middle East in the 1960s was to expand its military presence through the procurement of both naval and air bases.[30]

Furthermore the Soviets chose to involve Egypt in the conflict due to the fear that an incident between Syria and Israel would likely lad to Syria’s defeat.[31] Others claim it was due to miscalculations and Soviets lack of control over the Arabs. Another theory was that Moscow was attempting to use the Middle East in order to divert attention from Vietnam.[32] Recently a theory has emerged that claims that the main reason for the Soviet move was to demolish Israel’s nuclear development before it had obtained a working atomic weapon.[33]

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Unmitigated BULLSHIT !! This piece talks of the ME and the Soviets during the cold war and long after...generations after what made up the ME left over after the Ottomans and British empires were ending any re-drawing of any lines.

The whole ME map and geopolitical status que had long been established before the 60's period. And it wasn't the KGB that went in...it was the CIA, in the 50's. So again, we,. only a few years after WWII, as Kant predicted...felt, might was right and never sought to partner with the ME like say eastern or western Europe, we just went in and dictated who was and what was their govt.

Not even a nice try and this guy whoever he is, Stroilov, is just trying to sell books and will bring hos own history or even revise it accordingly.

It's almost equivalent to saying manifest destiny was 'saving the Indians for the Spanish.'

If you want to discuss American Natives start a thread, and stop trying to hijack this one

As I established earlier, The Ottomans declared jihad against the Russians (AND the British and French) around the time of WW I. Russia has always been heavily involved

Despite all of the lies you have learned to repeat to yourself over and over, the ME was a chessboard full of pawns with the US on one side and the Kremlin on the other

Read what the Wiki page has to say about just the USSR and the Arab–Israeli conflict

(Not that any actual facts have a chance of finding fertile soil among all of the firmly entrenched poisonous lies that you keep repeating to yourself)

quote:

Soviet Union and the Arab–Israeli conflict
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Russia and the Iran–Israel proxy conflict
Israel–Soviet Union relations Map indicating locations of Israel and Soviet Union


Israel
Soviet Union

There is a lot more than this available, this isnt even scratching the surface

quote:

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 dealt Middle East rejectionists a crippling blow. For four decades, Moscow supplied "rogue" regimes throughout the region with massive quantities of arms with which to pursue their goals: fighting Israel, sponsoring terrorism, and attacking Western interests. Usually, these weapons were provided on easy credit terms, or even as outright gifts. Political suitability, not economic rationality, was the driving force in Soviet arms sales policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

I hate to say this publicly, but just a while longer and I may have a convert. Hehe

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

I hate to say this publicly, but just a while longer and I may have a convert. Hehe

<shaking my head> You are so fully immersed in the right-wing kool-aid that:

1) You regard any disagreement with the party line, as left-wing propaganda.
2) You would make such a statement

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not true MJ ol pal. I haven't a care in the world what politics a person has. I'm perfectly willing to allow other people to think as they wish. As I've said in the past, I treat people like they treat me and others of my tribe. While I understand my reputation here, if you read what I write, I treat people with respect when they do the same for me. My reputation stems from people who believe they can bully me and don't like my response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not true MJ ol pal. I haven't a care in the world what politics a person has. I'm perfectly willing to allow other people to think as they wish. As I've said in the past, I treat people like they treat me and others of my tribe. While I understand my reputation here, if you read what I write, I treat people with respect when they do the same for me. My reputation stems from people who believe they can bully me and don't like my response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not true MJ ol pal. I haven't a care in the world what politics a person has. I'm perfectly willing to allow other people to think as they wish. As I've said in the past, I treat people like they treat me and others of my tribe. While I understand my reputation here, if you read what I write, I treat people with respect when they do the same for me. My reputation stems from people who believe they can bully me and don't like my response.

First of all, I wasn't referring to how you treat people. Rather, I was referring to how you go out of your way to protect this right wing ideological narrative that has been drilled into you. (This cherry red kool-aid that runs through your veins)

You would rather argue a sub-point that may offend your ideological sensibilities, rather than address the subject at hand. I could say "Pol Pot was a wonderful humanitarian, and he helped Bush get elected in 2004" You would ignore the first part, just in case there was any actual truth to the second part.

You would fight like a rabid dog to disprove the second part, because it makes that kool-aid in your blood boil.


Secondly, not that I care, but you often resort to personal attacks when you run out of relevant facts. You did this with me for quite some time until you realized I was ignoring it. You must have had the word "idiot" in a macro (I saw it so many times). Count how many times I called you an idiot :).


Just an observation :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not true MJ ol pal. I haven't a care in the world what politics a person has. I'm perfectly willing to allow other people to think as they wish. As I've said in the past, I treat people like they treat me and others of my tribe. While I understand my reputation here, if you read what I write, I treat people with respect when they do the same for me. My reputation stems from people who believe they can bully me and don't like my response.

First of all, I wasn't referring to how you treat people. Rather, I was referring to how you go out of your way to protect this right wing ideological narrative that has been drilled into you. (This cherry red kool-aid that runs through your veins)

You would rather argue a sub-point that may offend your ideological sensibilities, rather than address the subject at hand. I could say "Pol Pot was a wonderful humanitarian, and he helped Bush get elected in 2004" You would ignore the first part "Pol-Pot was a wonderful humanitarian", just in case there was any actual truth to the second part "and he helped Bush get elected in 2004"

You would fight like a rabid dog to disprove the second part, because it makes that kool-aid in your blood boil.


Secondly, not that I care, but you often resort to personal attacks when you run out of relevant facts. You did this with me for quite some time until you realized I was ignoring it. You must have had the word "idiot" in a macro (I saw it so many times). Count how many times I called you an idiot :).


Just an observation :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

I hate to say this publicly, but just a while longer and I may have a convert. Hehe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Not true MJ ol pal. I haven't a care in the world what politics a person has. I'm perfectly willing to allow other people to think as they wish. As I've said in the past, I treat people like they treat me and others of my tribe. While I understand my reputation here, if you read what I write, I treat people with respect when they do the same for me. My reputation stems from people who believe they can bully me and don't like my response.

Reputation?

Youre new here kid

You only have a couple of thousand posts

Me, Ive got a reputation... LOL

Fan club from hell

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

My point is that there is no point in rehashing pre WWII middle east geopolitics. Post WWII, the dust had settled and we (the west) moved in with military and industrial hegemony.

Much more important than anything prior to WWI was that by the 50's, the US (the west) made sure that there were NO democratically elected homegrown govts. allowed unless they played ball with us...period.

And if the Islamists had come out of the wars with the upper hand, rather than having lost their bloody Ottoman empire? What do you think the ME would look like today. Rosy? My ass.

Never mind the way leftists try to sweep the Soviets under the rug. In the 1950s we had the Soviets trying to fill the vacuum left by the Ottoman Empire, we did what we had to to keep them from taking the ME by the throat. And if you really believe that we were the bad guys in that theater you are a fool

And , you notice he says there is no point in discussing it because he's posted on it in the past. Lol.

The CS forum is full of these discussions as well as other cyber sources. SO the OP is yet another grasping at straws to find some way, it appears...anyway to now even historically denigrate something called 'cliche leftist idiocy' whatever that is.

It's like starting an OP suggesting manifest destiny ? 'North American land interests...OR the origin of rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery...'the only good indian was...a dead indian.'

Ummm.....

For the MILLIONTH (and a half) time. "Cliche Leftist Idiocy" is Hunter's words, not mine. I had no such agenda as you described. The ONLY reason this thread was started is to avoid derailing another thread. I used Hunter's words so it could be easily identified as a continuation of the previous conversation.

I understand your point. (Yes it is certainly well known of US intervention in other countries to enrich the profits of oil companies and other Republican donors.)

But you are a leftist ideologue, and as a result make sweeping broad statements, that are easily disproven.

If you have facts, state them. But stick to the facts.... "Rightist, greedy, capitalist scummery" actually sounds more ridiculous than "Cliche Leftist Idiocy". (For the Million and Oneth time, NOT MY WORDS)

OK MJ but not only did I not specify but that doesn't change anything. I am hardly a leftist ideologue and in fact quite the opposite.

Was brought up in a conservative repub family in Mich.

As I've written many times, this is not...my father's repub party. I don't much mourn the fate of the repub party especially if it continues to appeal and pander to radicals for whom compromise is a dirty word.

Oh and feel free to 'disprove' anything you can and the quotes are...equally ridiculous.

I apologize then. Some of the statements you make appear to me as far more ideological than factual.

I hate to say this publicly, but just a while longer and I may have a convert. Hehe

No apology necessary. Keeping the discussion on a respectful level, is not insulting. I am perfectly willing to discuss facts. I will also debate ideology. They are two different intellectual pursuits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Yes, agreed, but look at how many times recently lefties have been talking amount themselves recently and offered up the insult, "Well Hunter and Sanity....blah blah blah". And, of course Cloudboy still thinks I'm your sock. Frankly, I had to look that up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
No apology necessary. Keeping the discussion on a respectful level, is not insulting. I am perfectly willing to discuss facts. I will also debate ideology. They are two different intellectual pursuits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Its good to have you around, posting as much as you do

(Goes for Bama, Kirata, DaddySatyr, etc too)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Its good to have you around, posting as much as you do

(Goes for Bama, Kirata, DaddySatyr, etc too)

I second that! (and for Bama, Kirata, DaddySatyr, And DesideriScuri (Hope I spelled that correctly)!


Never "shut up" :)