The US government is ostensibly dedicated to spreading democracy in the middle east. But the political situation there is such that most countries, in a truly democratic election, would elect someone who is likely to be all of the following to varying degrees:
a.) associated with Islam, likely in an official way
b.) opposed to US military interventionism in the region
c.) opposed to the US support of Israel
d.) opposed to foreign control of energy resources.
So my question is this. What happens to our dedication to democracy when through fair elections, citizens of middle-eastern countries elect governments which are theocratic or hostile to present US intentions in the region?
In other words, does our dedication to democracy come with strings attached?
If we look at Iran and Palestine, we can see how easily political moves contrary to our interests can change our tune from championing democracy to denouncing dangerous rogue states.
What about Hammas? Hammas was elected through fair elections, and we've already seen US officials denouncing them, saying they'd better stop threatening Israel, or else the US will not recognize them... is this consistent with our dedication to Democracy? What about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's decision to enrich uranium (an act allowed under the non-proliferation treaty)? Can a real democracy, which serves the wishes of the majority of its mainly-mulsim citizens, truly exist in the Middle-east, and what would such a government look like? Would the US support an Iraqi government headed by a muslim cleric?
It's true that the problem facing the Middle East is that if they truly had the choice to choose, they'd choose a warmongering Islamic party that swears to the destruction of Israel in an instant. It's a Catch-22, much like how it was during the Cold War in South America. I doubt that Chile was better off with Pinochet than they would have been with Allende. It's all a problem of American hegemony. We should not mark a troubled area as our sphere of influence and let things go as it will.
Hamas believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document, and has formulated a good deal of their policy with this belief in mind. Please remember such things when coming to their defense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
Hamas believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a legitimate document, and has formulated a good deal of their policy with this belief in mind. Please remember such things when coming to their defense.
Alright. I'm remembering them. So what? Their policy is irrelevant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they won in an election with international observers deeming it fair. This is the only relevant fact. Are we for democracy or not?
That the majority voted for them is the only prerequisite for democracy. If you're putting further restrictions on who can govern, then you're not truly supporting a democracy, are you?
Alright. I'm remembering them. So what? Their policy is irrelevant.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they won in an election with international observers deeming it fair. This is the only relevant fact.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, The Nazi Party had massive amounts of popular support.
That doesn't change the fact that they were a threat to their neighbors, held a radical agenda based on fallacy, and were famed for supporting violence.
Now, things won't be that bad, but it won't be a cakewalk.
The bottom line is that Demcracy counts for little if people aren't well-informed, and generally well-meaning.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
The US government is ostensibly dedicated to spreading democracy in the middle east. But the political situation there is such that most countries, in a truly democratic election, would elect someone who is likely to be all of the following to varying degrees:
a.) associated with Islam, likely in an official way
b.) opposed to US military interventionism in the region
c.) opposed to the US support of Israel
d.) opposed to foreign control of energy resources.
So my question is this. What happens to our dedication to democracy when through fair elections, citizens of middle-eastern countries elect governments which are theocratic or hostile to present US intentions in the region?
We look stupid.
Palestine, we can see how easily political moves contrary to our interests can change our tune from championing democracy to denouncing dangerous rogue states.
What about Hammas? Hammas was elected through fair elections, and we've already seen US officials denouncing them, saying they'd better stop threatening Israel, or else the US will not recognize them... is this consistent with our dedication to Democracy? What about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's decision to enrich uranium (an act allowed under the non-proliferation treaty)? Can a real democracy, which serves the wishes of the majority of its mainly-mulsim citizens, truly exist in the Middle-east, and what would such a government look like? Would the US support an Iraqi government headed by a muslim cleric?
If true democracy takes hold I'm not so sure that we will see a pro-US government, though that is a possibility.
I am concerned in general with the President's use of the word 'democracy'. Spreading democracy ain't so great, at least if he was saying spreading 'freedom' that rhetoric would appeal to me alittle more.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, The Nazi Party had massive amounts of popular support.
That doesn't change the fact that they were a threat to their neighbors, held a radical agenda based on fallacy, and were famed for supporting violence.
The man loves Godwin's law! Too bad there's no pre-signature for posts, like a salutation that's put on every post... yours could be this Godwin's Law bit.
Seriously though, I still think that even in the case of the Nazi's... if you say you support democracy, then you should support the German people's decision to elect that party to power. Note that this is not a defense of that party's decision to then occupy the Rheinland, nor any other actions they took.
If countries elect governments with ideologies we don't like, and our response is to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of those governments, then we are not truly supporters of democracy. This is my point.
Quote from PlatedOrnithoper »
The bottom line is that Demcracy counts for little if people aren't well-informed, and generally well-meaning.
I agree with that statement. But are you insinuating that the populations of middle-eastern countries are simply misled or misinformed about their best interest? Or that they aren't well-meaning? "Well-meaning" seems rather vague.
Listen, Ouallada, just because a government is legitimately democratically elected doesn't mean that they are, ipso facto, a good government. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected too. I see no evidence that just because Hamas was elected, they'll change their ways.
Listen, Ouallada, just because a government is legitimately democratically elected doesn't mean that they are, ipso facto, a good government. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected too. I see no evidence that just because Hamas was elected, they'll change their ways.
But the fact that they were legitimately democratically elected does prove that they are a democratic government. Therefore, no matter what the views of said government, if we are truly supporting democracy we will support that government, or at the least not work against it. Anything less is not democratic.
Listen, Ouallada, just because a government is legitimately democratically elected doesn't mean that they are, ipso facto, a good government. Remember, Hitler was democratically elected too. I see no evidence that just because Hamas was elected, they'll change their ways.
Like Rhinocero said, I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact that Hamas or Hitler or George Bush for that matter, was democratically elected says nothing about their virtue. But we're on this official quest to spread democracy through the middle east, and I say, fine then, let there be democracy. Let's see where it gets us. It'll produce a theocracy whose first official act is to throw our occupying troops, if any, out of their country, and second would probably be the nationalization of their oil infrastructure. I'm just arguing that our supposed love of and desire for democracy in the middle east are clearly empty. Our stated justification or mission is transparent.
Also, there is a democracy in the Middle East. A Muslim one at that. Everyone forgets about Turkey. <Shakes head>. Turkish people are cool! And, they have a democracy.
Turkey is so far removed from the rest of the Middle East in terms of political culture that I'd hesitate to classify it as such a country when discussing Middle Eastern politics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If we look at it through a self-centered, foreign policy perspective, then it's possible that things will remain relatively close to the status quo.
There just won't be as much wide-spread rape, murder, torture, economic sanctions, starvation, genocide, political imprisonment, government-controlled media, abridgement of free speech, and militarism runnning around the region.
So really, no major changes at all. No positive examples or advances in human rights whatsoever.
Alright. I'm remembering them. So what? Their policy is irrelevant.
Their policy is not irrelevant. Their policy is the sort of thing that cries out for international attention of the most unrelenting and punitive kind.
The terms in which they couch their policy can give us some idea of what they will be like as a ruling party, and how much deference they really will pay to the ideals of a democratic society. When we consider that their charter contains statements to the effect that Jihad is the compulsory duty of every Muslim in this time of crisis, slackers will not be tolerated, etc. etc., we can come to some pretty profound conclusions.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they won in an election with international observers deeming it fair. This is the only relevant fact. Are we for democracy or not?
We are for democracy that will sustain itself. Putting Hamas into power will not ensure a democratic society in any reasonable sense of the word.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
That the majority voted for them is the only prerequisite for democracy.
Yes, at the time of election. If we Canadians suddenly elected a man whose platform was that he would declare the democratic process invalid and become Emperor For Life, we could no longer say we were living in a democracy even if it was in such a democratic manner that he took power. If you want to tell me that Hamas will preserve the spirit of the democratic ideal, I really must suggest that you look to the legacy of every single militant Muslim government that has ever existed.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
If you're putting further restrictions on who can govern, then you're not truly supporting a democracy, are you?
Like the rules against minors or convicts becoming the President of the United States? Like term limits? Etc.
In other words, does our dedication to democracy come with strings attached?
Yes.
The US supports democracy when it is convenient to do so. The shunning of Hamas is an example. The mild rebukes China get is another. It isn't so much as supporting democracy as it is supporting a government that is more sympathethic to the US.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The US supports democracy when it is convenient to do so. The shunning of Hamas is an example. The mild rebukes China get is another. It isn't so much as supporting democracy as it is supporting a government that is more sympathethic to the US.
We're trying to wean ourselves of that tendency. Past "governments that are more sympathetic to the US" have included the Ba'athists and the Taliban.
Personally, I'd condemn Hamas whether I was American or Ecuadorian (a nationality about which I presume they have few opinions). Advocacy of genocide, I think, is a better test of which democratically-elected governments we dislike than hatred of the U.S. After all, why do they hate the U.S.? Because we oppose genocide!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
US would be wise not to give support only to US-friendly governments. We have a particularily bad habit of appointing terrible governments as a result.
I have this glimmer of hope that someone within Hamas will realize the power they have and bring about peace. I mean, for example, if they were to pursue an honest means to peace that they would face less severe accusations that they are being "weak" or are being cowards. The process would hold more credibility. You can being a lot of change to the system if you were the principal creator of the damn thing in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I never allowed my schooling to interfere with my education" -Mark Twain
Quote from hybrid life »
The war is for oil..its one of the ways to make this huge operation worthwhile. People care more about lower gas prices than iraqis anyway.
What others say about me:
Quote from JayC »
You're obviously an ignorant conservative. I blame your hill-billy Mom and Dad.
There is no way we should continue to fund the Palistinian state with Hamas at the head. If they want to try and get their hinies smashed by the Israili Military, thats fine and dandy, but we must not help them.
I don't believe we should be giving any country aid as it leads to corruption. We should give our billions to aid organizations that we can keep an eye on and make sure the food and medical supplies go to the people.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
Very good point. You're right about Hamas' dedication to democracy as well. I guess what I'm arguing is that we're not truly trying to give the Middle east self-determination. Rather, we are clearly seeking a government which holds as its highest duty, subservience to Washington, not the best interest of the Arabs. Like Mondu argued:
Quote from mondu_the_fat »
The US supports democracy when it is convenient to do so. The shunning of Hamas is an example. The mild rebukes China get is another. It isn't so much as supporting democracy as it is supporting a government that is more sympathethic to the US.
I agree. We had a large roll in bringing Saddam to power. Similarly, we had a (probably) huge roll in ousting Aristide in Haiti. This stuff is our bread and butter. Meddling in foreign countries' politics to ensure our own economic interests are preserved, whatever the humanitarian cost for the locals. All of this under the transparent guise of supporting democracy.
I don't think Hamas-style governments would be the victors in elections were the countries electing them not occupied or threatened by foreign powers. Face it, we're an expansionist colonial power seeking to expand our territory and ensure the control of an extremely important geopolitical region, home to the world's energy source. Pundits and planners and neoconservative ideologues have openly talked about this stuff since the late 80s, early 90s. PNAC is a google search away, and the authors of that project are now calling our foreign policy shots.
I'm just saying that the time has come to be honest with ourselves, and to be realistic about our motives. We aren't fighting in Iraq because we want them to be self-determined and democratic. Absolutely not!
I believe the popular way to say this these days is, "It's the oil, stupid!"
I believe the popular way to say this these days is, "It's the oil, stupid!"
You can't be serious. Do you even think about what you're saying, or is it in too much of a hurry to stampede out of your mouth that it doesn't have time to take a detour through your noggin first?
It is NOT "the oil", it is the safety and security of US and European interests abroad, interests of all types including oil engineers, but also journalists, archaeology teams, doctors, students, religious groups, families of US citizens and immigrants abroad, tourists, etc.
If it were just "the oil" we'd have seized control of the oil fields and gotten the troops out of there and been done with it.
Whatever government Iraq will have, or Palestine, or Afghanistan, in the end we can only do our best to ensure it will be one which safeguards the security and personal safety of foreign nationals operating lawfully and respectfully on their soil. Whether they ahve this or that trade agreement, or this or that ban on US goods, is actually irrelevant.
Very good point. You're right about Hamas' dedication to democracy as well. I guess what I'm arguing is that we're not truly trying to give the Middle east self-determination. Rather, we are clearly seeking a government which holds as its highest duty, subservience to Washington, not the best interest of the Arabs.
What they are doing - and what they have always done, as far as I can see - is addressing matters in a way that will benefit the world at large the most. It is to the world's immense relief that the United States did not go to war with the Soviet Union, though either side would likely have lept at the chance. It is a similar relief that the United States does not sever all ties with China. Does it make them look bad in a humanitarian light? Sure it does. But more real, pragmatic good is done by allowing the American influence to shape a new and subtle revolution in China than could be done by turning such an enormous state into a bitter enemy of the west.
The current administration is couching America's age-old endeavour in some pretty dubious terms, which problem I blame on the general lack of character of the administration itself. With a new and more dynamic President we might see new and more dynamic efforts.
Anyhow, as I am not a cynic, I do not look upon their history as being one of unceasing attempts to bend the world to Washington's will or acting in naked selfishness.
Now, when addressing the issue of America's involvement in the middle east, it is not enough to say that they want "subservience to Washington" rather than "what's in the Arabs' best interests." The Arabs' best interests are not being served, under any reasonable ethics, by the rule of Muslim theocrats. The only people whose interests are being served in such cases are the rulers themselves. The idea that Hamas wants peace and safety for every Palestinian is a monstrous lie. Their own charter condemns them on this score.
==
Finally, in breaking but utterly unsurprising news, the Hamas website apparently calls for the nuclear destruction of Israel. I suspect that something is being misconstrued here, but, as I can not find Hamas' website to independently confirm this, I can leave only this news story as testament.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
You can't be serious. Do you even think about what you're saying, or is it in too much of a hurry to stampede out of your mouth that it doesn't have time to take a detour through your noggin first?
Man, it's just a saying. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings. And yes, I'm serious.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
It is NOT "the oil", it is the safety and security of US and European interests abroad, interests of all types including oil engineers, but also journalists, archaeology teams, doctors, students, religious groups, families of US citizens and immigrants abroad, tourists, etc.
"US and European interests" are mainly comprised of the need for energy. Obviously "It's the oil, stupid," is a dramatic simplification. But concern for freedom, self-determination, and democracy, are conspicuously absent from your list. US and European interests were the first thing you listed. As such, I'm in complete agreement with your assesment of our intentions. But the oil is a huge portion of those interests. And the oil infrastructure WAS the very first thing we secured, as the museums were being looted.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
If it were just "the oil" we'd have seized control of the oil fields and gotten the troops out of there and been done with it.
Don't you remember the so-called "cakewalk" promised by the hawks in '03? It was their plan all along to get in, change the regime (in so doing securing the oil... err... "US and European interests"... sorry) and get out. Unfortunately, we're seeing the results of hubris mixed with extreme optimism.
Quote from SnoopDoggAtog »
Whatever government Iraq will have, or Palestine, or Afghanistan, in the end we can only do our best to ensure it will be one which safeguards the security and personal safety of foreign nationals operating lawfully and respectfully on their soil. Whether they ahve this or that trade agreement, or this or that ban on US goods, is actually irrelevant.
Then why do we demonize Cuba and Venezuela? If their economic policy and their friendliness to foreign investors is irrelevant, why do we attack these countries? Venezuela isn't posing any kind of threat to american tourists, engineers, etc. They simply decided not to let foreign investors plunder their oil, extracting the profits and removing them from the country. The prospect of a like-minded Iraq is what we're most afraid of. The mission in Iraq is not to produce democracy. It is to secure the region from a geo-political standpoint. That means military bases all over, and a long-term military presence. It also means a government that will "Play Ball" with Washington. Choosing a government unfavorable to US and British investors is not an option for the Iraqi people.
Seriously though, "It's the Oil, stupid," is just a slogan that's bouncing around. And I agree with its sentiment that oil is indeed the main prize of victory in Iraq. There are similarly dangerous areas for americans, such as North Korea, which posess no oil, but do posess lots of military toys including nuclear weapons. It's no surprise we choose to attack the weak, oil-posessing region, and not the region with no resources we need, and lots of tanks, planes, and bombs.
The man loves Godwin's law! Too bad there's no pre-signature for posts, like a salutation that's put on every post... yours could be this Godwin's Law bit.
Hey, I don't like breaking it, but when you have to get the point across...
And I still believe that being somewhat politically well-informed, or not having a "crusader" agenda is necessary, and it would only seem obvious that one of these two traits was lacking when the Hamas party was elected.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
Finally, in breaking but utterly unsurprising news, the Hamas website apparently calls for the nuclear destruction of Israel. I suspect that something is being misconstrued here, but, as I can not find Hamas' website to independently confirm this, I can leave only this news story as testament.
Nope. They're still terrorists at heart. I knew this **** was gonna happen.
a.) associated with Islam, likely in an official way
b.) opposed to US military interventionism in the region
c.) opposed to the US support of Israel
d.) opposed to foreign control of energy resources.
So my question is this. What happens to our dedication to democracy when through fair elections, citizens of middle-eastern countries elect governments which are theocratic or hostile to present US intentions in the region?
In other words, does our dedication to democracy come with strings attached?
If we look at Iran and Palestine, we can see how easily political moves contrary to our interests can change our tune from championing democracy to denouncing dangerous rogue states.
What about Hammas? Hammas was elected through fair elections, and we've already seen US officials denouncing them, saying they'd better stop threatening Israel, or else the US will not recognize them... is this consistent with our dedication to Democracy? What about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's decision to enrich uranium (an act allowed under the non-proliferation treaty)? Can a real democracy, which serves the wishes of the majority of its mainly-mulsim citizens, truly exist in the Middle-east, and what would such a government look like? Would the US support an Iraqi government headed by a muslim cleric?
Check out the blog too.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they won in an election with international observers deeming it fair. This is the only relevant fact. Are we for democracy or not?
That the majority voted for them is the only prerequisite for democracy. If you're putting further restrictions on who can govern, then you're not truly supporting a democracy, are you?
Check out the blog too.
At the risk of breaking Godwin's law, The Nazi Party had massive amounts of popular support.
That doesn't change the fact that they were a threat to their neighbors, held a radical agenda based on fallacy, and were famed for supporting violence.
Now, things won't be that bad, but it won't be a cakewalk.
The bottom line is that Demcracy counts for little if people aren't well-informed, and generally well-meaning.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
If true democracy takes hold I'm not so sure that we will see a pro-US government, though that is a possibility.
I am concerned in general with the President's use of the word 'democracy'. Spreading democracy ain't so great, at least if he was saying spreading 'freedom' that rhetoric would appeal to me alittle more.
Seriously though, I still think that even in the case of the Nazi's... if you say you support democracy, then you should support the German people's decision to elect that party to power. Note that this is not a defense of that party's decision to then occupy the Rheinland, nor any other actions they took.
If countries elect governments with ideologies we don't like, and our response is to refuse to recognize the legitimacy of those governments, then we are not truly supporters of democracy. This is my point. I agree with that statement. But are you insinuating that the populations of middle-eastern countries are simply misled or misinformed about their best interest? Or that they aren't well-meaning? "Well-meaning" seems rather vague.
Check out the blog too.
Check out the blog too.
Turkey is so far removed from the rest of the Middle East in terms of political culture that I'd hesitate to classify it as such a country when discussing Middle Eastern politics.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There just won't be as much wide-spread rape, murder, torture, economic sanctions, starvation, genocide, political imprisonment, government-controlled media, abridgement of free speech, and militarism runnning around the region.
So really, no major changes at all. No positive examples or advances in human rights whatsoever.
The terms in which they couch their policy can give us some idea of what they will be like as a ruling party, and how much deference they really will pay to the ideals of a democratic society. When we consider that their charter contains statements to the effect that Jihad is the compulsory duty of every Muslim in this time of crisis, slackers will not be tolerated, etc. etc., we can come to some pretty profound conclusions.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
We are for democracy that will sustain itself. Putting Hamas into power will not ensure a democratic society in any reasonable sense of the word.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
Yes, at the time of election. If we Canadians suddenly elected a man whose platform was that he would declare the democratic process invalid and become Emperor For Life, we could no longer say we were living in a democracy even if it was in such a democratic manner that he took power. If you want to tell me that Hamas will preserve the spirit of the democratic ideal, I really must suggest that you look to the legacy of every single militant Muslim government that has ever existed.
There is more to a democracy than simply electing people by vote.
Like the rules against minors or convicts becoming the President of the United States? Like term limits? Etc.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Yes.
The US supports democracy when it is convenient to do so. The shunning of Hamas is an example. The mild rebukes China get is another. It isn't so much as supporting democracy as it is supporting a government that is more sympathethic to the US.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
We're trying to wean ourselves of that tendency. Past "governments that are more sympathetic to the US" have included the Ba'athists and the Taliban.
Personally, I'd condemn Hamas whether I was American or Ecuadorian (a nationality about which I presume they have few opinions). Advocacy of genocide, I think, is a better test of which democratically-elected governments we dislike than hatred of the U.S. After all, why do they hate the U.S.? Because we oppose genocide!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have this glimmer of hope that someone within Hamas will realize the power they have and bring about peace. I mean, for example, if they were to pursue an honest means to peace that they would face less severe accusations that they are being "weak" or are being cowards. The process would hold more credibility. You can being a lot of change to the system if you were the principal creator of the damn thing in the first place.
What others say about me:
Sven Dostei
Unofficial Official arrogant teenage elitist of The Ivory Tower
I don't believe we should be giving any country aid as it leads to corruption. We should give our billions to aid organizations that we can keep an eye on and make sure the food and medical supplies go to the people.
I don't think Hamas-style governments would be the victors in elections were the countries electing them not occupied or threatened by foreign powers. Face it, we're an expansionist colonial power seeking to expand our territory and ensure the control of an extremely important geopolitical region, home to the world's energy source. Pundits and planners and neoconservative ideologues have openly talked about this stuff since the late 80s, early 90s. PNAC is a google search away, and the authors of that project are now calling our foreign policy shots.
I'm just saying that the time has come to be honest with ourselves, and to be realistic about our motives. We aren't fighting in Iraq because we want them to be self-determined and democratic. Absolutely not!
I believe the popular way to say this these days is, "It's the oil, stupid!"
Check out the blog too.
It is NOT "the oil", it is the safety and security of US and European interests abroad, interests of all types including oil engineers, but also journalists, archaeology teams, doctors, students, religious groups, families of US citizens and immigrants abroad, tourists, etc.
If it were just "the oil" we'd have seized control of the oil fields and gotten the troops out of there and been done with it.
Whatever government Iraq will have, or Palestine, or Afghanistan, in the end we can only do our best to ensure it will be one which safeguards the security and personal safety of foreign nationals operating lawfully and respectfully on their soil. Whether they ahve this or that trade agreement, or this or that ban on US goods, is actually irrelevant.
The current administration is couching America's age-old endeavour in some pretty dubious terms, which problem I blame on the general lack of character of the administration itself. With a new and more dynamic President we might see new and more dynamic efforts.
Anyhow, as I am not a cynic, I do not look upon their history as being one of unceasing attempts to bend the world to Washington's will or acting in naked selfishness.
Now, when addressing the issue of America's involvement in the middle east, it is not enough to say that they want "subservience to Washington" rather than "what's in the Arabs' best interests." The Arabs' best interests are not being served, under any reasonable ethics, by the rule of Muslim theocrats. The only people whose interests are being served in such cases are the rulers themselves. The idea that Hamas wants peace and safety for every Palestinian is a monstrous lie. Their own charter condemns them on this score.
==
Finally, in breaking but utterly unsurprising news, the Hamas website apparently calls for the nuclear destruction of Israel. I suspect that something is being misconstrued here, but, as I can not find Hamas' website to independently confirm this, I can leave only this news story as testament.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Seriously though, "It's the Oil, stupid," is just a slogan that's bouncing around. And I agree with its sentiment that oil is indeed the main prize of victory in Iraq. There are similarly dangerous areas for americans, such as North Korea, which posess no oil, but do posess lots of military toys including nuclear weapons. It's no surprise we choose to attack the weak, oil-posessing region, and not the region with no resources we need, and lots of tanks, planes, and bombs.
Check out the blog too.
Hey, I don't like breaking it, but when you have to get the point across...
And I still believe that being somewhat politically well-informed, or not having a "crusader" agenda is necessary, and it would only seem obvious that one of these two traits was lacking when the Hamas party was elected.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Nope. They're still terrorists at heart. I knew this **** was gonna happen.