[macoati]

First a prelude: (edit: sorry for the length)

I have been reading this forum since the war began and am very impressed in general with the level of intelligence and tolerance exhibited. Now a (some) proviso(s): I am an American and damn proud of it [img]smile.gif[/img] . I am a registered independent with conservative leanings. I support the war as advertised...in other words, no reservations as to the professed reasoning behind it. Now that I've declared my basic positions (clarification and expansions at request [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I agree, for the most part, that oil stabilization is at least a publicly unprofessed goal of the US and it's coalition partners. I do not buy the "war for oil" arguement simply because it extremely flimsy yet "popular" among those who believe it. In the middle east there are several governments that are "US supported" including: Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel (yes, I know they don't count as Arab), U.A.E., and Bharaihn(sp).

With the government backing statement being a given, I ask two questions:
1) Why is the coverage of the war so different between US reporting and the rest.

(note, I do not have availability to see UK, Aussie, Spanish, etc coverage and am colored by the US television coverage.) From the reports I have seen via CNN, FOX, and the three 'major' networks the general theme is "war is going well" with the usual contrary opinions saying "war is going badly".

2) If the US 'backs' such countries such as above... Why is the US so vilified by the Arab street?

To clarify this question I offer the following:

I have seen translations of some of the reporting of the Arab media outlets. Most, if not all, call the coalition troops "the occupying" troops. Most use Iraqi televsion without any thought of verification and source confirmation. Most Arab newpaper outlets decry this war as "imperialism".

With those statements a given (I don't read/write/speak Arabic...yet... am learning thanks to some American Muslims now) I find the statements above about "puppet governments" to be rather ludicrous. If the Saudis were so 'dependent' upon US support, why is it most of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay are Saudi? Why is it the bulk of the 9/11 highjackers were also Saudi?

I could keep going with the clarifying questions but I definitely want some enlightenment on the first two questions.

I will give my answer to the questions I pose and let you tell me where I'm wrong. These will be simplistic...so be kind [img]smile.gif[/img] .

Ans 1) Typically, Arab (Muslim) controlled areas/countries/governments do not want to think/know their country could be changed into a "western" clone and think any change that direction could destroy their hold on the followers of Islam. (Yes, I know, there are a lot of holes in that one)

Ans 2) It is politically expedient for the US to have the alliances (too strong a word) with the above mentioned countries. It allows the US to actually have an influence in the region. Also, for the specific governments, it allows them to 'call on their US friend if they need it' (such as Saudi Arabia in 1991) but tell their populace, which I believe is not well educated, they are actually 'controlling' the US influence and keeping Islam pure.

Have fun [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-27-2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: macoati ]