Thanks for sending me over to the the discussion at Roger's. I try to keep up with that blog, and sometimes do my best to prove my cluelessness in a public setting, but for some reason I missed that thread. What a great thread it was! And TmjUtah the poster par excellence. I learned a lot. Thanks.
I agree they committed an act of war against us and that we should have responded in kind. With Carter at the helm and the country full of pot-heads just looking for an excuse for a revolution, that wasn't happening.
However, that was then and this is now.
Don't get me wrong, I would dearly love to see them go, and apparently most of the Iranians would agree. I am still highly skeptical of our ability to make it happen. We're getting overextended and Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq.
"Freedom, and time, fills."
Nice thought. Now the facts: The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East only when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The history of the past six decades shows that whenever there has been conflict between furthering democracy in the region and advancing American national interests, U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the latter course. Furthermore, when free and fair elections in the Middle East have produced results that run contrary to Washington's strategic interests, it has either ignored them or tried to block the recurrence of such events.
Bush endlessly laments the absence of freedom for the people of Iran, which his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently described as "a totalitarian state." However, since the 1979 revolution in that country, the Islamic regime has held seven parliamentary, eight presidential, and two local elections -- as well as four Assembly of Experts
Ghost Dansing,
Bush isn't responsible for the last six decades of policy, whatever they might have been.
In a world of limited resources, in which we cannot attack every single country in the world and turn it democratic overnight, how would you advocate that people's blood be spilt?
To say that "Washington advocates" is to disingenously pretend that this is the work of some small cabal pulling the levers of power against the will of everyone else. That's far from the truth. Most people in the United States and indeed all over the world would have agreed with most of those decisions.
Finally, Iran is nominally a theocracy with democratic elements but not democratic in reality. Even the most casual student of that situation quickly realizes that it's a thugocracy in all but name.
An Iranian war can be opposed but let's not start lying about things, shall we?
..this is not to say that Iran is such a great place. It says that having "elections" does not a Democracy make. Heck, Saddam had elections! Yet Dubya is running around like he's the new Thomas Jefferson of Iraq. Meanwhile the Kurds are voting for a Kurdish autonomous homeland, the Shia's will probably move toward an Islamic Republic, and the disenfranchised Sunnis will form the basis of the new oppressed minority and wage guerilla war for a decade or two. And Lebanon? Well the Iran-backed Hizballah, firmly embedded in the Shia majority there, will probably have a little say in the next "free" election, and there is always the possiblity that Lebanon will just return to that unfinished, decade-long Civil War without Syrian troops in place to keep order. But, who knows? Hope springs eternal. The dirty little secret is that any "free election" in the region is more likely than not to produce regimes that are more anti-American than the ones that currently exist. Which brings us b
.. brings us back to why U.S. Foreign Policy has traditionally been cautious with respect to where, and for whom it advocates "freedom".
WichitaBoy, Dubya is talking about spreading Freedom and Liberty as a Foreign Policy (a Liberal one I might add), because his original reason for going to war in Iraq (WMD) didn't pan-out, and an insurgency emerged that wasn't predicted.
So the "justification" became this Middle East transformation theory. It is a purely political strategem, and the Republicans know it better than anybody, because they were the biggest advocates of the "Real Politik" practiced in the past. There is nothing noble or altruistic involved.
G.D.
"So the "justification" became this Middle East transformation theory."
Talk about a selective reading of the record. Go back and read the transcripts before playing God and assigning motives for actions. I'm a Republican. I supported the war precisely because Bush repeatedly spelled out the big picture, and yes the altruistic, transformation picture that you had not the ears to hear. I'd link you to all the speeches and all the recordings at c-span, but I have learned that it isn't worth my time. If you are truly interested in wanting to learn, you'll be motivated enough to find the sources yourself. And spreading democracy is the policy of the "liberals" of the Democratic party? Maybe Scoop Jackson and Lieberman, but your candidate Kerry? Or "a wounded (Soviet) bear is the most dangerous bear of all" Kennedy? Pelosi? Dean? France? Germany? Give me a break. Indeed, the world has changed since 9/11. You are now, officially, a reactionary. And the only effect you
"Indeed, the world has changed since 9/11"
I take that back. Bush is but the continuation of Reagan who actually shared a lot with part of the Democratic party that is all but gone. I shudder to think what would've happened if Mondale had won in '84. And if Kerry in '04 Assad would be at the White House a la Arafat during the Clinton years instead of hiding behind his couch and the elections in Iraq would never have taken place. And all your predictions that are not coming true, in fact, would be coming true. Do you play the fiddle G.D.?
newyork hotel and casino newyork hotel and casino newyork hotel and casino // casino and florida casino and florida casino and florida
cards black jack cards black jack cards black jack // homeowner's insurance quote homeowner's insurance quote homeowner's insurance quote
Commenting by HaloScan
