🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Disgruntled Customer <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote:
> Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> enscribed:
>>      Yes, the Middle East is one of those places where no good deed
>> goes unpunished.  The US has a very bad image in the Arab/Muslim

> Would you care to list all the good deeds of America in the Mideast?

     Supporting Israel, paying Israel and Egypt to make peace with
each other, trying to contain Iran,...  I could go on and on.

>>      You could certainly propose that the US end its support of 
>> Israel and start sucking up (more) to the Arabs in order to gain

> The U.S. supports all kinds of Arabs.

     Which is why I added the (more).

> Well, technically not _all_ kinds. We tend to reserve our support for dictators, torturers, warmongers, violent thugs, fascists, autocrats. Those kinds.

     Indeed.  "Those kinds" who use the Israel/Palestinian conflict
to distract their people from the lousy oppressive government.  And
who spend lots of money--mostly from selling oil to the West--to
propagate fundamentalist Islam and to publish anti-American and anti-
Semitic propaganda.

>> the support of those billion people.  A "realist" foreign policy
>> has something to recommend it.  But in this case I think you would
>> be very disappointed with the results.

> A non-racist foreign policy would help. Of course then we might have to pay market prices for our oil. That would be so much more expensive than what U.S. is paying for its current foreign policy, like a war in Iraq, a new World Trade Center, etc.

     A "non-racist foreign policy" is one that would be pro-Arab
rather than pro-Israel, based on the practicalities of the situation
rather than the ethics?  Either way, I think the basis of the policy
is not racist...based on like or dislike of some ethnic group.
     How are we paying below-market for oil?  As best I can 
determine, we are paying the same price as everybody else; after all,
oil is almost the perfect example of a fungible commodity.  You 
could well make an argument that it is market price but the market
is fixed--the oil is sold for much more than it costs to produce,
based on the existence of a semi-monopoly (OPEC).
     I assume the last sentence is sarcastic, but given the falsity
of the premise in the previous sentence, it doesn't make sense.