A man from Dubai (who announced that the US became a country in 1887) said that the US did not do anything good for people, and only acted in what was in its own interests. (This is one of the most common complaints about the US, and people always note that this is true of all countries, and then everyone agrees on this. It is essentially canonical and just a standard thing for people complaining about the US to say). He said that the US is run by global multinational companies. The US and its companies have no belief in humanity, he said. The man from Dubai said that in particular, the "oil and gas companies own and direct the US." I said that to understand the current actions and motivations of the US, one has to look at American history; its actions in Japan, Germany, Somalia to save the starving Muslims, Afghanistan to protect the Afghanis from the Russians, and the former Yugoslavia protecting the Bosnian Muslims from the Serbians. He did not have much to say on this topic after that.
The man from Dubai also said that the US created Sadam. Someone from Iraq disagreed, and pointed out that Sadam had not started out bad. The man from Dubai was somewhat surprised to hear that. The Iraqi said that the Iraqi population supported Sadam at first, and that France had built Sadam a nuclear power plant as well. I could tell that a lot of people were sort of shocked at this statement. The Iraqi said that at that time, the world was more concerned about Iran and thought Iran was more dangerous than Sadam. We were going to mention the recent purchase of 25% of NASDAQ by Dubai, but did not get to it.
An American came in and claimed that the US gets a huge amount of oil from Iraq, and 60 per cent of its oil from the Middle East (it is really only 12%). We disagreed and he was taken aback. I said I would get him the data so he could look for himself. A left wing anti-American character said, "The data is irrelevant". (Actually, it is more correct to say "the data are irrelevant"). I was outraged that they were arguing about things they had no information about. Finally after a lot of arguing, the American said, "I looked it up and I said Iraq had the most oil". Funny, he was not arguing about that before. People often change their positions in these arguments in an attempt to present themselves in the best possible light.
The Iraqi said that the reason that it was good to remove Sadam from power, since "It is not good giving a crazy man a huge resource to do crazy things". The left wing anti-American said, "Same as my president. My president is a criminal", comparing Bush to Sadam. He continued, "Bush invaded Iraq without UN approval. When Sadam killed the Kurds it was done with the support of Bush and Rumsfeld and they (Bush and Rumsfeld) should have been jailed and executed". Funny thing is, the Halabja gas attack took place in 1988. How does this have anything to do with Bush and Rumsfeld?
Then the left wing anti-American came in to tell us, for about the 10th time, that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted that the US operations in Iraq were motivated by oil. Another man tried to tell him that this was for the world's oil, not American oil, but he was unable to since the left wing character just wanted to shout over everyone else, as he always had before. Finally we had to turn off the microphone of the left wing character since he would not listen. He had also called our female host "sweetheart", which she did not particularly appreciate. I pointed out that Greenspan was now backtracking and clarifying some of his previous statements:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/usa/news/article_1356819.php/Greenspan_tries_to_mop_up_his_oil_spill
A drunk Englishman came in and started to ramble, "You are in this room for some kind of profit. Remember karma, when you are thinking about the prices of orange juice and milk. Karma will kick you in the ass.
We look at Skype at the moment; everything is free". Huh?
He complained bitterly about the fact that Skype was free, but it was not clear why he was upset. He then said, "I could give a grape for one pence, and then it starts." We couldnt understand him. (Is this any wonder?) He then said, "If I asked hello for someone I didnt want to charge someone 2 pounds. Everything is for free on here." He continued to complain, "You know something. I have a little bit of information and if you wanna know it you have to pay me some amount." He just babbled and never seemed to make a point, no matter how hard we tried to understand him.
Some more random conversation ensued. Someone else English said, "This is why the internet is born; everything is for free". Someone asked if US wages and prices depend on teamster wages, since they had read this. We said this might have been true at one time, but definitely was not how our wages and prices are set now.
Then a very drunk Englishman came in and tried to tell us a joke, "I have the most brilliant joke. I have a joke". We did not want to hear jokes, and the host tried to get him to stay quiet. He became more and more belligerent, and finally the host told him to shut up. He said, "What are you telling me to shut up for? Are you the same as Hitler? You just fucking said I wanna hear a joke..." The host said, " Watch your language". The Englishman replied, "I dont wanna hear a voice... women women women... good bye Gaylord... Fuck off you fucking cunts". And then, he was gone...
Someone wanted to talk about the poor. So he was asked, "What is poor?" He started to waffle, saying, "Everything is relevant." (I think he meant relative). He was asked again and again and continued to waffle, stating, "When I was going to school on borrowed money...It depends on how you use your money...it depends on social economic factors...I and other people with from different economic levels hang in the same groups..." He did not want to give a definition of what is poverty. Finally someone told him the official definition of poverty of 20,000$ a year for family of 4.
A man from Guyana came in to say that there "used to be many covert places and not so much any more." I asked him why he knew there were not as many covert operations now as their used to be, if they were covert. He said he knew. He said that the covert operations, "could not succeed in those places." I again asked how he knew about the covert operations if they were covert. He said he knew. Of course, that means very little.
An Indian man came in to ask, "Why is the US greedy for the Arab's oil? Why not use the alternative fuel? Why not use fusion?" I said that Arabs do not want us to use alternative fuel. They want to sell their oil. I told him this is what happened the last time in the 1970s when the West was developing alternative energy sources. He disagreed that this was true. (Not according to my recollection, for sure...) He stated that, "Arabs are not the one who decide the price on the oil". I said that it was the market that decided the price of oil. He disagreed and said, "Wall Street decides the price of oil". I said this is true, Wall Street is part of the world oil market that determines the price of oil, including markets in Mumbai, London, Paris, and so on". He disagreed with this, saying, "Market does decide the price of the oil, the demand decides the price." Wow this guy is a real economic genius...
He then raised a criticism of the US, saying, "You do not have a social life in the US". The host mentioned the video, "Indian thriller" found on youtube, and said this did not indicate the social life in India was so great. Another American asked about why there were 8 million women who are prostitutes in India, some as young as 6 years old. Someone piped up, "Because cows are holy" Someone asked the Indian, "Why such a demand for prostitutes?" The Indian said, "it is not about the prostitution it is about the poverty." The American said, "you dont have to rape a 6 year old because you dont have any food". The Indian responded, "Just put yourself in the situation. What would you do?" Someone else said, "If I have no food, I won't rape a 6 year old". The Indian said, "Our country does not allow this situation...but the social life in India, we are having the social life; it is like fun. It is not hectic schedule. It is not about the prostitution it is about the places. Some places in India like the heaven not the hell." Someone else said, "India is one of the richest countries in the world. Only problem it is in the hands of a few people." Um...are you sure?
The Indian then went on a long rant, "If you there is a problem you gotta do the solutions. Only background of the politics there is no young people and a lot of corruption. Rules are not such like that in US and India. If you remember in 1958 we had a Doctor Umbetka. He just got the rules out on the constitution. He will give rules out on the priveleges on the lower caste people. After 10 years you should abort these rules for the lower caste people. The rules are still there. The constitution is same for 50 years." Ah so the truth emerges. This guy is claiming that all the problems in India are because of the programs meant to help the lower castes...I see...
He said that the US had a "hosh posh situation", and that "the problem in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia started when Russia was conquering Afghanistan, the US sending the weapons to Afghanistan was a big mistake, the biggest mistake". I think he meant Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, but why let facts get in the way?
He was asked by the Israeli, "Why does India not want Iraq to be a democracy?" The Indian said, "it is their choice." I pointed out that Iraq had already chosen democracy in their elections. The Israeli noted that from the Indians she talked to, "They dont want Iraq to succeed and be a democratic country." So the Indian replied, "They want to be sidelined. It is about the votes." He rambled in an incoherent fashion about banning cigarettes, and then said, "It is about the harsh decision taken by India. India politics cannot take the harsh decision. In 1962 Pakistan attacked...No, China attacked. We retaliated in 24 hours...it was our biggest mistake. We can conquer half of Pakistan, which we didnt do. Why? India is not interfering in Iraq. Not what we said..." The Israeli host said, she had noticed that it is the general opinion of Indians, "put a fence around Iraq and let them kill each other." The Indian replied, "Is that the opinion of the Indian people? Not the government." He acknowledged that it would take a long time to build a country in Iraq, and he said, "You will not make Iraq such a country as that after 10 years. You will just leave it after 5 years. They do not have any control over. It take time to form a country. Why can the 4 or 5 countries not just shake hands with them?" (he was referring to Iraq's neighbors) The Israeli said, "You know why they are not helping Iraq?
They want themselves to be the only countries providing the oil. They want the chaos in there so they let the insurgents in there." Someone said, "The Arabian regime does not want Iraq to prosper because they do not want democracy to be there." There were a lot of interruptions.
Someone from Bahrain said, "Kuwait has no democracy. I am in Bahrain we have a parliament; it is a fake. Any democratic experience is fake." He said that the reason the governments neighboring Iraq were against the new Iraq regime was, "It is not the oil it is the democratic thing". The Israeli told him that things are much better now in Iraq because people are getting income from oil and the man from Bahrain said, "The people of Iraq get no money from oil". The Israeli said she would get an Iraqi in to discuss this with him, and the man from Bahrain confidently said, "there is no Iraqi here." The Iraqi arrived and disagreed with him, much to his dismay. The man from Dubai said, "I never said Sadam was a good guy". He was asked if he talked to his friends in Iraq about their salaries, but he admitted he had not. He argued about almost every point. He did not always make a lot of sense. He said, "One thing I was telling to make up the thing with
The man from Bahrain wanted to argue about the Palestinian problem, but would not answer any questions about who was in Palestine first, or the history of the region. He kept repeating that the Jews were present in the region for hundreds of years. Over and over I tried to correct him that the Jews had been there for thousands of years, not hundreds, and he just refused to say it. He also refused to say the word, "Israel". Funny, I have noticed that many Arabs do the same thing, as though it is a foul word. Finally I got him to say "thousands of years", but then he said under his breath, "I can not believe that Jews were there before Muslims." (This shows an appalling ignorance of history). The host from Israel tried to ask him about the Romans and Babylon and other historical events from thousands of years ago that demonstrated the connection of Jews to the area around Israel and the man from Bahrain became more and more distraught and refused to answer. I guess he was being confronted with information he did not want to admit was correct. A bit of cognitive dissonance?
He said that he did not like Israel because he did not like any country that had been established based on atrocities. We said that every country was established this way. The host pointed out that Egypt had been established in this way, but he did not hate Egyptians. This upset him quite a bit.
Then for the third or fourth night, people wanted to ask about the difference between the US and the UK and the role of the monarchy. Another man and I tried to explain what we had found out on this subject, on the condition that we did not have to answer any questions about it and that we would not have a fight on this issue. We knew from past experience that this is a subject that people love to fight about.
True to form, a huge fight ensued about who owns and controls the world, since everyone wanted to dispute what we had found and reported from other sources, and what was published by experts in books and studies. We tried to get them to look this information up for themselves, but instead they just wanted to argue based on no information. Finally, the host had to turn off everyone's mike. It did not matter that we had told them ahead of time that we did not want to get in a huge argument. As soon as we told them them the information, they immediately started to argue and fight. They had no information of course, and this made them even more anxious to fight about it.
Someone with a very young voice said that in her opinion, the Middle East has a lot more hungry people than Asia. I asked her what the source of her information was, and she did not respond. She then said, in her opinion, the United States was doing bad things since, "the Middle East was taking the punishment". She sounded so young, we asked how old she was and she left the room.
Ah...makes me dizzy...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment