OT: WARNING: Political/Potentially Offensive Thread

Irish Flute
201

More good news from Iraq, as reflected by comments
in the US Senate. The Shiites did not make the clean
sweep predicted, and must form a coalition government
including Kurds and secular Moslems (as represented by
Allawi). The challenge will be to bring Sunnis into
the process of forming the new constitution.

Increasingly the outcome in Iraq is in the hands
of the Iraqi people. There has been a call that
the Iraqi people be collectively awarded the
Nobel Peace Prize.

Senators Expect Iraqi Give-And-Take

WASHINGTON - A political give-and-take to form a coalition is expected now that election results show no Iraqi group won the votes needed to form a new government on its own, lawmakers said Sunday.

“That’s really part of that democracy that we’re all so happy that they’re moving toward,” said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The slate of Shiite Muslims for the 275-member National Assembly received just under half of the votes cast in the Jan. 30 elections, the first since Saddam Hussein (news - web sites ) was ousted as president in 2003. A two-thirds majority of the assembly chooses the president and two vice presidents, which could push the Shiites to form a coalition with other political groups.

“They’re brand new at this and it really depends on how they reach out,” Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Fox.

The candidate list dominated by Kurds came in second while the slate put together by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi finished third. Sunni Muslims, who generally stayed home during the elections and cast just 2 percent of votes, still must be involved politically for the Iraqi system to have legitimacy, Biden said.

“They’re going to have to see more Sunnis brought into the constitution writing if there’s going to be any legitimacy at the end of the day, and I think we’ll see that,” Biden said.

Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record ), the third-ranking Senate Republican, said he thought “it was a good thing that the Shiites can’t just sort of dictate how things are to go. And democracy is going to be at work, not just at the polling places but now within the halls of the government. That’s a wonderful accomplishment,” said Santorum, R-Pa., on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

Rep. Charles Rangel (news, bio, voting record ), D-N.Y., said the results were good news and that the election itself was good “by Republican standards.” But he questioned whether American think it was worth the U.S. and Iraqi casualties.

“We went into Iraq (news - web sites) not for elections,” Rangel said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“We went there to knock off Saddam Hussein, but the American people thought it was connected with 9/11, there was weapons of mass destruction, there were connections with al-Qaida. It was all a fraud,” he said.

202

OK, I said to myself I was not going to be dragged back into this, but I didn’t do it this time …
Let’s not confuse “happy” with “complacent”. Choosing to be happy does not imply burying one’s head in the sand and ignoring reality. It is a state of mind that comes about by a decision not to let external realities (artificial or not) control one’s internal sense of well being.
I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said (please correct the source if wrong), “People are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”
I have made up mine.

203

These are pretty good times, compared to what most
of last century was like. If what’s going on now
is going to make us unhappy, we will never
be happy, short of heaven–because the world
will always be this bad or, more likely, much worse.

Ya know, WWI, WWII, 20,000,000 people starving
to death in China tween 1958 and 62, Vietnam,
Pol Pot, millions starving to death in Russia
under Stalin, the Soviets and Americans
ready to blow each other sky high…

If the world could do this well always,
it would be a much better place.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
try to make it better, of course.
But I’m unwilling to tear my hair over this,
because, among other things, I don’t
have any.

204

I wonder if, instead of foreign adventures, you really needed another civil war ?

205

Your right of course but we only notice the good times when they finish. I can’t help feeling that overthrowing oppressive regimes is a good thing or at the very least letting them know that this might happen if they overstep the mark. The trouble with attempting this sort of thing is that the odds of it resulting in tragedy are always high.

206

France and the USA are jointly pressing Syria to withdraw
from Lebanon, so that the Lebanese can have
a free election in May. Syria has announced a
substantial withdrawal, we’re pressing them further.

Meanwhile Egypt has responded to American pressure
by announcing that the next election for president
will be open, meaning that there will be parties
and other candidates. It remains to be seen what
this will amount to–nonetheless it’s promising.

Saudi Arabia had its first municipal elections–men
only voting, pathetic in a way, but just the
beginning the Saudis say. Once the democracy ball
gets rolling it may take on a momentum of its
own.

There have been real elections in Afghanistan, Iraq,
the Palestinians, apparently one coming in Lebanon–however
imperfect these are still extraordinary. Four elections.

The plan is to democratize the middle east–it’s the
domino theory in reverse, starting with Iraq, the grand
scheme behind the invasion, IMO. These people aren’t
mostly interested in oil or Big Bucks; they want to change the
world. Some of these people, by fair means or foul,
brought democracy to Nicaragua and El Salvador,
and they are still at it.

If the situation in Iraq progresses toward democracy
and the Iraqis are able to take up the burden of
combatting the insurgency, as I believe there is a
real possibility they will in a year or so, the American army
will be free to operate elsewhere–and I expect
this won’t be lost on the leaders of Iran.

207

Jim, you speak like a True Believer. You’re even putting Nicaragua and El Salvador in the mix. Soon you’ll be singing the praises of Guantanamo.

208

Andrew, can we do anything for Jim before he falls off the deep end? :confused: I’m afraid he’s going to become a politician.

209

I think Guantanamo is shameful and wrong.
I broke the torture issue onboard I think two and a half
years ago, before it was obvious to most people
what was going on.

What you are responding to above is political analysis.
I’m trying to understand what’s going on, I’m
not seeing things through an ideological lens
and I’m not trying to justify anything. Suppose
we invaded Iraq so as to gain a foothold from
which to democratize the middle east. That’s
wrong, IMO.

I think a lot of people see events through an ideological
lens or due to a partisan commitment. People who
do bad things are Bad People
and wear black hats and ride black horses, and everything they do is
bad. Anybody who ascribes to them a motive
that isn’t bad or all bad is trying to justify them.

That’s how one loses touch with reality, and
reality in this situation is very interesting, IMO.
I’m much more interested in it than in
the Punch and Judy show that people sometimes
try to reduce it to.

When you look at the people who are pushing
Syria to vacate Lebanon, and Egypt to hold open
elections, they were on the line in American policy
toward Nicaragua and El Salvador. Eliot Abrams
believes in democracy, I believe,
and he lied to Congress and he’s an ardent
Zionist. He’s now in charge of our democratization policy
in the middle east. For Abrams it isn’t about
money or oil; I believe it’s about democracy–by any means
necessary. To understand what we are doing, and
what we will do next, it helps
to be able to think such thoughts.

And once again, there is a large American army
in Iraq, and it is not unthinkable that it will
in a year or so be free to do other things–
and Syria and Iran may well be thinking
about this increasingly.

210

It has always been understood by the rest of the world that the US has not the remotest idea ( and never has had ) of what is going on between the various factions in the Lebanon , and in its ignorance has always been happy to precipitate civil war.
Bush thugs don’t care anyway. Might ( however misapplied ) is right !

Glauber, I couldn’t try to change Jim even if I wanted to because I don’t know at all where he is coming from. (In spite of doubtful tendencies I quite like him the way he is.He may tend to be overoptimistic ( as on Iraqi elections which are suggested to have been widely corrupt ) and the possible swallowing of the administrations lies on his pension worry me. I would rather send him flute parcels than food parcels !
It is sometimes better to read people’s opinions even when they disagree with me and so are clearly wrong !
I don’t think Jim is so daft as to become a politician. The Republican party already has a huge surfeit of them. ( And what class of opposition is there anyway ?)
I wouldn’t mind if they kept their damned corrupt politics at home !

211

What on earth is the value of talking about Democracy ( and even of the exporting of it ) when the " President " was elected four years ago purely because 10,000 mostly black Florida voters were fraudulently disenfranchised by the candidate and his brother ?
That being compounded by the actions of a corrupt Republican owned judge !!
If one has to impose “democracy” on traditionally tribal areas it has to be something much better than the awful US sham democracy.

212

I see that Jim is contemplating the moving on in a year or so from Iraq of the occupying forces to do damage elsewhere.
What sort of army does he think the US will have by then ?
The proportion of soldiers and support staff ( particularly reservists ) who have been maimed and mentally disabled is enormous and will get worse as replacements can’t be found except through conscription and the already quite disgraceful forcing back by foul means to Iraq of reservists who have served already.
Where are their replacements to be found, or are all those currently serving meant to be run into the ground at present, and sacrificed ?
Who if the army were to leave would maintain the Footprint and all the huge new army facilitied which are still being built ? Doesn’t look like the continued pouring of money needed elsewhere into these new facilities harbingers any evacuation soon !

213

It has always been understood by the rest of the world that the US has not the remotest idea ( and never has had ) of what is going on between the various factions in the Lebanon , and in its ignorance has always been happy to precipitate civil war.
Bush thugs don’t care anyway. Might ( however misapplied ) is right !
[/quote]

‘Thugs’ is your word; as to the substance of this, it is entirely
consistent with what I said. The question arises with some force:
What happens to Lebanon when/if Syria withdraws? They came in at least
partly to end the civil war. Today Hezbollah is holding a pro-Syria
demonstration, very large. Hezbollah may have to disarm if
Syria leaves, ergo Hezbollah backs its staying in.
Hezbollah is Shiite and I wonder what the mix is
in Lebanon. I read but forgot. Still the opposition
in Lebanon is passionate for Syria’s withdrawal,
blaming Syria for the assassination of Harrari.

Note, by the way, that France is with the USA quite
strongly on this.

This interests me…what’s going on and
what’s going to happen. More than calling people names.

214

The value is that it may help explain what people are up to.
The value of exporting it may be that democracy in the
countries to which it is exported may be an improvement
on what’s there now. Or perhaps it won’t. But that’s interesting.

Suppose they’re hypocrits, these ‘exporters of democracy.’
What I’m saying could still
be true; if so it’s worth considering in figuring out what’s
going on. I care a lot more about what’s going on
than I do about morally evaluating the people involved.

215

Suppose you’re right. Also it may be politically impossible to
use the army elsewhere. But Iran and Syria, which aren’t
any more omniscient than we are, may not know this,
or know how we and our Army will be disposed in the future.
It would be hard to underestimate the psychological
consequences of having a very large American army camped
nearbye. Syria may feel especially vulnerable. It isn’t
as though these people have nerves of steel or are
incapable of paranoia. Quite right–the American army
isn’t in a position to go anywhere SOON… which means
that Syria and Iran have to consider where things
MAY be in a year and a half to two years.

A large American army deployed in the middle east
may lend American ‘diplomacy’ considerable political
force.

To add another thought–suppose the Iraqis pull it off,
as there is some promise that they will. Shiites in
Iraq will be empowered by democracy and
they seem to be thinking of themselves as Iraqis.
So Shiites in Iran (which is vastly Shiite)
will look across the border and there will
be a whole lot of Shiites empowered by
democracy. Consider what this may mean
for the future of Iran.

216

It still looks like a smoke screen for US empire building and oil resource grabbing !
It has always looked to me that the likely result of the invasion would be at least a partial theocracy where a secular state existed before. We shall have to wait to see if Iran aligns with / controls the south of Iraq in a few years.
It wouldn’t hurt if the long suffering Kurds got their state at last ( Including the Turkish ones ! ) if an oil deal could be reached.

It is perhaps a pity that the reasons for invasion were so silly and opportunistically cobbled together.
Anybody interested knew that IF there had been any biological weapons left over they would long ago have degraded past a point of usefulness !

217

Alt

218

Here’s the breakdown in Lebanon:

Shi’ites, Lebanon’s largest community, condemned Hariri’s killing but few joined Christian, Druze and Sunni Muslim critics of Syria’s military and political role in the country. Shi’ites and many other Lebanese are proud of Hizbollah’s role in forcing Israel to end its 22-year occupation of south Lebanon in 2000.

The Shiites have been sitting on the fence about Syrian
withdrawal, waiting for Hizbollah to decide; just came
off it.

219

I agree about the risk of partial theocracy. It will be very interesting to
see what relations between Iraq and Iran will become.

220

We could have got Iraqi oil–just join France, Russia and
Germany in saying ‘The Iraqis have suffered enough,
the WMDs that remain, if any do, are probably inoperative, etc…’
bribed Saddam for lower prices, cozied up to him, bought him.
Then we would have got all the oil we wanted without
the vast political risk of a foreign war plus the
billions of dollars it would cost. The oil companies
didn’t want war–they wanted to do business with
Iraq, to end the sanctions.

That this was principally a grab for oil doesn’t add up.
That it was a grab for empire doesn’t either.
Why want an empire–lots of trouble and you risk losing
the next election–when you can have the
goodies, oil, without one? Of course Marxist Leninists
will not be able to imagine an alternative–this is
how capitalism operates, etc. The people at the top
are men from Mars, finally, rich beyond our dreams
yet nonetheless consumed by lust for more and more for themselves
and their cronieZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

The middle east, because of its vast oil reserves and
it’s authoritarian regimes and because of all the grief
caused by the Israeli/Palestinian/Arab problem, plus
militant Islam, has been a chief cause of danger
and instability to the world for decades. You can’t ignore
it; it’s always there, and it spawns crazies with stupendous
wealth like Saddam and Kaddafi. Rogue regimes planning
God know what, invading each other, terrorism, you name it,
getting ready to nuke Israel…

I believe that, far more interesting and realistic than
the Marxist explanations is this one: the people, the
neocons–who are very bright and experienced men
and women who have a vision,
in fact–and the now more confident Bush admin,
are trying to sort out the middle east. Not to grab
oil, not to have an empire, but to shift things
so that the middle east because a democratic
and stable place that isn’t this endless source
of trouble to us, the world, and itself.

This is a chief reason why we were so eager to
invade Iraq. They saw it substantially as a chess move that,
if accomplished, would have profound strategic
repercussions throughout the area.

Right/wrong aside, it squares with the histories
of the people involved, who aren’t men from Mars
but actually believe in something (though they are
ruthless in pursuing it). It squares with what we
are doing now, and it’s what they SAID they
were doing from the first.

This is one of the most interesting things I’ve ever
seen in my life–my chief (highly personal) complaint about sitting
about chanting ‘No blood for oil!’ is that it’s
boring, a waste of intelligence, especially now.