SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (1754)9/28/2002 7:21:20 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 8683
 
Terror war causing U.S. to reassess its ties with Arab states
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Friday, September 27, 2002
The United States has begun a reassessment of its relationship with the Arab world, with officials linking Washington's relations to Arab allies to their cooperation against groups deemed as terrorist and their standing on democracy and human rights.

Richard Haass, director of the State Department's Policy Planning Staff, said the United States can no longer ignore the internal situation in Arab countries.

Haass, who embarks on a Persian Gulf tour over the weekend, said economic and other conditions can help create a climate for terrorism, Middle East Newsline reported.

"9/11 also forced us to reexamine our relationship with the Islamic world and Arab countries in particular," Haass told the International Institute for Strategic Studies earlier this month.

"At the same time, 9/11 helped focus attention within the Arab world on their own societies. We realize that it is no longer sustainable to have narrowly-defined relationships that focus almost exclusively on access to energy resources or basing rights."

U.S. officials said the Bush administration has been reviewing relations with a range of allies and rivals in the Arab world. They are said to include Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

The reassessment includes an examination of the cooperation Arab countries have provided to the United States in wake of the Al Qaida suicide attacks on New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001. Officials said the administration has cooled relations with those countries which have been deemed as providing insufficient cooperation.

Haass said the reassessment takes into account democracy and human rights in the Arab world. Haass said these factors were not considered more than a year ago.

"We need to forge new, broader relationships that encourage and enable Arab regimes to gradually address the freedom deficit that has developed in their own societies," Haass said. "Such a reorientation is not simply the right thing to do. It makes strategic sense. If we fail to reorient our policies to address the lack of opportunity in these states and their resulting brittleness, our allies in the Arab world will grow weaker — not stronger — and our interests will suffer."

Haass's assertion was the latest indication that Washington planned to link democracy and human rights to the development of U.S. relations. That link was first announced by President George Bush in June when he connected U.S. aid to the Palestinians to democratic reforms.

The State Department official said the United States now views what Haas termed state failures as a strategic problem. He described a state failure as a state that no longer has control over its territory, lacks credible institutions or is a threat to its people and neighbors.

U.S. officials have identified these states as Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. They said the introduction of democracy and rule of law would be key elements in ensuring warm diplomatic relations with Washington.

"We will act to seek variety by seeking out new opportunities in West Africa and Middle Eastern nations committed to democracy," Sen. Conrad Burns, a Republican from Montana, told the National Press Club last week. "The future for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is unclear. My hope is that the kingdom of Saudi Arabia will soon decide to become democratic, to separate church from state."

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Lincoln Bloomfield said Washington would require greater cooperation from countries in intelligence exchange, law enforcement and financial cooperation. Bloomfield, who is responsible for political and military affairs in the State Department, cited one Arab ally from whom Washington would require military cooperation.

"We need to learn to operate effectively with forces from Denmark, Jordan, Australia, and elsewhere, side by side, all at once," Bloomfield told a terrorism conference in Paris. "This is a particular challenge for my bureau at the State Department. Cooperation among governments everywhere must be continuous and wide-ranging."

U.S. officials said several Arab countries have already been approached for the stationing of American troops. They include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Israel was also approached. But analysts said the United States has only begun the process of reassessing its foreign policy with the Arab and Islamic world. They said this process could take years, particularly toward Arab oil producers.

"The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and the varied responses to them, both in the U.S. and in the Islamic world, raised a series of profound questions for American foreign policy," the Brookings Institution said in a report authored by Peter Singer. "The challenges that have resulted — ranging from the war on terrorism, our role in the Mideast peace process, to crafting better public diplomacy — will be at the center of international affairs for years to come. Unfortunately, the hard decisions needed to come to terms with these questions are yet to be made, a full year later."
worldtribune.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (1754)9/28/2002 7:41:28 PM
From: Thomas M.  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 8683
 
Germany was defeated with its economy in ruins (runaway inflation, remember) and had restrictions placed on its armament development.

Really? How did Germany come to have the strongest army in the world? To compare the Iraqi army with the German army is ludicrous. The Iraqi army in 1991 was tiny and pathetic, and it has since gotten dramatically weaker, especially in terms of weapons of mass destruction. The German army in the late 1930s was the strongest in the world, and it was gaining in strength.

To call people who want arms inspectors and a complete arms embargo on Iraq "appeasers" is worse than ludicrous, it's slanderous.

I also notice that you seem to be intermingling references to Germany in the early 1930s to the term "appeasers". Are you referring to the American leaders who referred to Hitler as a "moderate" at this time, and the Americans who helped him rebuild? The right-wingers loved him and Mussolini, because he appeared to share their (and your) hatred of workers' rights.

It was the German use of submarines in the war that brought the U.S. in direct confrontation with Germany. The German submarines fired indiscriminately at neutral ships too.

Why was Germany attacking American ships? That seems odd, considering we had no conflict with them.

Tom



To: Brumar89 who wrote (1754)9/30/2002 7:56:33 AM
From: craig crawford  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 8683
 
Anne Lindbergh postulated that Nazism "is some new, and perhaps even ultimate good, conception of humanity trying to come to birth".

so? many people had nice things to say about hitler before his true nature emerged.

"History is replete with examples of men who have risen to power by employing stern, grim, and even frightful methods, but who, nevertheless, when their life is revealed as a whole, have been regarded as great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind. So may it be with Hitler" --Winston Churchill

>> Charles Lindbergh received the Service Cross of the Order of the German Eagle, with Star (one of the highest honors of the Nazi Government) for his work in support of Nazism. <<

that is a bald faced lie. it had nothing to do with his "support of nazism". below is the real story and reason for the medal.

Charles A. Lindbergh: The 20th Century's First Celebrity
history.acusd.edu

Lindbergh's 1937 trip to Germany was perhaps his most controversial. It was in 1937 that Hugh R. Wilson, who was more willing to deal with the Nazi's replaced Ambassador Dodd, who was decidedly anti-Nazi in all matters. Influenced by Smith and Lindbergh's evaluation of Goering as a man who might be dealt with, Wilson set up a small stag dinner at the American Embassy in which he invited Goering and several key Nazi's. The purpose of the dinner was to persuade Goering to allow Jews, who were forced to leave Germany, to take some of their assets with them. The dinner was held on October 18, 1938 and would ultimately lead to Lindbergh's demise as an American hero. At the dinner Goering greeted his host and then shook hands with Lindbergh. He then began to make a speech in German that Lindbergh could not understand. Realizing this, Smith and Wilson translated for him. He was told that Goering was about to decorate him with the Verdienstkreuz der Deutscher Adler (Service Cross of the German Eagle), a high civilian medal. It was presented to him for his services in aviation and especially the 1927 trans-Atlantic flight. Given the circumstances, Lindbergh could not refuse the medal; it would be an affront to not only Goering, but also Ambassador Wilson. When Smith and Lindbergh took the medal home that night, both their wives instantly and almost instinctively reacted against it. When Anne opened the box to see the medal, she looked away and said without emotion, "The Albatross." Lindbergh never wore the medal but sent it to the Lindbergh collection of the Missouri Historical Society in St. Louis. (14)

>> The parallel between Saddam and Hitler is actually pretty good <<

this remark shows your ignorance not only of history, but of the present as well.

>> Actually it was German sinking of American ships which brought the US into WWI <<

the part you seem to conveniently ignore is the fact that the american ships were hardly neutral. they were carrying armaments for the allies and therefore were legitimate targets. we were dragged into war for other reasons, such as british propaganda, jewish interests and war-profiteering. war could have easily been avoided if that was the goal. unfortunately it was not.