by restrangled 19 Replies latest jw friends
Drew,
I totally agree, I don't think there are any answers. We created a different problem from what existed and now have no answers or solutions other than to throw men and money at it.
The whole works is doomed to failure in my opinion. I see us sending helicopters in like Vietnam trying to get our guys out in the not too distant future as Iraq goes up for grabs.
There better not be a draft.....my precious sons will not be dieing for Bush's ego.
r.
Even if the administration had not lied it's way into a war of choice in Iraq in the first place, we should be engaged in dialog with Iran and Syria.
Six of Nine...I agree, why our elected president doesn't get this, is beyond comprehension. Oh, I forgot, he has a mandate from several years ago....remember that?
r.
Even if the administration had not lied it's way into a war of choice in Iraq in the first place, we should be engaged in dialog with Iran and Syria.
I knew Mark would agree with me. Now, how did I know that?
There will be a nuclear war in the middle east before Bush leaves office.
Well, in actual fact, by his own admission ( 2004 ), Donald Rumsfeld admitted that low-level negotiations were taking place in Iraq with the 'insurgents' - about the only useful thing that he did of late in his blundering career. I have no doubt whatsoever that similar meetings have been taking place with Iran and Syria all along. It would actually be without precedent if discussions were not already taking place.
During WWII, quite close negotiations were taking place between Germany, Italy and the UK. Count Ciampino, Mussolini's brother-in-law outlines the wide-reaching depth of these negotiations in his personal diaries, and they are very surprising.
It is not unknown for politicians to say one thing to the public, while administering their affairs in private in a quite contradictory manner. This is the stuff of politics and frankly we should be worried if they were not being deceitful. Any politician stupid enough to speak the complete truth to his public will have a very short, stormy and relatively ineffectual career, though such a person makes a good Hollywood hero.
HS
Hillary,
Donald Rumsfeld admitted that low-level negotiations were taking place in Iraq with the 'insurgents' -
This sounds like they are dealing with thugs instead of the governments in charge, much like what has gone on for years behind the scenes getting us into ever deeper trouble.
Hopefully not.
r.
Definitely should be talking with them, but who do we want to have talking to them on our behalf and what should be said? I think the idea of approaching the Iraq problems within their larger context is important (Israel-Palestine in particular). What all else, I'm not sure.
Drew said:
It's the same tired old story over and over, about how America needs to 'spread Democracy and Freedom'. To bad that Democratic countries take time to develop, usually after many generations. The fact is that it happens when the time is right, and the people of the particular nation are ready for it. I don't think Iraq was ready for it. It is a forced Democracy, one that is doomed to fail.
I read an interesting article yesterday. Although it's a few years old I think it is still relevant. The whole article is worth a read IMO, but it says, in part:
In conclusion, it may also be pointed out that if democracy has to take roots in Muslim Societies, it will have to seek legitimacy from Islam, otherwise it will remain an alien idea. Democratic movements in Muslim societies that are based primarily on secular liberalism will have little, if any, prospects of reaching the Muslim masses. The West's fascination with secular elites in the Muslim world - perhaps as a counter force to check the Islamists - is based on two false assumptions: the popular support base of secular liberals, and their commitment to the ideals and practices of democracy and liberalism.
Developments in the Islamic world since the Iranian revolution of 1979 have clearly demonstrated that secularism has no future as far as the Muslim masses are concerned. As for the commitment of the Muslim secular elites to democracy, liberalism, and pluralism, one has only to look at the recent performance of the three most important segments of secular elites in the Muslim world: (1) the military and the higher bureaucracy, (2) the institutional intellectuals, and (3) the emerging Muslim bourgeoisie. We all know the military's commitment to democracy and liberalism from the experience of Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and more recently, of Algeria. Secondly, majority of the institutional intellectuals - the Pan-Arab secular nationalists of yesteryears - were the ones who were closely associated with, and apologists for, socialist dictators of various colors. Until very recently, these intellectuals were an integral part of the oppressive state apparatus in all its versions( 18 )- Arab nationalist, Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist. They may have converted to the doctrine of free market and capitalist economy after the collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union but their political alternatives are far from liberalism, democracy and pluralism.
--http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2002/05/Article15.shtml
~Merry
Restrangled,
This sounds like they are dealing with thugs instead of the governments in charge, much like what has gone on for years behind the scenes getting us into ever deeper trouble.
I think that you should be far more worried about the microlepidoptera caterpillar that President Bush talks to and keeps in a matchbox by his side than who his Administration is talking to.
Diplomacy on all levels is an essential modus-operandi in any field of conflict and there has never been a modern-day skirmish where this has not happened. The secret is how to get the nation to think that no diplomatic activity is taking place, while secretly engaging in it to the fullest degree that benefits your nation. The way to do this is to work through third parties.
Unfortunately the Bush Administration has displayed a great weakness in its Foreign Policy as it set it's policy with regard to Eyeraq well before it knew the lay of the land and modelled its diplomatic vision on John Wayne style soundbites. Remember the 'bring 'em on' challenge? Well in Hollywood you defeat your foes with words, special effects and stunt men, but in the real world the movie flops and the streets just fill with blood.
It's diplomats either failed, or were overwhelmed by the Great Decider himself. I suspect the latter.
HS
I don't think that talks would hurt. Seeing that the only police in that country right now is the American army it may behoov their countries to try and quell the insurrection in Iraq because it could spill over to their country. Diplomacy is always a good idea.
