CE 7

[chrisfan]

I just heard Sean Hannity give the funniest commentary on the "It depends on the outcome" comment about supporting the war that Kerry gave last week ... He said that everyone should take that approach on big decisions. Marriage? "Well whether or not I want to be married depends on the outcome. If we get divorced, then I didn't want to be married, so I shouldn't have to pay alimony"

[Mary]

To change the topic for a minute, I have a hypothetical question I've been mulling over ever since my little sparring contest with jllm a few nights ago over Iran. But it's open to anyone who wants to take a gander:

Let us assume that the U.S. is successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East - or, at least as a beginning, to some countries in the Middle East. Let's say, as a purely hypothetical starting point, that Iraq and Iran have both become truly democratic - not liberal, per se, but democratic - i.e. there are fair and free elections and the leaders are genuinely accountable to the people. What if both countries elect - fairly and freely - radical fundamentalist Islamic governments who are virulently anti-American and anti-capitalist? What should the world, or the United States, do then? Would this be an acceptable outcome to Middle Eastern democracy?

I ask this question because I'm trying to tease out a tension I see in peoples' varying accounts of the reasons for invading iraq (and possibly iran) - but I haven't quite got it articulated in my head yet. I'll be curious to see peoples' responses....

Cheers,
M

[Proud]

i'm Proud of Suburbia and i'm reporting for duty!

*does the U.S. military salute*

[RocDoc]

_{What if both countries elect - fairly and freely - radical fundamentalist Islamic governments who are virulently anti-American and anti-capitalist?}

This was posited more than once here (incl at the 'old' RS) as THE most likely path which Iraq would take IF true majority rule became the 'system', short of some sort of constructed 'electoral college' model was implemented to make sure that the ethnic/religious minorities in Iraq don't get shat upon...

'Shat upon' being the BEST case scenario...

'Virulently anti-American and anti-capitalist' also means to include 'anti-Western society'and Taliban-style restrictions of all freedoms, right?

A closed Taliban-style society in either of these countries, where civil liberties(in the most BENIGN scenario) are indiscriminately(and approvingly) trampled is something which I feel will only come with the Al Q'aeda insurgency having driven the U.S.(and the UN)away in abject fear...which I do not see happening.

Moderate Shiites(who ARE, as we all know, THE majority population) have reasonable aims for protecting the Kurds, the Sunnis and the other minority groups, from what I've heard.
Tho the hopes for the moderates are dwindling as the Al Q'aedas absolutely terrorize the populace of this country which THEY insist they must control, THEIR way.

And the fear and intimidation of the Al Q'aedas and Al Aqsas and all these other bullshit Islamist interlopers will hopefully continue to be resisted.

If given over to this(and I am not saying it canNOT happen), well....we'll just have ourselves another Sudan/Kosovo/whateveryouwanttocallit over which the UN can cover their eyes and ears, again.

[melon1]

well....we'll just have ourselves another Sudan/Kosovo/whateveryouwanttocallit over which the UN can cover their eyes and ears, again.

Exactly. My mind shifts to utter bewilderment when I try to understand why most Americans can't get it through their thick skulls that the U.S. has no business in the godless U.N. at all.

As for the question Mary posed, I think it is a rather utopian daydream that Iraq will maintain a peaceful democracy with a bunch of crazed Shiite muslims in the population. But the invasion to me is perfectly justifiable. If another dictator that tortures little kids comes to power the message has already been sent: We will hunt you down like a dog, capture you and humiliate you in front of all your people. The Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of isolationism.

[Dr. Drum]

Mary said:

Let us assume that the U.S. is successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East - or, at least as a beginning, to some countries in the Middle East. Let's say, as a purely hypothetical starting point, that Iraq and Iran have both become truly democratic - not liberal, per se, but democratic - i.e. there are fair and free elections and the leaders are genuinely accountable to the people. What if both countries elect - fairly and freely - radical fundamentalist Islamic governments who are virulently anti-American and anti-capitalist? What should the world, or the United States, do then? Would this be an acceptable outcome to Middle Eastern democracy?

Well Iran, as you know, has a radical fundamentalist Islamic government. Not freely elected – the majority are fed up with its repression and the mullahs rigged the last general election to get rid of the reformers. All the same, the Islamists do have a real constituency in Iranian politics. They wouldn’t win free and fair elections, though they probably wouldn’t be run out of town either.

More to your point, though, a genuinely democratic, popularly elected Iranian government would almost certainly maintain certain aspects of the Islamic Republic’s foreign policy orientation. It wouldn’t necessarily be anti-capitalist since Iran desperately needs foreign investment capital but it would probably be, if not overtly hostile, then at least suspicious of the United States. Its anti-Israeli orientation would also remain.

As for Iraq, not that the neo-cons ever intended to stand aside and let events take their own course, but there was a moment after the toppling of Sadaam Hussein when a non-fundamentalist future might have been freely possible. Hussein’s regime was brutal but it was patterned on the Communist dictatorships of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Sadaam suppressed sects like the Shiites and invoked Islam only when it served a political end. The school system was secular; the population is as a consequence socially liberal by local standards and Iraqis therefore aren’t 'naturally' inclined to theocracy.

Despite this, if free and fair elections were held right now, there’s a good chance that Iraqis would elect significant numbers of Islamic fundamentalists and quite possibly a fundamentalist government. A figure like Moqtada al-Sadr who once would have been viewed as nothing more than an adherent of narrow Shiite fundamentalist has been able to position himself as an Iraqi patriot directly as a result of the U.S. attempt to deal with him forcibly. An indication of the way he's increased his constituency is that though he's unlikely to be allowed to contest the January elections, he's actually begun to talk about the possibility of doing so.

I guess to sort of answer your question, I don’t think the U.S. allowing a freely elected Islamic fundamentalist government in Iraq is remotely in the cards. Should you? I think the right course of action, and the most productive one, long term, is for the U.S. to allow other nations to work out their own political arrangements. You won’t always get the results you’d like but I think countering, sanctioning or cordoning off the ones who are truely inimicable to your interests is less destructive all around over the long haul.

The one thing I do agree with Bush on is that people want to be free. There are a lot of relatively new democracies in the world. Thirty years ago, half of Europe was under Communism and there were very few democracies to be found in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America or most of Asia. Today China and Pakistan are the only two really large nations where elections are entirely meaningless. Africa as a whole is still a mess but South Africa has thrown off apartheid and democratized and Nigeria is under an elected civilian government once again. The Middle East is not promising but otherwise, Asia has thrown off the strongmen, as has Latin America. Communism is a memory in eastern Europe. Worth remembering that none of this was achieved through outside military intervention or someone's neo-colonial foreign policy.

[WeedMonger]

Let us assume that the U.S. is successful in bringing democracy to the Middle East - or, at least as a beginning, to some countries in the Middle East. Let's say, as a purely hypothetical starting point, that Iraq and Iran have both become truly democratic - not liberal, per se, but democratic - i.e. there are fair and free elections and the leaders are genuinely accountable to the people. What if both countries elect - fairly and freely - radical fundamentalist Islamic governments who are virulently anti-American and anti-capitalist? What should the world, or the United States, do then? Would this be an acceptable outcome to Middle Eastern democracy?

I don't think that any large group of people with the chance for freedom would give it up. Although it's possible. It will probably work itself out with a little help from us, like enforcing women's and human rights laws.

[melon1]

More evidence that 9/11 didn't change the left:

An Interview with Christopher Hitchens: Adieu to the Left
By Johann Hari


A leftist asks his side's most effective spokesman why he defected.

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15346

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1319718,00.html

There have certainly been opinions from soldiers similair to these posted around here before, and there have also been opinions from soldiers that differ to the extreme posted here as well. I think it's a shame that I at least have yet to see a single media outlet who has put together those differing opinions side by side to offer a more accurate picture of the military opinion of the war.

[RocDoc]

Wow. I knew of Hitchens' lefty cred, but I had no idea there was this sort of stature.....I mean he campaigned AGAINST Mother Teresa?! Shee-it....

Great interview there Melon, thanks...I thought this illumined reasoning was PERFECT....:

Some people on the left tried to understand the origins of al-Quadea as really being about inequalities in wealth, or Israel's brutality towards the Palestinians, or other legitimate grievances. "Look: inequalities in wealth had nothing to do with Beslan or Bali or Madrid," Hitchens says. "The case for redistributing wealth is either good or it isn't - I think it is - but it's a different argument. If you care about wealth distribution, please understand, the Taliban and the al-Qaeda murderers have less to say on this than even the most cold-hearted person on Wall Street. These jihadists actually prefer people to live in utter, dire poverty because they say it is purifying. Nor is it anti-imperialist: they explictly want to recreate the lost Caliphate, which was an Empire itself.[/b]"
[/i]

His bit on the Palestinian jihadists too...BANG on perfect.
Shows the fundamental unworkability of what it is they want....

[Proud]

... alright, this is going too far.

[RocDoc]

...about....?

~

Intelligent Riddle

John Kerry meets with the Queen of England.

He asks her, "Your Majesty, how do you run such an efficient government?
Are there any tips you can give to me?"

]Well," says the Queen, "the most important thing is to surround yourself with intelligent people."

Kerry frowns. "But how do I know the people around me are really intelligent?"

The Queen takes a sip of tea. "Oh, that's easy. You just ask them to answer an intelligent riddle."

The Queen pushes a button on her intercom. "Please send Tony Blair in here, would you?"

Tony Blair walks into the room.
"Yes, my Queen?"

The Queen smiles. "Answer me this, please, Tony. Your mother and father have a child. It is not your brother and it is not your sister. Who is it?"

Without pausing for a moment, Tony Blair answers, "That would be me."

"Yes! Very good," says the Queen.

Kerry goes back home to ask John Edwards, his vice presidential choice the same question.

"John. Answer this for me. Your mother and your father have a child.
It's not your brother and it's not your sister. Who is it?"
I'm not sure," says John Edwards. "Let me get back to you on that one."

Edwards goes to his advisors and asks every one, but none can give him an answer. Finally, he ends up in the men's room and recognizes Colin Powell's shoes in the next stall.

Edwards shouts, "Colin! Can you answer this for me? Your mother and father have a child and it's not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Colin Powell yells back, "That's easy. It's me!"

Edwards smiles, and says, "Thanks!"

Then, Edwards goes back to speak with Kerry. "Say, I did some research and I have the answer to that riddle. It's Colin Powell."

Kerry gets up, stomps over to John Edwards, and
angrily yells into his face, "No, you idiot!
It's Tony Blair!"

MAY GOD BE WITH YOU DUR ING THIS ELECTION.

[Nepenthe]

Did you know that John kerry and George Bush are related? They are like 10th cousins, their common relation? The Queen.

[Nepenthe]

Ok I have to check out the vice prez debate.

My prediction: Cheney will eat Edwards for dinner.