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


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184018)3/23/2006 7:41:17 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Gee, the US discovered democracy. I'll bet the Greeks are up in arms on that score.

LOL



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184018)3/23/2006 8:42:37 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
No? Why don't you count the tens of thousands of years that people lived in tribes and leaders earned the right to lead by securing the following of the tribe's members?

They did? Some did.. mostly by proving they were the strongest, while others by being the wisest..

But face some facts... the son of the chief was often the next in line to the dynasty until someone was meaner and tougher and kicked them off of their seat of power.

Is that what you want? Do you think we should go back to the days of "clan rule" in the US?? Because the lineage and history of most Monarchs can be traced back to being the leader of some clan.. This is especially the case in the Mid-East.. Hell, just look at the Saudi Royal Family.. 30,000 people who's immediate history less than 100 years ago was as camel herders who managed to conquer their rival tribes and establish themselves as supreme.

Yeah.. I guess you could say that's a "form" of democracy... Let me beat you up and defeat you, but I'll make you one of my subjects and look out for your interests.

I wonder if that is what we should do here? Maybe I can get my clan to take on your clan and subjugate you to the whims of my domestic and foreign policy. Make you swear an oath to me and my clan, rather than to the constitution that says that I'm no better than you are.

What do you think is happening in China and other parts of Asia? What happened in South America and the former Soviet Republic?

I don't know.. .you tell me.. I guess you think China is democratic now.. They have capitalism and everything is hunky-dory, right?

But how many legitimate political opposition parties are there in China? When's the last time anyone actually was permitted to publicly contest the communist party for power within in China?

They ain't there yet. They are enjoying the benefit of a great trade surplus with the Western economies, but they are extremely vulnerable to having that advantage stripped away from them by the other developing nations where labor is even cheaper and there is less political risk for investment capital.

China is a Fascist state, ruled by a political elite who have no desire to give up power quite yet. They know they will eventually, because with Capitalism comes a desire by the people to have more say in how they are ruled. But you haven't shown me that it's not fortelling serious violence and civil strife down the line.

But hey.. if you like them so much, maybe it's time for a move.. eh?

As for Jordan.. yes.. they have a strong parliamentarian government and I've always held the belief that a constitutional monarchy may be one viable option for Iraq. But the Hashemite heir to the Iraqi throne, Sharif Ali, has not found much support for his return. But I would find it quite acceptable.

But Ed.. you continue to avoid the fundamental problem. You claim that you don't think we should go risking American blood and treasure meddling in the lives of people who didn't do anything to us.

But buddy.. that's not quite the case. Even if the Islamo-Fascists who live in Iraq didn't "pull the trigger" that led to 9/11, they believe the same things and provide political, financial, and moral support to the Islamo-Fascist ideology. And they have all stated that their intended goal is to bring the entire region, AND THEN THE WORLD, under Islamic rule...

That's what their agenda is, Ed.. So while you're telling me that I'm not facing reality, it's plain that it's YOU who is not facing it. We have religious extremists who consider us a sworn enemy and they will continue to do what is necessary to bring themselves to the point that they can strike a vital blow against us.

And what is going to be your response to the next 9/11-style attack leveled against us? Just continue to "pooh-pooh" the the problem and rely upon passive modernistic progress to defeat them?

What is it going to take for you to recognize that we have a serious threat to our country looming in the near future from Islamo-Fascism? How many Americans have to die before you finally relent and yell "unleash the dogs of war" upon their ideology?

"He is not mad. The government are playing games. The people will not be fooled," said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. "This is humiliating for Islam. ... Cut off his head."

Hey listen... people like this need to be "silenced". If they believe they have the right to take someone else's life because of a personal spiritual choice they make about their faith, then they should face the same consequences for inciting such an insane punishment.

I've always advocated, and argued as such while I was in Iraq, that one of the "dropped stitches" in the strategy we're weaving to defeat Islamo-Terrorism is the reluctance to go directly after hate-mongering and intolerant religious leaders trying to incite their followers to wage Jihad.

There are many ways in which people like this can be eliminated without it necessarily being linked back to the US. After all, the very reason they are spouting such heated rhetoric is because they are trying to snare and brainwash even more people to follow their teachings, which empowers them and lifts their standings amongst their fellow clerics.

There has to be a price to be exacted from those who wish to perpetuate the intolerant policies of the past.

You'd better figure out when you're going to face reality and recognize that change isn't just going to happen. We're going to have to fight for it, and blood is going to be shed by Americans (and hopefully more by those who would perpetuate the extremist and militant view of ANY religion.

They're coming for us Ed.. They've stated that they are.

And you have to decide if you want to wait until the threat rises to the level where even you can't ignore it, or attempt to deal with it now while it's still fledgling and there's an opportunity to nip it in the bud, or at least keep a lid on it.

Hawk



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184018)3/24/2006 7:01:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
Didn't This Call for Withdrawal From Iraq Merit Attention?

commondreams.org

<<...By endorsing a withdrawal timetable, the Des Moines Register -- the largest-circulation newspaper in one of the most closely watched political environments in the country -- distinguished itself from the vast majority of American daily publications. It also gave voice to popular sentiments that are still too rarely voiced in the major media of the land.

It should have been news. That it was not is one more indictment of the television networks and vast majority of major newspapers of a country where the discourse is far too narrow, and where the term "liberal media" is not merely inaccurate but comic.

Here is the Des Moines Register editorial, "Timetable to Leave Iraq," which appeared March 19, 2006:

The time has come for President Bush to do what he has resolutely insisted he would never do: Set a timetable to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

The old notion of an open-ended commitment to "stay the course" no longer makes sense. The nature of the conflict has changed. So must American strategy.

A date certain to end the U.S. occupation should be the linchpin of that strategy -- not to abandon Iraq but to put its feuding factions on notice that the United States isn't going to hang around to baby-sit their civil war.

What was originally thought to be a conflict involving a few insurgents trying to drive out American forces has morphed into something else. The insurgency is no longer about the American occupation. Iraqis are slaughtering Iraqis in a vicious cycle of suicide-bomb atrocities and revenge assassinations.

It's a harsh thing to say, but if Sunni and Shiite Iraqis insist on killing one another, let it be without American troops standing in the crossfire.

The United States has no vital interest in taking sides. It does, along with the rest of the world, have an interest in having a peaceful Iraq, but it is increasingly apparent that imposing harmony in a land of centuries-old tribal, religious and ethnic blood feuds is beyond the capacity of 130,000 U.S. troops, no matter how superb their performance and how great their courage.

The U.S. invasion produced chaos and unleashed ancient hatreds, as experts on the Middle East warned it would. President Bush chose not to listen, preferring to believe his own fairy-tale vision of happy Iraqis welcoming Americans. Now, in the words of the nursery rhyme, all the king¹s horses and all the king's men can't put Iraq back together again.

Only the Iraqis themselves can halt the madness.

The last hope for averting all-out civil war and the possible breakup of Iraq is if a national unity government can be established, but members of the ethnically divided parliament have been unable to form such a government. An announcement by the United States that our troops will pull out might help focus the minds of the Baghdad politicians. It would force them to stare into the abyss of a full-blown ethnic civil war with no American troops around to keep the country in one piece.

Once they're on notice of an American departure, Iraqi elected leaders and insurgents alike will have a powerful incentive to reach an accommodation.

Withdrawing U.S. troops does not mean abandoning the region. American diplomats should continue encouraging the formation of a unity government during a phased withdrawal, and the United States should remain obligated to help rebuild the country if order returns. Regardless of what happens, American air power should guarantee the security and autonomy of the Kurds in northern Iraq, who have achieved relative stability in their region and have been staunch friends.

The United States should maintain forces nearby and stand ready to confront any terrorist regime that might emerge in some part of Iraq. The international force must be maintained in Afghanistan, too, to prevent the return of the Taliban and keep up the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

But the military occupation of Iraq has achieved all it can. It's time to redeploy the troops, keeping in mind that the original mission has long since been achieved. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq threaten America, and a dictator has been deposed. A democratically elected parliament is in place.

Whatever happens from here must be left up to the Iraqis themselves...>>



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184018)3/26/2006 6:37:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
The Accepted System of Dissent

informationclearinghouse.info

A Veteran’s Speech on March 18, 2006

By Mike Kress*

We are here because we oppose the war on Iraq. We are here because gathering together in one place makes a statement, and might have an impact on those who are afraid to question our government’s actions.

Why are we here today?

We are here because standing in solidarity with others who are outraged about the war on Iraq helps us feel better. It helps us feel sane to find others who reject the lies of our government. It helps us feel grounded to know that other people don’t buy the propaganda fed to us by the mainstream media.

We are here because we know that what’s happening in Iraq - and what’s likely to occur in Iran - is morally and criminally wrong. We are here because we hope that our presence, in conjunction with others doing the same thing across the nation and around the world, will make a positive difference.

And yet, these statements don’t really answer the question: Why are we here today?

I would say we are here today because we believe that if we amass enough demonstrators, hold enough rallies, and walk in enough marches, we will turn the tide of war.

We are here today because we believe that if we say the right words and carry the right signs we will get our foot in the door of democratic debate.

In short, we are here because we believe in an illusion. That illusion is an accepted system of dissent that ensures our resistance doesn’t go beyond boundaries established by the government and the corporate media.

Methods that worked 40 years ago have been gradually homogenized into a manageable system of dissent that channels our moral outrage and our demands for peace into predictable, self-censoring, and largely ineffective protest.

Like cattle penned inside corrals and channeled down chutes to the killing floor, we are following a blueprint for dissent that the people in power have basically designed for us. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves doing the same things we did before (and after) every previous war?

If we want to end the occupation of Iraq, or stop the war on Iran – if we want the power to decide our own future – we must stop focusing on a particular war, a particular president, or a particular policy. Instead, we must focus on creating a sane new world by demolishing the illusions in which we live and rewriting the rules under which we are little more than slaves.

Before we can figure out how to build that new world, we must first realize that the wars, presidents, and policies we routinely oppose are part of a system wherein governments, militaries, police, and the courts work for corporations and the wealthy – not We the People. And we must recognize that our predictable, conventional methods of protest are simply figured into their cost of doing business.

Make no mistake: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, Snow, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Supreme Court, the CIA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the fossil fuels industry, the military-industrial complex, and everyone controlling this system, are not incompetent or stupid. They are corporatists, and they know what they are doing. They are deliberately dismantling our freedoms and protections so that corporate capitalism - backed by military and police power - can become a global reality.

“But wait,” you say. Don't Americans have free speech? Can’t we vote the bums out? Well, what is free speech when it falls on deaf ears? What is voting when corporations manufacture hackable electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail? What is an election when the major political parties are two sides of a counterfeit coin?

It’s time to throw away our misplaced faith in this corrupt, undemocratic system and build alternatives to it. “Another world is possible” isn’t possible if we keep supporting a system that’s rigged against us.

Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this reality when he spoke at New York’s Riverside Church in 1967. He said:

…[W]e as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.…A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Sadly, America has reached spiritual death. But the beautiful thing about the spirit is that it can be revived, reawakened, and renewed! Our spirits can rise from the dead.

Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” If we follow his wisdom, we will see today’s protest not as an end, but as a beginning. Think of this gathering as a town hall meeting – a community meeting where we educate each other and organize. This protest should be the first step in a revolution wherein we transform ourselves, and then our communities, into the world we wish to see.

We can control our future by rejecting the system of death and lies and wasteful corporate capitalism that we’ve been brainwashed to believe is the American Way. By acting in revolutionary ways we can begin building a new and sustainable world that prevents our children from dying in (or protesting) more immoral and unnecessary wars.

We must think creatively and wisely. We must build our own media, newspapers, websites; and our own cooperative networks, to include independent unions, banks, shops, farms, and housing. We must join with the men and women around the world who oppose the undemocratic, unaccountable, inhuman corporate structure that is destroying our planet.

Peak oil, global warming, and dwindling natural resources require that we start now. It won’t be easy. The mainstream media will not inform us; there is no charismatic leader to lead us, and no political party can save us. It falls upon “We the People” to free our minds and claim our own destiny.

The alternative is to accept a fate that others have chosen for us.

*Mike Kress served two tours in the Persian Gulf prior to leaving the Air Force as a conscientious objector. He has served as vice-chair of the Spokane Human Rights Commission and is the producer and host of “Take the Power” on KYRS FM in Spokane, WA (www.kyrs.org). Comments welcome at shrcmike@yahoo.com.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (184018)3/26/2006 2:15:01 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The mess Bush has made:

A founding member of the elite counter-terrorist unit, Delta Force, suggested that President Bush's invasion of Iraq may have started World War III, according to the Los Angeles Daily News...

Excerpts from the forthcoming article written by David Kronke:

#

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

....

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does...

rawstory.com