Friday, May 12, 2006

Negotiating with Iran: who's the real enemy?

Even back when I was a liberal, I don't think I ever was out of touch with reality about the nature of our enemies.

For example, when the ayatollahs came to power in Iran and launched their PR campaign by taking over the American Embassy and making the Carter administration look like impotent fools, it was clear what we were dealing with. The repressiveness of the new Iranian regime (particularly vis a vis women) was clear from the start, as was its aggressive intent and its uncompromising tyranny.

This was how the crisis began:

On November 1, 1979 Iran's new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged his people to demonstrate against United States and Israeli interests. Ruhollah Khomeini was anti-American in his rhetoric, denouncing the American government as the "Great Satan" and "Enemies of Islam".

Well, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. There are few regimes around that represent such models of consistency over time.

Yes indeed, as I've said before, one can rightfully disagree on what to do about Iran. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record I will repeat: the intent of the Iranian leadership is clear, because they have made it clear. These are not people with whom one can expect to negotiate and reach any sort of favorable outcome, or indeed any outcome at all that isn't a sham.

So the solutions lie elsewhere. They might be strategic: working with other nations to apply the screws in various ways, such as economically. They might be clandestine: working to help Iranians themselves change the regime. And of course they might be military, the solution hated most by liberals, leftists, and pacifists.

And in fact that latter solution--the military one--is also most hated by me. I would imagine it's most hated by almost everyone on the right as well as on the left, because most people on earth are actually not eager for war if other solutions have a good chance of success. Those who advocate a military solution do so because they tend to consider it the least bad of a host of possible bad solutions, and risky ones at that.

I personally still advocate a combination of the strategic and clandestine solutions, holding off a military one till if/when it may be absolutely necessary. But in any event, I don't think it's best to take any possibility off the table.

I believe that I would feel the same way if I were still a liberal Democrat. Some would take that as evidence that I never was a liberal Democrat in the first place, but they would be wrong. The truth is that there have been tremendous changes in the last few decades in the stance of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party (and perhaps "wing" isn't a good word, since the entire party has shifted enough that I'm not sure there's much of a moderate wing remaining).

When I take a look at blogs of the liberal persuasion writing on the topic of Iran, I can't help but feel that a sea change has occurred of such major proportions that I simply don't recognize my own former party.

Here's a case in point--not so much the post itself, but the comments that follow. The most common attitude I see there is that the enemy is bloodthirsty and is on the brink of starting a war, and the enemy must be stopped.

So, what's wrong with that, you say? Only this: the enemy in question is the Bush administration. The other enemy--Iran--is given all the benefit of the doubt, and Bush is given none.

Iran's motives are seen as, if not noble, then as understandable reactions to the threats of others. Its history and its own stated aims are ignored. Its ability to actually make a weapon is doubted; the longest possible time frame for such a possibility is accepted as the earliest possible time frame. And on and on...

Historical context? Fagettabout it.

44 Comments:

At 5:50 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Before anyone else gets to chime in: The best thing to do is ignore juvenile commentary. Neo's posted a thoughtful piece, and disintegrating into a back and forth doesn't do justice it.

It is not distressing that there are those out there who doubt local government. A good amount of healthy, informed doubt is a good thing. But like you, Neo, I'm distressed that others are more than willing to not criticize, and in fact give a remarkable amount of leeway to the Iranian government.

One poster at Democratic Underground said:

"they're more than willing to die for respect, we will die because we refused to offer it.

I'd say they have the moral position here."


That sort of thinking distresses me. The automatic assumption is made that the US's motivations are malicious, and that the Iranian government's are not. It also shocks me that someone could honestly buy into the fact that threats of death and violence are some sort of moral trump card, as if that makes a stand or a cause automatically correct and moral.

However, I take comfort in the fact that, at most of these sites, the opinions expressed (to put it nicely) are not representative of the mainstream. Like Usenet used to, blogs tend to attract the extreme. Saying things like "THEN (after you "stop Bush from starting (a) war") you can talk about how to resolve the "crisis" - which doesn't exist, anyway..." is, to me, deliberate ignorance of the situation. Note: I'm not calling the poster ignorant, I'm saying he's ignoring facets of the issue. At any rate, statements like that are more knee-jerk and less than informed, but again, those are the disgruntled who are willing to take time to vent. Not the majority of folks who aren't bothering to post. I take comfort in that; the loudest opinions are often not the most representative. At any rate, Neo, it's true that so many who post nonsense like that are selectively choosing to play up their version of the United State's past while ignoring any version of the Iranian governments, but I'm not sure you should spend too much worry over it. Writing posts as you do, yes, but worry, no. Again, those are thankfully not representative of all thought around the nation, much less that of folks in a position to actually influence things.

 
At 6:12 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger stumbley said...

Elmondo said:

"Again, those are thankfully not representative of all thought around the nation, much less that of folks in a position to actually influence things."

I don't know, mondo. I wish it were true. I'm reminded of those who say that Islamic fundamentalists don't represent the "religion of peace™", and that there are many more moderate Muslims out there. If there are, I'm not seeing them...so I conclude that there is at least tacit support for jihadists among more than just the fringe of Islam.

In the same way, I hear the Howard Deans and Nancy Pelosis of the Democratic party sound almost as unhinged as "proud neocon" and the KosKids, so it makes me worry about that other 50% of the country. Would that we were all as reasonable as Neo-neo.

 
At 6:39 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger al fin said...

If you graduate from a north american university you will have been indoctrinated in exactly the way neo describes. This is an extreme and radical change from what the liberal left viewpoint was thirty years ago.

This is the problem with university students and graduates loudly expressing viewpoints. They are not their own viewpoints. It takes years of experience and observation, comparing what you were taught with what you actually see in the real world, to begin formulating your own ideas.

Combine that lack of experience and perspective with the fact that their frontal lobes are still largely unmyelinated, and you understand the poor judgement of the very young.

It would be different if education in north america was worth half a farthing.

 
At 8:17 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger debewley said...

How I miss Scoop Jackson, Sam Nunn, and even Tip O'Neil.

All of them bled Democrat blue. But they were all capable of recognizing the difference between a partisan difference and a national security issue.

 
At 8:23 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger Michimacker said...

HI!

Gut check time.

We come from a similar age... I voted for McGovern, back when. Cronkite told me to, and I did.

Then I went to work in a union shop and didn't last very long... I was told I was making other employees look bad!!! Slow down; shut up.

Republican ever since. Quietly so.

But now I think liberals, literally, will get Americans killed because they are blinded by moral relativism. Abu Ghraib did NOT become more evil after Americans took over. Not perfect. Embarrassing, even. But no one was fed into a wood chipper, or dipped in battery acid, or beaten every day with clubs.

Time to drop the apple. I know, it's not as artistic.

But we do not live in an artistic age.

 
At 9:21 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger David Thomson said...

“However, I take comfort in the fact that, at most of these sites, the opinions expressed (to put it nicely) are not representative of the mainstream...”

You are wrong. These leftist websites most certainly represent the mindset of the Democratic Party's “mainstream”. This is how far the situation has deteriorated. The power structure of the Democrats is now committed to appeasement. And yes, it strongly believes that George W. Bush is more dangerous than the Islamic militants.

 
At 10:41 PM, May 12, 2006, Blogger Goesh said...

Some act as if the entire world will go up in flames if we take out Iran's reactor(s) and some attached assets. The mullah's power and control would be greatly enhanced with such a strike. That's the trade-off for eliminating their nuclear capability. When we attack and if they engage, they get financially crippled and lose their power and the mullahs know this. The security forces protecting them are in it for their good wages and life style, status and exemption from Justice. It was the same with saddam - that's why our troops got to Baghdad in a couple of weeks. That's why the Iraqi Army is having trouble being reconstituted. The pay and status and exemptions are not nearly as sweet as their were with saddam. An attack on Iran's reactor(s) will enable them to crack down on the anti-mullah factions. I think it is that simple. If Iran backs down and essentially caves in to Western pressure by disarming, the anti-mullah factions will only grow stronger. Which is the worse trade-off for the West? The choice is clear to me - take out their reactor(s).

 
At 8:53 AM, May 13, 2006, Blogger snowonpine said...

Its also remarkable the in the time since WWII the Democratic and Republican parties have in many ways exchanged their foreign policy positions.

A broad brush approach here--In WWII many Republicans were generally isolationist--an inward looking party that wanted the U.S. to mind its own business and let the rest of the world hang itself if it wanted to. Many Democrats, on the other hand, were for engagement--an outward looking party that saw the necessity of going out into the World to change things. Even with these diametrically opposed viewpoints there was still a much more bipartisan approach to foreign policy than there is in the present toxic political atmosphere.

After the war, Democrats were in the forefront in creating all the post-WWII programs--like the Marshall plan--to rebuild Europe and in the creation of a new security apparatus--NATO, SEATO, the UN.
Democrats were also instrumental in initiating and sustaining the decades long Cold War with Communism. But during the long post WWII fight things shifted, changed and the whole political landscape mutated into something that, I think, would be unrecognizable and alien to the Democrats of WWII and the early post WWII years.

Now it is many Republicans who are for going out into the world to change things and the Democrats who want to focus on domestic policy and who see almost any U.S. action in the international arena as illegitimate meddling. Bipartisanship in foreign policy is pretty much dead and many in the Democratic party, like Pogo, have found the enemy and he is us.

 
At 9:34 AM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Proud Neocon said...

oh the irony!

censoring inconvenient comments is really unbecoming of one who professes a love for the virtues of democracy. If this what we're suppose to be exporting at the barrel of a gun, then we really needn't bother -- those "savages" are quite capable on their own. It's a shame really that thousands of American and Iraqi lives were sacrificed, for THIS!

but what can you expect from a neocon these days.

 
At 10:20 AM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

I think you can combine the military and negotiation solutions to form a hybrid, with the strengths of both and the detriments of neither. But it'll have to mean thinking outside the box and stepping on some toes.

You are wrong. These leftist websites most certainly represent the mindset of the Democratic Party's “mainstream”.

Statistically, it is about 22% of the American people. Basically, it is the counter-part to the 22% to 33% supporting Bush at the moment. Meaning, the Democratic mainstream and party line is comparable to the Republican party line to the point of 5%+- difference.

There's about 22-33% on the Left, and 22-33% on the Right. The other 33% is statistically in the middle. When talking about the Democrats and their mainstream party backers, we are really talking about 1/3rd of America. More or less. Concentrated in the urban cities, true, but still 1/3rd of the population of America, if not the geography.

 
At 11:31 AM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Dale St. Clair said...

I doubt that anything will be done to Iran. Iran has successfully analyzed the politics of the Western world and realized that Bush, or Bush’s successor will not be able to prevent Iran’s nuclear program. Iran will gain prestige among the America-haters here in the US and overseas by the Islamic equivalents of mooning. Nothing warms the cockles of an America-hater’s heart more than watching while a despot thumbs his nose at the US. There is something deeply satisfying to them in such a display. The letter, possibly the beginning of a series of letters, is meant as a taunt.

It seems to bother the America-haters that the US has had a technological advantage in weaponry. They seem to have a mischievous desire that the enemy achieve parity(or even superiority) in this area. America has the bomb? Well, you just wait until(whoever opposes America) has the bomb! What will America do then, huh? America wont be so big then, eh?

So Iran will get the bomb. Then other hostile Islamic regimes will get it. It’s difficult to imagine past this point. I worry about a nuke being detonated in the US and believe the response from the US to such an event would be terrible in its effects. But the Islamists may not need to vaporize American cities in order to achieve their goal – a world-dominating New Caliphate. The only real advantage the West possesses is technology; once that is gone …

However, hatred of the infidel may take precedent over prudent and clever power politics against a decadent, squabbling West. The temptation to be elevated to the status of a Saladin by killing a huge number of infidels may be too strong to pass up. The enemy may believe, along with many in the US, that in the event of such an anonymous, terrorist-manned strike, that the US would be unable to respond, would be helpless. After all, terrorists have been employed by despots with relative immunity from retaliation since 1979. The only exception has been Iraq and the left and the MSM has succeeded in discrediting the Iraq war.

Before anyone else gets to chime in: The best thing to do is ignore juvenile commentary. Neo's posted a thoughtful piece, and disintegrating into a back and forth doesn't do justice it.

If someone makes a debatable comment they win if no one responds. Neo can stop comments altogether if she doesn’t want a “back and forth” and you can ignore the “back and forth” if it bothers you, but no one dictates my comment, no matter how well-meaning such an instruction may be.

 
At 4:33 PM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

There seemed to be some kind of back and forth above elmondo that I missed.

There's lots of reasons why I say the Democratic party is the War Party of America, replete with all the ruthlessness it requires to make war. One of the reasons is simple. the Democrats always like to balance out the odds. When you do that internationally, you increase the chances for war. Because someone will realize that they can grab a piece.

The only thing that has stopped people from invading other countries is the United States hyperpower, the ultimate threat that you can count on is that if you invade your neighbor, America is going to stop you.

If you degrade this deterence, more nations will go to war. Look at Africa, without a good history of American intervenence, the civil wars will go into territorial wars, and so on.

If you give other countries military parity with the US, that means there is no lock on pandora's box anymore. Wars will be as everpresent as it was on the European continent in the 20th and 19th century.

The Democratic party lives and breaths for war, and it is rather curious that they don't seem to realize this fact.

 
At 7:44 PM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Proud Neocon said...

It's one thing to ignore a comment you don't like, because it tries to expose your hypocrisy, but to actually expunge it --WOW! Does anyone else not see something wrong here??!!

And you folks wonder why you're mocked.

 
At 8:46 PM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Harry Mallory said...

At the risk of feeding a troll, whats your point?

 
At 10:55 PM, May 13, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

The point is that his religious fanaticism is correct, and that you unbelievers (the neocons) are apostates that shall be excised from existence.

How's that for points?

It's one thing to ignore a comment you don't like, because it tries to expose your hypocrisy, but to actually expunge it --WOW! Does anyone else not see something wrong here??!!

Not really. The Democrats were never big on DoD secrets or spy on spy tradecraft. I'm a big tradecraft lover. I wonder why Proud is so proud of ostracizing neo-cons for our tradecraft skills.

 
At 12:35 AM, May 14, 2006, Blogger Proud Neocon said...

Harry,
my point would be painfully obvious were you able to read my original comment. When confronted with her own hypocrisy, instead of addressing it, our host took the LIBERTY of deleting it entirely.

 
At 2:13 AM, May 14, 2006, Blogger douglas said...

hey, it's a free country. Why don't you post about it on your blog?


As a lifelong Republican, it may seem strange, but I long for the likes of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, opposition you could at least respect. I also wonder if there's still reallty a place for the likes of Joe Lieberman in the Democrat party anymore.

 
At 10:31 PM, May 14, 2006, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Ymar,
Yes, there was a post above mine that was needlessly, agressively provocative, to the point of trolling in fact. It's one thing to disagree in a heated way but yet be thoughtful and logical, but that post confused attack for reason and came off as mocking and not constructive. It had no place after Neo's carefully considered post, and it would've just lowered the quality of the discussion. That's why I sounded off. Creating a properly provocative message to induce thought takes more than sarcasm and insult, it takes reason and respect, yet, that post was severely lacking in such. Granted, in the abscence of that message, my own comment appears rather schoolmarmishly severe - Grackle, with some justification, seems a mite put out with me over it - but I'll take the heat in exchange for it being removed.

Hectoring is not argument. Insult is not reason. And agitprop cannot be confused with genuine discourse. Posting such and claiming it is an attempt at debate is, to be frank, silly.

 
At 1:04 AM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Proud Neocon said...

Elmon,

Yes, there was a post above mine that was needlessly, agressively provocative, to the point of trolling in fact....but I'll take the heat in exchange for it being removed.

and who are you to decide what does or does not constitute "genuine discourse." I could just as argue that my comment, while "aggresively provocative," were in fact "thoughtful and logical."

God bless Amerika! I wonder whether those poor young lads you folks sent to iraq know exactly what they're asked to fight for. I implore you to spend a moment and think about that...you owe them that much.

 
At 1:50 AM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Barry Meislin said...

Regarding the criticisms directed in Bush's direction from the progressive wing of the human race, it is important to point out that prior to WWII, Winston Churchill was castigated, mocked, and villified for daring to point out what no one wanted to hear: that Nazi Germany posed a threat to the west, that war was only a matter of time, and that it behooved Britain and the west to face up to it.

 
At 3:14 AM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Sally said...

Ah, I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh at the squeals emerging from that "Proud Neocon" (aka "Spankee") now that he's discovered he has to be civil when posting on someone else's blog. Ooh, but what about his 1st Amendment rights?? You mean he might have to get his own blog and build his own audience (which, apart from his multiple personalities, would at least include his own mother), rather than clutter up someone else's? Oh, the humanity!!

 
At 7:10 AM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Dale St. Clair said...

The key for a willingness on my part to respond is whether anything in the comment is debatable, for instance, the “poor young lads” in one of Proud’s comments. There are no “poor young lads” in Iraq, there are only professional soldiers, men and women, who knew what the job was when they signed up. You don’t join the military to play patty-cake. The “poor young lads” meme is a holdover from the glory days of Vietnam war protests, when the draft was in place and young men of military age were forced into the military for minor infractions of law(one of the more self-defeating policies by the administrations of that era). It’s a subtle indicator of the current anti-war bunch’s tunnel vision mindset: Every war is Vietnam.

BTW, I don’t think Proud is Spanky, the fertile imagination and witty thrusts are missing. And Spanky would know better than to try and pull the “poor young lads” bit. I guess everyone’s definition of a troll is different, but to my mind Spanky is not a troll.

 
At 9:23 AM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Proud Neocon said...

The irony of the whole situation is really lost on you people, huh?

guess I'll just have to "troll" over to another rag, 'cause there's really nothing here.

 
At 7:29 PM, May 15, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

The irony of the whole situation is really lost on you people, huh?

Did it ever occur to you, Proud, that people just don't agree with your interpretation of the irony or lack thereof, in this whole situation?

To Elmondo, something said on this blog inspired me to write about the Fortress of a Person's Mind. Here,

I think it says basically what needs to be said about the related subjects here

Specifically, it answers your quote here.

It's one thing to disagree in a heated way but yet be thoughtful and logical, but that post confused attack for reason and came off as mocking and not constructive.

guess I'll just have to "troll" over to another rag, 'cause there's really nothing here.
Correct, there are no incitable peasants on Neocon's blog that people like Proud can incite to a frenzy. LIke attacks made for psychology, it tends to have its effectiveness reduced after repeated assaults on the psyche.

I agree with grackle, Proud is not Spankcake. Proud actually uses quotes and then replies in a way that is relevant to the quoted section. Spanke's technique was to use essay formats, if he quoted, he quoted without comments.

 
At 3:45 PM, May 16, 2006, Blogger saintknowitall said...

While growing up, we had neighbors who were Iranian. They said that one of the reasons the ayatollahs didn't like the Shah, was because he took their property away from them. Property they had "accumulated" from sometime very poor Iranians.

Just goes to show, there is greed behind many things.

 
At 9:59 PM, May 16, 2006, Anonymous idontunderstand said...

Forgive me as you will probably think I am a bit naive with my questions to you. I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US. A lot of us in the outside world just don't get what is driving you.
My question is, after reading this column and the comments is: What is it that the US public actually thinks Iran has done wrong to the point of being threatened with a nuclear strike?
There is no suggestion that Iran has broken its obligations under the NPT but is only resisting US attempts to force it to forgo their rights gauranteed by the NPT.i.e. Unfettered rights to pursue the ability to produce nuclear power. There is no forseeable ability to even come close to refining uranium to weapons grade plutonium for many years, and normal IAEA inspections could verify that that is not their goal. (As in the case of Brazil and several other 2nd and 3rd world powers). Most of the discussion within the US seems to be centred around a false premise that Iran has, or is developing nuclear weapons.
Again forgive me, I'm not trolling here, but this looks like an engineered 'crisis' and an attempt to subvert international law in the interests of furthering the Bush regime's domestic standing.

 
At 10:10 PM, May 16, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

What is it that the US public actually thinks Iran has done wrong to the point of being threatened with a nuclear strike?

Taking our embassy hostage. Aiding Hezbollah in blowing up our Marine barracks killing more in one attack than any single IED or suicide bomber has in Iraq on US troops. Sending money and destabilization agents into Iraq. Hanging a teenaged girl for being raped. Oh you know, the usual things that will piss off the Jacksonian segment of America.

As I've pointed out before to our Brit visitors. America has had a very successful history of using wars to solve our problems. Revolutionary War solved independence from Britain. Civil War solved slavery for us. WWII solved fascism. Cold War solved communism. You get the picture. Compare this to what the rest of the world accomplishes with war. Zippo, you get zip, in terms of success. Any other country tries to do war, they just make the world more of a mess.

Most of America doesn't really care if Iran violated or violates international agreements. To most of America, this issue became moot after they took our embassy hostage and did nothing to free our diplomatic corps.

It looks like it's been engineered by Bush because you people don't understand that Bush doesn't do propaganda and you don't understand what Jacksonians are in American politics. Google Jacksonianism, and read. Neo has also written some about it as well.

You can believe its engineered, but that's not how 85% of America sees it as.

 
At 10:59 PM, May 16, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Oh, OK. So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation. I'm not on the side of the mullahs or anyone else, but the Iranian revolution came about because the Shah's regime was an incredibly brutal period in a country with a very long history and a proud culture. The 1953 coup to install the Shah in place of a secular and democratically elected parliament and executive was carried out by the US (and Britain) because of the determination to nationalise the oil industry. So, you can see that there may have been some anti US feeling there. It was 26 years later, and now 27 years later than that you feel justified in seeking revenge yet again. Where will it end?

I'd have thought that all the rhetoric about bringing 'freedom and democracy' was classic propaganda. I'm pretty sure the Palestinians would agree, as democratic elections don't seem to have done them much good.


Oh and didn't Hizbollah win? (Although I'm not sure how your mentioning that relates to the current 'crisis'). A brief look at post WW2 history would show that US wars haven't been hugely successful either, methinks. Grenada was obviously a feather in your cap though.


( BTW I'm not sure who "my people" are.)

Sorry to be a little abrasive about this, but I did find your response to my genuine question, a touch arrogant and dismissive. Tally ho.

 
At 11:07 AM, May 17, 2006, Anonymous elvis the helpful said...

arrogant and dismissive is kinda the neo con norm.....get used to it.

two rules of neoconartists

1. we are right

2. you are wrong - and stupid - and evil

don't expect much in the way of sense

oh and ignore yrmdwnkr - he is truly out there on his own....check out his blog, highly comical. all sci-fi and war games

 
At 2:33 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Well, I am seriously interested in getting some genuine perspective about the mindset because this situation has the potential to be a disaster beyond a scale that we've seen. I picked this blog because it appeared to be more moderate than some of the........others.
I did look at the young Y man's blog and I agree with you, I don't think I'll get much insight there. Apparently, 6 billion people are jealous of his power and money.

 
At 5:04 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger neoneoconned said...

talk to them . they vary. some are very scary, many are just ill informed and a very few have an interesting and coherent right wing agenda which basically says we are the best and we should rule the world.

but dont take them too seriously...its a minority


elvis lives

 
At 5:57 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Albeit a powerful minority with the ear of the powerful.

Kurt Cobain doesn't. (And who can blame him after seeing Courtney Love.)

 
At 8:01 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation.

Something like that, but with Bush his motives are not personal but solely about WMDs. He believes Iran is a threat, Bush however is an internationalist, he believes in the UN and in Europe. Most of America actually are not very confident in the UN. Sure, there's the 22% on our Left that always favors the UN, but you're always going to have someone favor something in any poll.

Bush could easily have destroyed the UN after Oil for Food was found out, and taken retributive action against Iran free of any international barriers, but he didn't. A lot of Americans regret that. I know I do.

Where will it end?

It'll end when one side wins. When was Europe's wars going to end? When America stepped in and Ended it For Them. That's when.


I'd have thought that all the rhetoric about bringing 'freedom and democracy' was classic propaganda.


No, Bush actually believes that. America is divided however. The true liberals like freedom and democracy, the Republican realists just want national security, then ther's the middle that likes both.

I'm pretty sure the Palestinians would agree, as democratic elections don't seem to have done them much good.


They may not agree but it's done wonders for the Arab-Israeli conflict. Now that America finally has a pretense to stop funding HAMAS and Palestinian terror, and Israel has stopped funding Hamas and Palestine as well, things will only get better as the Palestinians self-destruction. Criminals win because they are always in the shadows, democracy brings transparency and light to the cockroaches. It's always better this way.

"You people" are the people who believe in the same things that you do. That's rather obvious.

Not a lot of people actually believe Bush is sincere, but he actually is. You won't get any real grasp on American policy until you accept that premise. Unlike Europe, Americans elect their President directly by a modified popular vote. We don't vote for the Republicans and the Republicans elect Bush themselves like a Parliamentary system would do in Europe. This means Bush's policies are not Congressional but rather sourced from the people, the base of power.

 
At 8:10 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

You should go read this.

Vodka

Flamingo

 
At 10:10 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

You are pretty offensive for someone so young and obviously untravelled. That sort of stuff usually takes years of practice. But, you are confusing me for someone who will respond to your racist claptrap. Two pieces of advice for you though. You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy. FOX news may tell you what you want to hear, but it won't way you down with any facts.
The second is, that if you are going to spin a yarn, there needs to be an element of truth somewhere in there. Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

 
At 10:25 PM, May 17, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Ummm, that would be "weigh". Oops.

 
At 12:05 PM, May 18, 2006, Blogger Ymarsakar said...

It's the usual pattern. Open minded liberal comes to Neo-Con's blog, asks questions, then when he doesn't like the answers, starts talking about American arrogance or what not.

Not surprising, and very expected. It is disappointing however, to see it keep happening as folks from Europe come over to this site, because it reinforces my belief, and not jack trainor's, that Europe won't live to hit rock bottom to bounce back up.

Racist is probably one of the 3 deadly insults in Britain and Europe. War monger is probably the worst, along with fascist.

Since I keep my expectations low, I don't run the risk of getting angry when those expectations are met.

You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy.

Ya, I'll keep that in mind about the next person who says they are open minded about their questions and confusion.

Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

Well, I am seriously interested in getting some genuine perspective about the mindset because this situation has the potential to be a disaster beyond a scale that we've seen.

Really.

I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US.

Good luck in trying to understand something that you've already decided on. There's a 75% chance this fake lying liberal didn't even read the links, because presumably he would have talked about nuking Mecca if he did.

Bye, bye. Send us a note when the jihadists string you up in the streets, we'll take a picture.

 
At 3:16 PM, May 18, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

You assume that I am a European. Wrongly. Nor am I British or Irish. Labels seem very important to you, which is telling in itself.

It seems to me that the jihadists (your term) wish to kill westerners because of injustices (percieved or real) committed by the west against their peoples. Your solution is to kill and/or subjugate many more, if not all, people of their entire religion. Nice plan.

I am genuinely trying to achieve some insight into the workings of the GWB supporters, but I'm not interested in your type of outright racism and xenophobia.

As for the Palestinians, a little justice would go a long way. Very few are secular moslems and 58 years of oppression, ethnic cleansing and murder doesn't seem to have won their hearts and minds does it? Someone once said "know your enemy" and you would do well to take that on board. Inventing labels and horror yarns is adolescent and puerile.

Your assumptions about moslems (as opposed to islamic extremists) and your method of dealing with them has a paralell in recent history you know. It was called Nazism.

Which brings us to WW2, your comment was a direct insult to the many millions of nonAmericans who lost their lives fighting German fascism. The country of my birth spent far more in money and lives per capita than yours despite being remote from the conflict, years before we were threatened by the Japanese. We didn't take the opportunity for 3 years of arms profiteering before jumping in.

The sooner people like you stop being willingly hoodwinked by the "we are pure, and they are evil" crusadist rhetoric the better. You will never win your war against Islam without winning the hearts and minds of the people. Your type are acting as the best recruiting agents that bin Laden could ever hope for.

Oh, and if you wish to be taken seriously, it would help to stop contradicting your own 'arguments'. Your thoughts are more thinks.

 
At 4:46 PM, May 18, 2006, Blogger neoneoconned said...

...do you see what i mean? he is a bit bonkers...and kinda racist. if you read a lot of the neo "how i became a neo con " stuff you get a general idea about these people...but they really are powerless. the powerful right n the us is much more focussed on realpolitick and are very divided. ask any of them about topics such as immigration and the free movement of labour and you will get a myriad of conradictory answers

 
At 5:11 PM, May 18, 2006, Blogger confusedforeigner said...

Yeah, it kinda makes you feel dirty responding to him doesn't it? But noone else seems willing to help in my quest. C'est la vie.

As an aside, I haven't noticed on a single US right wing blog the timing of this Iran 'crisis'. i.e. That the US only demanded that Iran cease its nuclear power programme shortly after Iran announced that they would conduct their oil sales in Euros rather than US dollars. Guess that one slipped under FOX news' radar, huh.

Uncle Deeppockets (Rupert Murdoch) has much to be ashamed of.

 
At 12:25 PM, May 25, 2006, Blogger alzaebo said...

"I personally still advocate a combination of the strategic and clandestine solutions, holding off a military one till if/when it may be absolutely necessary"

It worked in East Europe and Russia.

A template for China!?!

 
At 12:43 PM, May 25, 2006, Blogger alzaebo said...

At last! An explanation of why Soviet protest organizers and French socialists concentrated their clandestine funds and ideas on winning the hearts and minds of the Democrats in the 60's-

"Many Democrats, on the other hand, were for engagement--an outward looking party that saw the necessity of going out into the World to change things.

After the war, Democrats were in the forefront in creating all the post-WWII programs--like the Marshall plan--to rebuild Europe and in the creation of a new security apparatus--NATO, SEATO, the UN."

Like CAIR lawyers today- whose offices have tripled since 9/11. Hizb'allah has over 100 offices in the US, and 400,000 citizens living in Monterrey, Mexico.
March For the Undocumented, anyone?

 
At 12:51 PM, May 25, 2006, Blogger alzaebo said...

Also, the proliferation of Saudi 'chairs' at university;

the Saudi IIIWB being the second largest media conglomerate in both North and South America (whose boards of directors dictate what editors may pass);

and the fact that 80% of OPEC contributions go to environmentalist 'Big Green' lawyer lobbyists- to prevent, not invent, alternative energy

Hey Al! Please blow another 45,000 gallons of jet fuel to speak in Riyadh and Dubai on 'the environment'

 
At 1:42 PM, May 25, 2006, Blogger alzaebo said...

Mossadegh was a Soviet front. Even then, it was all about Anglo-American ooooil. Russia has no interest in oil, and is scrupulously honest and fair. Sure.

The Shah made Iran the most liberal and advanced Islamic country; Arabists like mad Khomeini hated him because he was a Persian patriot. The mullahs seized 90% of the Iranian economy, and slowly strangled tens of thousands of girls- along with the other million or so evaporations.

Israel was the only Mideastern country to recognize Palestine in '48. The other countries started wars so they could SEIZE PALESTINIAN LAND.

The Syrian occupiers of Lebanon and Arafat's Tunisian occupiers of Palestine live in palaces in the midst of the towns- excuse me, refugee camps- yet won't allow building materials in.
Need money for bullets, not butter.

If I don't like having my Mexican neighbors buy houses here, can I bomb the schoolbus? Palestine Judenrein!

Last call- we need to fund the oppressed ethnics, and Persian dissidents, in Iran. China (and dying Russia) armed the Mideast, selling nuclear missle tech for oil. China has successfully used proxy war to get the US quagmired in the Mideast while she recolonizes Africa, and fronts socialists in South America, in pursuit of strategic resources.

China may not remain intact thru this decade. We naively built them up BEFORE reform- unlike the USSR. If we can covertly break their proxy Iran, we'll have a successful template (and base) to do the same to the Maoists.

It worked in the Warsaw Pact, and led to the collapse of the USSR as a world cancer. World war with Arab or Sinic imperialists is the last option.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


Powered by Blogger