Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
etech-
Why do you consider Saddam so great a threat? Non state run media? You have priorities that are based on information provided by a media biased towards american culture and perspectives. You are a product of where you live. They are the same in that respect. People there have a different sense of things than people here, which is natural, unless one considers everyone to be American wannabees.
I know a few Arabs, and have talked to them. Having a non Muslim country forced in their midst by powers who time and again show their propensity to invade and manipulate is a big issue to them. You are not required to agree with them. They do not care if you do or not. To them their perspective is as valuable and rational as yours is to you. Their leaders do not sit in coffee shops telling them how think. This is a cultural as well as political issue. Again you do not have to agree, but that is how they feel, and they are as likely to say they are as brainwashed by their leaders as you are by Bush. These people are not simple idiots, but do live in a world very different than you.
Hays, do you consider the media in the US to be run or controlled by the State? Is the media in many ME countries if not run by the State, censored in what it says by the State?
I agree that culture also plays a role in the different perceptions of events. Take for example your statement that the US has shown a propensity to invade. Just how many countries has the US invaded in the last ten years? How many of those countries does the US still occupy? Does the perception agree with the reality?
Regarding the media, it is true it is state run, but it still reflects an attitude present in the area. Also, people are not limited to state media. A great many have listened to short wave radio for decades, and now have satellite TV. Consider too that if the media was effective, then Arabs would be behind this war. After all, most goverments have given their support, they are coalition members you know. It is true that keeping Israel in front of the people works to the advantage of governments there, however in this case, given full context, the media is reflective, not causitive.
With regards to invasion, I was not thinking of America specificaly, but the "West" collectively. The history of the region has been occupation for many hundreds of years. America is just the new invader on the block. At the end of WWI, the Brits created Iraq as you well know. What many do not know is that the elimination of the Turks was framed to the Arabs as a liberation. What happened though was that the people were glad to see the old Empire gone, but resented being 'liberated". They simply would not accept invasion as liberation, no matter how supposedly benign. Eventually they created Iraq and set up the region in general to be contentious with puppet governors in place that would virtually guarantee that the Arabs would have nothing to fight but themselves. In this they were wildy successful. Unfortunately we inherit the fruits of discord today. What the creation of Israel did was bring back memories of outside domination and something to focus on besides themselves. That is why Israel was attacked. They were foreigners put in place by foreigners. Imagine some ultra power setting up a Stalinist nation smack in the middle of the US. Now maybe the government is not as bad as you first thought, but that would not pacify you. Think you would like it if you were several hundred miles away? No. Would you focus on that regardless of the media? Damn right you would. Suppose that Nation were to attack neighboring states and limit rights of the former residents? How would you feel? Outraged I bet. The Arab sense of nationalism does not lie with country but with culture, religion and the common history. The closest analogy would be that countries as seen as states of a common Arab Nation.
In any case, the Brits do not occupy the arab nations, but they did leave their mark. The US is now repeating history. We are benign invaders. We wish to liberate. We will be accepted as any invading force is. Eventually they will accept us. What country does not accept an army with weapons pointed at them after they lose the war? To your face they will be courteous, but behind many eyes, you are the enemy, and we should not forget that.