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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3786)2/15/2004 6:59:07 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 3959
 
Editor of Egyptian Journal: 'We Should Feel Humiliated that Saddam's Fall Came at the Hands of the U.S. and Britain... The Arabs Should Have Been the Ones to Bring Him Down'
February 16, 2004 No.663
memri.org

Dr. Osama Al-Ghazali Harb, the editor in chief of the Egyptian quarterly Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya magazine and board member and advisor to the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, published a column in the most recent issue of Al-Siyassa Al-Dawliya. The article praised the capture of Saddam Hussein and denounced Arabs and Muslims who lament it and propagate conspiracy theories surrounding it. The following are excerpts from the article, as it appeared in the original in English:(1)
'Saddam Surrendered in this Docile Manner Because He Knew His Captors Were Americans'

"The discovery of Saddam Hussein, the arrogant, cruel, and luxury-loving leader, hiding in an underground hole - bringing to mind the tale of the Thieves of Baghdad - and his surrender to his captors in a docile and cowardly fashion, was indeed something of a farce. But, the 'Mother of all Farces,' to borrow Saddam's famous idiom, is that Arabs and Muslims fail to grasp the true implications of the rise, and fall, of Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam Hussein is a true example of the despotic leader as described by the great Arab intellectual Abdel-Rahman Al-Kawakbi in his famous treatise 'The Nature of Despotism' more than one hundred years ago: 'Once seated on his throne ... the despot regards himself as a man who has become a God... The despot is no more than a traitor and a coward who needs to be surrounded by a band of thugs to aid and protect him.'

"There is no doubt Saddam knew what his fate would be if captured by the Iraqis; he would have been killed and mutilated as other previous Iraqi leaders, less brutal than him, were. In this instance, Saddam might have preferred suicide - not out of honor, but in fear of torture and violent death. It is most likely that Saddam surrendered in this docile manner because he knew his captors were Americans...

"Saddam's viciousness towards his own people was matched only by his inability to stand up to foreign powers - despite what his propaganda apparatus maintained. His arrogance to the Arabs, meanwhile, was revealed by his refusal to heed any advice from Arab leaders. His disregard for the repeated pleas from President Mubarak, before the war in Kuwait and again before the invasion of Iraq, are a case in point, as was the lackluster reception extended to Arab emissaries to Baghdad during this last crisis."

'Saddam's Arrest is a Sign of Civility and Respect for the Law'

"Yet the farce of Saddam's surrender is nothing compared to the ridiculous interpretations of this event circulating among Arabs and Muslims. The first of these interpretations regards the manner of Saddam's capture as a deliberate and unprecedented insult to all Arabs and Muslims. This point of view implies that Saddam is in some form a symbol of Arabs and Muslims, a 'legitimate' leader, whose actions were a true reflection of the aims and aspirations of Iraq and the Arab world. This cannot be further from the truth. Saddam never had any real legitimacy - his decisions and policies were in flat contradiction to Iraqi, Arab, and Islamic interests. Saddam's arrest - the arrest of any criminal, anywhere - is neither an insult nor a humiliation, but a sign of civility and respect for the law.

"What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world - especially in Iraq - which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to become vice president in 1968 - and then, through an unparalleled bloody and conspiratorial path, to assume the presidency in 1979."

We Should Feel Humiliated that Arab Intellectuals Supported Saddam

"We should feel humiliated that Saddam was able to remain in power until 2003, and to single-handedly initiate a number of catastrophic policies that transformed Iraq, relatively rich in natural, human, and financial resources, into the poorest, most debt-ridden country in the Arab world, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced.

"We should feel humiliated that some of our intellectuals, supposedly the representatives of our nations' consciences and the defenders of their liberty and dignity, not only dealt with Saddam, but also supported him. Finally, we should feel humiliated that Saddam Hussein's fall came at the hands of the U.S. and Britain, to protect their own interests. The Arabs should have been the ones to bring down Saddam, in defense of their own dignity and their own true interests.

"Another widespread interpretation views the entire situation as a grand conspiracy, skillfully executed not only against Saddam but against all Arabs and Muslims... Those who espouse this point of view put all the blame on evil, conspiring, external forces, who lure Arab and Islamic leaders and societies into making the wrong choices, and steer them away from making the right ones. That these leaders and societies allow themselves to become easy dupes through ignorance, naivety, and arrogance is, here, of secondary importance... There are ways and means to uncover plots and to defend ourselves. This, however, demands the existence of competent, democratic societies and legitimate systems of government... "

The Fall of Saddam Hussein - 'A Catalyst and Inspiration for Speeding Up Democratic Reform'

"More important, we must be clear on the fact that preserving national sovereignty and integrity in no way contradicts with the serious pursuit of real political and democratic reform in the countries of the Arab world. If the fall of Saddam Hussein proves to be a catalyst and inspiration for speeding up democratic reform in the region, it is not helpful to raise the specter of U.S. intervention. Reform is not a U.S. or British issue, it is first and foremost a domestic concern, espoused by the elite and society at large, not only at present, but also in the past.

"As for the future of Iraqi resistance, predictions of its growing strength are more a function of instinctive and legitimate resentment of foreign occupation than a realistic understanding of priorities in Iraq today."

First Priority is 'To Rebuild State and Society in Iraq'

"The first priority must be to rebuild state and society in Iraq in a manner that allows economic reconstruction and democratic reform to proceed. Since the operations of the U.S. in Iraq resulted in the destruction of the state and the political system, the U.S. is obliged to repair the damage it created before leaving - at least to some minimal level. The militant operations that injure and kill foreign troops and many Iraqi citizens impede the process of reconstruction, and have the precise result of lengthening the duration of the U.S.-British occupation in Iraq.

"The growing gap between domestic Iraqi disapproval of many of these operations ... and the encouragement afforded them by some Arab forces outside Iraq is not a good sign. It can only sow the seeds of discord between the Iraqis and their Arab brethren, which does not bode well for the future.

"In sum, it would indeed be a great and unfortunate farce if Arabs and Muslims were to focus on lamentations and the search for conspiracies, and neglect to finally and conclusively acknowledge the consequences of dictatorship, despotism and the absence of liberties and democracy."



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3786)2/15/2004 7:07:44 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 3959
 
Chinu. Not sure if your last post was to me but in any case you said...." As chuck indicated, this has nothing to do with Islam. It is all about money.".....

From the article you posted....." Under Zia, Pakistan witnessed an unprecedented drive towards Islamisation and stronger focus on the notion of Islamic solidarity in foreign policy, both of which reinforced Bhutto's idea of producing an Islamic rather than a national nuclear bomb. Moreover, fundamentalism and corruption found their way into the military establishment, the apparatus controlling Pakistan's nuclear programmes, leading to the prominence of generals with links to extremist groups.

It was in such a climate and under such ideology, which continued to prevail after Zia, that Khan worked, mingling his duty towards his country with his services to other Muslim nations seeking nuclear technology.".....
Message 19809408



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3786)2/16/2004 4:29:06 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3959
 
The latest from the Land of the Freak....

Students protest Islamic conference probe

13-02-2004

By MATT JOYCE, Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas, AP
- University of Texas law students and civil rights activists accused the Army of spying on a conference on Islam and denounced an investigation of conference participants as a "campaign of fear."

Sahar Aziz, a UT law student, said Friday that organizers of the conference would not willingly turn over to Army investigators a partial list of participants or a video of the conference, titled "Islam and the Law: The Question of Sexism."

"It is inappropriate for us to invite the public and the student body to come and freely exchange ideas and then to turn around and relay their personal information to the intelligence community," Aziz said.

Deborah Parker, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command at Fort Belvoir, Va., declined to comment, saying the students' allegations are under review.

Conference organizers said two Army agents visited the UT Law School on Monday and knocked on various doors in pursuit of a list of participants and a video of the conference, which took place last week.

The agents said they were following up on reports from Army lawyers who attended the conference and said they were approached by "suspicious" Middle Eastern men, according to Aziz.

Jim Harrington, of the Texas Civil Rights Project, said the tactics at the law school were meant to "intimidate and scare people from using the First Amendment."

muslimnews.co.uk



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3786)2/16/2004 10:00:44 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 3959
 
George W. Bush -- grand strategist
Tony Blankley
February 11, 2004
townhall.com

The Boston Globe -- the respected, liberal newspaper owned by the New York Times -- ran an article last week that Bush critics might wish to read carefully. It is a report on a new book that argues that President Bush has developed and is ably implementing only the third American grand strategy in our history

The author of this book, "Surprise, Security, and the American Experience" (Harvard Press), which is to be released in March, is John Lewis Gaddis, the Robert A. Lovett professor of military and naval history at Yale University. The Boston Globe describes Professor Gaddis as "the dean of Cold War studies and one of the nation's most eminent diplomatic historians." In other words, this is not some put up job by an obscure right-wing author. This comes from the pinnacle of the liberal Ivy League academic establishment.

If you hate George W. Bush, you will hate this Boston Globe story, because it makes a strong case that George Bush stands in a select category with Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and James Monroe (as guided by his secretary of state, John Q. Adams) in implementing one of the only three grand strategies of American foreign policy in our two-century history.

As the Globe article describes, in reporting on the book and an interview with Professor Gaddis, "Grand strategy is the blueprint from which policy follows. It envisions a country's mission, defines its interests and sets its priorities. Part of grand strategy's grandeur lies in its durability: A single grand strategy can shape decades, even centuries of policy."

According to this analysis, the first grand strategy by Monroe/Adams followed the British invasion of Washington and the burning of the White House in 1814. They responded to that threat by developing a policy of gaining future security through territorial expansion -- filling power vacuums with American pioneers before hostile powers could get in. That strategy lasted throughout the 19th and the early 20th centuries, and accounts for our continental size and historic security.

FDR's plans for the post WWII period was the second grand strategy, and gained American security by establishing free markets and self determination in Europe as a safeguard against future European wars, while creating the United Nations and related agencies to help us manage the rest of the world and contain the Soviets. The end of the Cold War changed that and led, according to Professor Gaddis, to President Clinton's assumption that a new grand strategy was not needed because globalization and democratization were inevitable. "Clinton said as much at one point. I think that was shallow. I think they were asleep at the switch," Professor Gaddis observed.

That brings the professor to George W. Bush, who he describes as undergoing "one of the most surprising transformations of an underrated national leader since Prince Hal became Henry V." Clearly, Professor Gaddis has not been a longtime admirer of George Bush. But he is now.

He observes that Bush "undertook a decisive and courageous reassessment of American grand strategy following the shock of the 9/11 attacks. At his doctrine's center, Bush placed the democratization of the Middle East and the urgent need to prevent terrorists and rogue states from getting nuclear weapons. Bush also boldly rejected the constraints of an outmoded international system that was really nothing more than a snapshot of the configuration of power that existed in 1945."

It is worth noting that John Kerry and the other Democrats' central criticism of President Bush -- the prosaic argument that he should have taken no action without U.N. approval -- is implicitly rejected by Professor Gaddis as being a proposed policy that would be constrained by an "outmoded international system."

In assessing Bush's progress to date, The Boston Globe article quotes Professor Gaddis: "so far the military action in Iraq has produced a modest improvement in American and global economic conditions; an intensified dialogue within the Arab world about political reform; a withdrawal of American forces from Saudi Arabia; and an increasing nervousness on the part of the Syrian and Iranian governments as they contemplated the consequences of being surrounded by American clients or surrogates. The United States has emerged as a more powerful and purposeful actor within the international system than it had been on September 11, 2001."

In another recent article, written before the Iraqi war, Professor Gaddis wrote that: "(Bush's) grand strategy is actually looking toward the culmination of the Wilsonian project of a world safe for Democracy, even in the Middle East. And this long-term dimension of it, it seems to me, goes beyond what we've seen in the thinking of more recent administrations. It is more characteristic of the kind of thinking, say, that the Truman administration was doing at the beginning of the Cold War ... "

Is President Bush becoming an historic world leader in the same category as President Franklin Roosevelt, as the eminent Ivy League professor argues? Or is he just a lying nitwit, as the eminent Democratic Party chairman and Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe argues? I suspect that as this election year progresses, that may end up being the decisive debate. You can put me on the side of the professor.



To: ChinuSFO who wrote (3786)2/17/2004 7:11:41 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 3959
 
Arabs in U.S. Raising Money to Back Bush
By LESLIE WAYNE
Published: February 17, 2004

nytimes.com

ealthy Arab-Americans and foreign-born Muslims who strongly back President Bush's decision to invade Iraq are adding their names to the ranks of Pioneers and Rangers, the elite Bush supporters who have raised $100,000 or more for his re-election.

This new crop of fund-raisers comes as some opinion polls suggest support for the president among Arab-Americans is sinking and at a time when strategists from both parties say Mr. Bush is losing ground with this group. Mr. Bush has been criticized by Arab-Americans who feel they are being singled out in the fight against terrorism and who are uneasy over the administration's Palestinian-Israeli policies.

Advertisement


Yet the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq have been a catalyst for some wealthy Arab-Americans to become more involved in politics. And there are still others who have a more practical reason for opening their checkbooks: access to a business-friendly White House. Already, their efforts have brought them visits with the president at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., as well as White House dinners and meetings with top administration officials.

The fund-raisers are people like Mori Hosseini, the Iranian-born chief executive of ICI Homes, a home builder in Daytona Beach, Fla. Mr. Hosseini is a Ranger, gaining the top designation after raising $200,000 from his family and acquaintances. (The minimum level of money raised for a Ranger is $200,000, while it takes $100,000 to be a Pioneer.)

Never before has Mr. Hosseini been this active politically. But he said he was inspired by Mr. Bush's "decisive" action, especially in Iraq, and Mr. Hosseini's efforts have led to an invitation to a White House Christmas party and a private meeting with the president and a handful of other donors at a recent fund-raiser at Disney World.

"He has saved Iraq," said Mr. Hosseini, who left Iran when he was 13. "He's the savior, if not of Iraq, but also of the other countries around Iraq. They want freedom. I am so sure of this because I am from that part of the world."

Mr. Hosseini's enthusiasm runs counter to what some polls say is a drop in Mr. Bush's popularity among Arab-Americans. In a recent release, the Arab American Institute, a nonprofit organization representing Arab-American interests in government and politics, said Mr. Bush's support had fallen sharply since the 2000 election. A January poll conducted for the group by Zogby International, which is headed by John Zogby, a Lebanese-American, found that Mr. Bush's approval rating among Arab-Americans had fallen to 38 percent from as high as 83 percent in October 2001.

The biggest reason for this drop-off, according to the institute's poll, is concern over Arab-Americans' No. 1 issue, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To many Arab-Americans, the administration's actions are seen as more pro-Israel than evenhanded, especially its support of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister.

In addition, a program begun after 9/11 that required thousands of Arab and Muslim men to register with the immigration officials has sent chills through Arab-Americans, as has the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, which Arab-Americans say is a threat to their civil liberties.

Even so, prominent Arab-Americans have kept the money flowing.

"It's like the Catholic Church," said Mr. Zogby, whose brother, James, is president of the Arab American Institute. "The total dollars are up, but the number of donors is down."

One reason may be that Arab-Americans are not a monolithic group. The term is used generally to refer to people from Arab countries, but they may have diverse religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds, like Lebanese and other Arab Christians or Muslims from Egypt and Pakistan. Many Arab-Americans left their countries because of political and economic oppression and are now small-business owners or entrepreneurs who say the Republican Party best represents their values.

As with any specific group, it is impossible to determine exactly how much of Mr. Bush's campaign money comes from Arab-Americans.