Being Exclusively Anti-US is NOT cool ...
... regardless of what Arabs seem to think. (and being exclusively anti-iran is also NOT cool, but that's a story for another day ...)For example, instead of only blaming the US for the veto against a series of UN resolutions (with regards to Palestine) in the past couple of weeks, blame the Arabs as well for FAILING to be of any consequence. I've heard more rhetoric over the past three days than I can possibly fathom ... yes, the US does protect Israel, etc. etc., but that does not mean that the only solution lies in ending US dominance.
The stupidest thing I heard (today) is that the initiatives taken by the Arab League in the Khartoum and the Beirut Summit show Arab support for Palestine. PLEASE. If the Arabs really did want to help Palestine, then they could at least attempt to leverage economy. Because of the world's dependence on oil, Arabs have (for now anyways) the ultimate weapon - an ECONOMIC one (like the '73 oil embargo, but with a slightly more constructive strategic twist). Jack oil prices up to $150+ ... stop oil tankers from crossing the atlantic ... be willing to sustain losses for some time ... that is an example of ACTION (as opposed to grumpy old men sitting and chewing the proverbial shit in Khartoum). The Middle East may not contain all of the world's oil, but it contains enough to grind the world to a halt for a few days/weeks/months by controlling the flow of oil ... maybe not much of a plan, but still better than constantly playing the victim.
Addendum: Speaking of anti-US sentiment, apparently Bush is having a closed-door policy meeting around 100 m from where I'm currently typing this message, and a huge protest is going to take place.
Update: Since I mentioned this, I might as well complete the picture. The protest did take place. I'm not sure of the turnout because I just passed by at the beginning, but it seems quite a few people went.
posted by Lazarus, 9:40 PM
9 Comments:
What would your reaction be to the creation of a US-Canada-Australia wheat exporting cartel that will blackmail the world by charging say $15 per bushel of wheat? Blackmail is not a policy,
By
Anonymous, at 4:25 AM
blackmail? that all depends on your perspective ghassan. When teachers strike because they are asking for higher wages, is that blackmail ...
By
Lazarus, at 7:12 AM
I dunno Laz; maybe we should lay low and keep in mind that America "loves Lebanon" and we are "special" and different from all those Arabs. Maybe if we purr long enough, Israel will start giving us some aid and we will not need the Arabs. I wonder if that aid, too, will be "mismanaged" among Hariri, Jumblat, Berri, and Lahoud.
By
Hassan, at 8:08 AM
Laz,
When teachers strike they do not withhold an essential and elemental commodity. The world runs on energy, you withhold energy supplies and the whole system in the globe will break down, including the ability to provide health care and raise crops. Withholding of energy supplies in an industrial age is no different than withholding water or food. Anyone who withholds vital supplies that have no substitutes is practising nothing else but blackmail and extortion of the worst degree. Such practitioners do not deserve to be included as members of civilised society and ought to be banished , shunned and ostracised.
It is a huge error to commit the fallacy of comparing what in essence is incommensurate. Moral clarity dictates that we make the distinction between a wilful act to inflict damage from the withholding of vital
resources and those other secondary ones.
Laz, you have failed to answer the question of whether you think that it would be acceptable for the US-Canada-Australia to form a cartel and literally speaking starve the world. I hope that you agree that there is no choice but to oppose such a measure on the grounds of ethics, decency and morality.
By
Anonymous, at 9:46 AM
Ghassan,
I did not answer your question because the analogy is fundamentally flawed. And I understand your premise that two wrongs do not make a right ... but in some cases, a second wrong will force the first wrong to become right ...
The point of this post was that if people think they are being treated unfair by Entity X, then they should revolt. End of story. We can argue about the semantics and logistical morality of it all, but that has failed and will continue to fail.
By
Lazarus, at 10:19 AM
Laz,
"The point of this post was that if people think they are being treated unfair by Entity X, then they should revolt". But does revolt equal blackmail is the question? If it is then that revolution will go no where. It will be just a waste of blood and treasure. No good end can justify a wrong policy.
BTW, the Saudi seem to have learned this lesson and that is why they do not even hint at the possibility of oil as a weapon.
Do you think that Turkey should divert the rivers so as to run dry in both Syria and Iraq? While we are at it Sudan should blackmail Egypt otherwise it will restrict the flow of the Nile?)
By
Anonymous, at 3:49 PM
Once again, such arguments have become a matter of semantics. You view my idea as blackmail, and I don't. We can spend eternity arguing about which word serves as a better summary of what I had suggested, yet that falls into the abstract realm of academia, a world I am trying to leave.
Saudi Arabia has learnt the lesson that "no good end can justify a wrong policy?" Are we speaking about the same Saudi Arabia? The Saudi Arabia I know has a long list of wrong policies that they believe will result in a good end.
As for your last two examples, once again the analogy is flawed because 1) you are assuming that the Middle East is the only provider of oil 2) you are equating oil and water 3) you have provided no context for such action.
By
Lazarus, at 2:32 PM
Excellent point Laz! But let me ask you, what are you going to do with your stupid oil if the world doesn't buy it? Drink it?
Drink up then, and enjoy!
For once, I agree with Ghassan!
By
Ecce Libanus, at 4:35 AM
Jack oil prices up to $150+ ... stop oil tankers from crossing the atlantic ... be willing to sustain losses for some time ... that is an example of ACTION
Try it! The stone age didn't end because Man ran out of stones!
By
Solomon2, at 11:04 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home