| To: JohnM who wrote (93006) | 4/12/2003 7:38:07 PM | | From: FaultLine | | | | I don't expect single state democracy in Iraq, incidentally. I expect some sort of federation with varying degrees of something we might call democracy within each federation. Looks to me as if the Kurds are further ahead on this score but they could easily skip to the Afghan model.
I agree with you 100%. I tried to anticipate this response by the proviso that humankind can intelligently (uh, oh<g>) intervene and jumpstart the process. You've got it exactly right.
--fl |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Neeka who wrote (92874) | 4/12/2003 7:47:17 PM | | From: ig | | | | "How do you know this? I am not doubting you, I just haven't heard or read about it anywhere. "
I learned it here on this thread. Someone posted a link to a report in the Washington Post that covered it.
ig |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: JohnM who wrote (92975) | 4/12/2003 7:54:48 PM | | From: Jacob Snyder | | | | re: Napolean analogy:
Rather than a biography, or a military history, I'd suggest a history of the diplomatic/social/economic changes in Europe at that time. Look at France's failed Regime Change in Spain, and their failed Nation Building in Poland, the way they attempted to co-opt or destroy local elites, the way the ideology of Freedom often ended up meaning the freedom for Frenchmen to plunder foreign nations. The way the slogans of the Revolution got recycled to justify Imperialism. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (92949) | 4/12/2003 8:03:28 PM | | From: slacker711 | | | | Sooner or later, we are going to recognise oil imports as our Achilles heel, a weak point in our national security that must be addressed. If we are smart, we'll do this before it becomes a crisis.
It drives me nuts that most Republicans seem to refuse to accept this....reducing our dependence on oil isnt an enviromental issue, it is a national security issue.
I am no way shape or form an enviromentalist (I support drilling in ANWAR) but this issue just seems obvious to me. Phasing in higher gasoline taxes (balanced by corresponding tax cuts elsewhere) seems to be the easiest way to start the process.
If the Democrats have any brains they will absolutely hammer away at this issue....of course, I think they are on the wrong side of the ANWAR issue, so it may not work.
Slacker |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (93026) | 4/12/2003 8:11:07 PM | | From: JohnM | | | | Rather than a biography, or a military history, I'd suggest a history of the diplomatic/social/economic changes in Europe at that time.
Boy, you are a hard taskmaster, Jacob. A biography I could get interested in and have on my to do list to find the best Napoleon bio(I have a couple on my shelves). But reading diplomatic history is a way to put me to sleep. For good. I might read the N bio and have the diplomatic history on the side of the chair to consult for reference purposes. But I have to hang my thoughts on the actions of individuals. Those, France did this, then Austria did that, then Spain did this, put the snore button on.
Now the recommendation to read the social/economic changes has actually been something I've considered doing, though I read it via the "bottom up" approach to history.
Well fun and games once I quit putting off the tax work, get it done, and get back to good reading. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (92957) | 4/12/2003 8:14:43 PM | | From: unclewest | | | | Ransacking museums is another part of war. It happens often...nothing new.
The most important artifacts are often returned later.
The military has a slightly different view and a different set of priorities during actual armed conflict. The goal right now is to end the hostilities as quickly as possible. When that has been accomplished, other things can move up the list of priorities. In the meantime, do not expect to see military commanders setting aside their military war mission for any reason until at least most of the hostilities cease. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: JohnM who wrote (92958) | 4/12/2003 8:19:15 PM | | From: greenspirit | | | | John, to borrow a favorite condescending phrase. Take a deep breath and relax. Maybe go for a long walk and join a support the troops rally in your area. :)
I realize it's difficult for you to believe universal values of freedom and liberty exist, but, they do. President Bush has tapped into the same universal values which freed most of Europe just a little over a decade ago.
The celebrations by the Iraqi people, the flowers given to American troops, and the cheering along the roads is all a part of the predictions you poo-pood a few weeks and months ago.
Yes, those like Bush, who are part of the great unwashed mass were right. And nearly 30 million people are free because of their clear headed thinking and dogged determination.
By the way, I don't demonize posters here. I question their *judgement* and ability to critically examine other points of view. Your mis-characterization that I demonize, was a form of demonization in and of itself.
The fact is John the anti-war protestors, the "I hate anything Bush supports" and the critical arm chair generals were all wrong. This has been an amazingly successful military campaign, which will not only win the war in record time, with incredible low levels of casualties, but, it will win the peace as well.
Democracy is now coming to the heart of Middle East.
All brought to you "Courtesy of the Red White and Blue". :) |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: FaultLine who started this subject | 4/12/2003 8:20:15 PM | | From: paul_philp | | | | Tom Friedman back on his game makes some very good points.
Paul
The Sand Wall
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
nytimes.com
UMM QASR, Iraq
As Berlin Walls go, the 20-foot-high dirt berm around Iraq's southern port of Umm Qasr — the first wall to fall in the liberation of Iraq — isn't much to look at, but it's a fitting symbol for this war. It is a sand wall, easily breached by American power, exposing a rotten dictatorship with little popular support on the other side. This area is full of regimes protected by such sand walls.
But unlike the Berlin Wall, whose fall unleashed a flowering of freedom all across Eastern Europe, the fall of the Sand Wall alone will not do that. There are still two other walls holding back the explosion of freedom in the Arab East — much harder walls — that will also have to fall.
The first is the wall in the Arab mind. I hit my head against that wall two weeks ago in Cairo, while discussing the war with Egyptian opposition journalists in Feshawi's teahouse, the writing hangout of Naguib Mahfouz. These journalists could see nothing good coming from the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq, which they insisted was being done only to put Arabs down, strengthen Israel and extract oil.
Such encounters made clear to me that America was not just at war with Saddam, but with Saddamism: an entrenched Arab mind-set, born of years of colonialism and humiliation, that insists that upholding Arab dignity and nationalism by defying the West is more important than freedom, democracy and modernization.
Throughout this war, Saddamism was peddled by Al Jazeera television, Arab intellectuals and the Arab League. You cannot imagine how much distress there is among certain Arab elites that the people of Iraq preferred liberation by America to more defiance under Saddam. The morning after Baghdad was liberated, Abdul Hamid Ahmad, editor of The Gulf News, wrote, like so many of his colleagues: "This is a heartbreaking moment for any Arab, seeing marines roaming the streets of Baghdad."
The wall of Saddamism, which helped bad leaders stay in power and young Arabs remain backward and angry, was as dangerous as Saddam. "The social, political, cultural and economic malaise in this part of the world had become a threat to American security — it produced 9/11," said Shafeeq Ghabra, president of the American University of Kuwait. "This war was a challenge to the entire Arab system, which is why so many Arabs opposed it. The war to liberate Kuwait from Iraq [in 1991] was outpatient surgery. This war was open-heart surgery."
But this open-heart surgery will succeed in toppling both Saddam and Saddamism only if we are successful in creating a healthy Iraq — an Arab state where people can find dignity, not just by saying no to the West, but by building a decent, tolerant, modernizing society that they can be proud of, an Arab state where people can speak the truth and that other Arabs would want to emulate. The widespread looting that has followed the fall of Saddam tells me just how hard that will be. So far, all that we have unleashed in Iraq is chaos, not freedom. There is no civil society here. We are starting from scratch.
And then we must also take down the third wall — the wall of cement, fear and barbed wire being erected between Israelis and Palestinians. We must defuse this conflict. If we let this Israeli-Palestinian wall stand, it will reinforce the wall of Saddamism. Arab dictators will hide behind this conflict as an excuse not to change, Arab intellectuals will use it to delegitimize U.S. power out here, and the enemies of the new leaders in Iraq will use it to embarrass them for working with us.
When one of the Egyptian journalists at Feshawi's insisted that we were out to "occupy Iraq," I quoted to him a line from Colin Powell: America is as powerful as any empire in history, but when it has invaded other countries the only piece of land it has ever asked for was a tiny plot to bury its soldiers who would not be returning home. He actually smiled at that.
The moment reminded me of something the Arab columnist Rami Khouri liked to say, that Arabs for too long have seen the strength of America, but not the "goodness" of America. Partly that's because their media willfully distorted what we did, and partly it's because America has used its power out here more to defend oil and Israel than democracy. This war in Iraq was meant to bring the idealistic side of U.S. power into the Arab world.
Our task now is to apply that idealism to rebuilding Iraq and resolving the Palestine question. If we do it right, I am certain the other walls in this region will be taken down by the people themselves — and never again will we have to ask for even the tiniest plot of land to bury our soldiers here. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
