Gelisgesti wrote:Welcome Blatham..... even the blogs are eerily silent of late. You can almost hear the echo of goose steps .... lots of undercurrents. ...
I think you truly hear, but are unprepared to deal with, actual echos from the increasing ricochet roar from neo-dem slanders and libels. It is often alleged:"what goes around comes around." That roar will become increasingly deafening to you as it comes full circle on November 2nd.
[By the way, November 2nd is the anniversary (1947) of the one and only flight of the Spruce Goose!
]
This is an excerpt
Article in full length written by Francis Fukuyama is published in The National Interest and available to subscribers only.
Quote:The Neoconservative Moment
... It is clear, in other words, that a very large part of the world, including many people who are normally inclined to be our friends, did not believe in the legitimacy of our behavior towards Iraq. This is not because the Security Council failed to endorse the war, but because many of our friends did not trust us, that is, the Bush Administration, to use our huge margin of power wisely and in the interests of the world as a whole.
This should matter to us, not just for realist reasons of state (our ability to attract allies to share the burden), but for idealist ones as well (our ability to lead and inspire based on the attractiveness of who we are). I do not believe that the Bush Administration was in fact contemptuous of the need for legitimacy. What they believed and hoped, rather, was that legitimacy would be awarded ex post rather than ex ante by the international community. There was a widespread belief among members of the administration that once it became clear that the United States was going to disarm Iraq forcefully, other NATO allies including France would eventually come on board.
Everyone was taken aback by the vehemence with which France and Germany opposed the war, and by the U.S. failure to line up normally compliant countries like Chile and Mexico during the Security Council vote. The hope that we would be awarded ex post legitimacy was not an unreasonable calculation. It might indeed have materialized had the United States found a large and active WMD program in Iraq after the invasion, or if the transition to a democratic regime had been as quick and low-cost as the Bush Administration expected.
Many people have argued that American unilateralism towards Iraq breaks a long pattern of transatlantic cooperation, but they are forgetting history. The United States during the Cold War repeatedly pushed its European allies to do things they were reluctant to do, often by staking out positions first and seeking approval later. In the end, American judgment on these issues was better than that of the Europeans, and legitimacy was in fact awarded retrospectively. When this happened, the United States was not blamed for unilateralism, but praised for its leadership. One could then interpret the Iraq War simply as a one-time mistake or unfortunate miscalculation coming on the heels of a long string of successes.
Certainly, it would be utterly wrong to conclude that the war teaches us that the United States should never stick its neck out and lead the broader Western world to actions that our allies oppose or are reluctant to undertake. Nor should we conclude that pre-emption and unilateralism will never be necessary. On the other hand, it is not simply bad luck that we failed to win legitimacy as badly as we did this time. The world is different now than it was during the Cold War in ways that will affect our future ability to exert leadership and claim to speak on behalf of the world as a whole.
This is so for three reasons. The first difference is, of course, the demise of the Soviet Union and the absence of an overarching superpower threat. During the Cold War, there was rampant anti-Americanism around the world and popular opposition to U.S. policies. But our influence was anchored by center-right parties throughout Europe that were both grateful for America's historical role in the liberation of Europe and fearful of Soviet influence. The global terrorist threat may some day come to be interpreted in a similar fashion, but it is not yet.
A second difference has to do with the very fact of our military dominance. During the Cold War, when our power was more or less evenly matched against that of the Soviets, we cared a great deal about credibility and slippery slopes. We were afraid that withdrawal in the face of a challenge would be taken as a sign of weakness and exploited by the other side.
Today, the United States is utterly dominant in the military sphere. Credibility in our willingness and ability to use force remains important, but we simply do not have to prove our toughness to the rest of the world at every turn. ...
Think a bit deeper doggie ...........
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
The Iraqi interior minister, Falah Al-Naqib, just made a statement on Al-Arabia that the situation in the old city would be resolved in a few hours. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that he has been saying that every day during the last two weeks.
Meanwhile, the situation on the ground in Najaf remains the same. Al-Mahdi still control the shrine of Imam Ali and the cemetery of Wadi Al-Salam, while Iraqi and US troops are situated about half a kilometre away, supposedly surrounding the area. I made this map for details. Muqtada Al-Sadr is rumoured to have left Najaf, how he would have managed to escape such a tight hold on the old city is beyond me. The Najaf IP commander, Ghalib Al-Jaza'eri, mentioned that he was in Suleimaniya, someone else said he was in Nasiriya, others say he is in Iran. It might be possible that he is still in hiding somewhere in Najaf with his supporters spreading these rumours as a distraction.
Ahmed Al-Shaibani, a deputy of Sadr, dismissed these allegations as rumours and insisted that 'al-sayyed al-qa'id remains in the battlefield'. He also mentioned that all negotiations with Sistani's office on the current status of the shrine have been 'suspended'. Sistani seems to have given instructions to his office in Najaf not to accept the keys to the holy shrine unless a neutral committee inspects the contents of the shrine and an inventory is made to ensure nothing is missing from the treasury of the shrine.
This treasury which is located inside a safe locked basement beneath the shrine contains historical artifacts, priceless manuscripts and a significant amount of gold and gems. These have been gifted and donated to the shrine by Shia from all over the world for centuries. No one has ever dared touch that treasury except the family that holds the keys to the shrine. Radhwan Al-Rufai'i was forced to give over the keys to one of Sadr's aides last April. Al-Rufai'i had taken over the responsibilities of the shrine after his cousin Haider Al-Kelidar who was murdered with Abdul Majid Al-Khoe'i on 10 April 2003 by Sadr's followers.
Sistani's office has been placing these obstacles on Sadr in response to rumours that a large part of the treasury has been stolen and possibly smuggled to Iran. If true, Sadr would be in a very bad position since he was practically responsible for the shrine's contents and would also expose him as the gangster he is.
Another troubling development was the kidnapping of Sayyed Mahdi Al-Hakim, the son of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Sa'id Al-Hakim who is one of four senior clerics in Najaf. He was at the house of Mahdi Al-Khorassani with Mohammed Ridha Al-Mar'ashi when armed militiamen broke into the house. The three clerics were violently beaten and Mahdi Al-Hakim was taken with them. Another reason why the marji'iyah are not going to be very forgiving with Sadr.
***
In the south, Al-Mahdi and Sadr followers are wreaking havoc and seriously threatening to cripple Iraqi economy. After setting the Al-Halfaya oil field south of Ammara ablaze, they broke into SOC (South Oil Company) headquarters at Al-Asma'i in downtown Basrah. The whole second floor was set to fire after the building was looted. This is deeply troubling, especially when the SOC police station is less than 200 metres from the building and the British base is about 5 kilometres away. Al-Mahdi have threatened to kill SOC employees if they show up at work. The same in Ammara, where governmental employees have been prevented from going to work for days.
A group of militiamen broke into the Ammara prison setting hundreds of prisoners free under the eyes and noses of Iraqi and British forces. A convoy of 70 trucks loaded with rice and flour sacks belonging to the Ministry of Trade heading to Baghdad from southern ports in Basrah have been held by Al-Mahdi in the city since Saturday. The minister pathetically called Sadr followers in an interview published in Azzaman to return the trucks. Makes you wonder who controls this country, Sadr or the Iraqi government. This country is in deep **** if somebody doesn't put an end to this farce.
Something else has been bothering me for a while. How come there are NEVER any suicide bombings whenever there is trouble in the south with Sadr? And why do the Sunni areas seem so peaceful?
# posted by zeyad : 8/24/2004 01:52:13 AM
BREAKING NEWS
This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AFP
back PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION EMAIL THIS STORY
Three killed, 10 wounded in Iraq
From correspondents in Kufa
26aug04
THREE people were killed and 10 wounded in gunfire and mortar attacks in a residential district of the southern Shiite Muslim city of Kufa late today, medical sources said.
In the northern part of the city, a mortar bomb fired by insurgents at a police checkpoint struck the residential district at around 7pm (1am today AEST), said witness Karim Jassem, 25.
Two people were killed and five wounded, said a doctor at the Middle Euphrates hospital.
Elsewhere, at least one person was killed and five wounded by gunshots during a demonstration en route to the besieged city of Najaf, said another doctor at the same hospital.
Abbas Hamid, 32, told AFP from his hospital bed that the demonstration in support of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr began at 4pm outside the Kufa mosque.
"We were heading towards Najaf but when we reached the Al-Abassiya bridge, Iraqi police opened fire," he said.
He said the demonstrators had not passed a multinational force position, where witnesses had said the gunfire broke out.
Gelisgesti wrote:Think a bit deeper doggie ...........
Alas, your deep thought doesn't guarantee your rational thought.
Iraqis are terrorizing (i.e., murdering and maiming) Iraqis with the help of Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis. I think it rational for the Iraqis who are being terrorized to take such actions as
they deem appropriate to defend themselves against such terrorizing. The fact that
you and I don't think their defensive actions are appropriate or just is irrelevant. We cannot and must not
force our belief systems on those who
we both have asserted are entitled to govern themselves. Besides, I bet that neither of us knows how we would behave in such instances.
Ican, your last post is incomprehensible.
Which Iraqi's are terrorizing which Iraqi's.
Are you saying that Sadr's people have the right to defend themselves against Allawi, or that Allawi can defend himself againt Sadr? It seems to me that attacks on armed police who are part of a government imposed by an occupying force hardly counts as terrorism.
So are you saying that Sadr has the right to defend himself?
That would make sense, except your comment able "Iranians, Syrians and Saudis" doesn't make sense in this context.
Can you straighten out this quagmire for me?
Oil odds n sods
So, Mark Thatcher, son of British beauty Margaret, gets busted for (alleged) involvement of a coup in Equatorial Guinea - by coincidence, just bubbling with oil reserves. When busted, within the last few days, he was planning a change of residence from South Africa to....yes, to Texas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/southafrica/story/0,13262,1291460,00.html
2nd Request
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
IF ELECTED:
What do you want Kerry to do? What do you think Kerry wants to do? What do you think Kerry will try to do? What do you think Kerry will do?
What do you want Bush to do? What do you think Bush wants to do? What do you think Bush will try to do? What do you think Bush will do?
Armies of the world odds n sods
Quote:"While most Americans believe that the second-biggest military contributor to the war in Iraq is Great Britain, that distinction is in fact held by the private military industry."
from Iraq: America's Private Armies, New York Review of Books, Aug 12,2004, page 48
blatham wrote:Armies of the world odds n sods
Quote:"... the second-biggest military contributor to the war in Iraq is ... in fact held by the private military industry."
No! The first, second, third, and fourth biggest contributors to the current war in Iraq are those Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis murdering and maiming both members of the interim Iraqi government and those Iraqi citizens not attempting to murder or maim anyone.
Really? I was under the impression, from Mr. Rumsfeld, they were just a few Bathists. Or in version two, a dozen or three Sadaam loyalists. Or in the third version, local thugs and hooligans. Or in version four, some small minority of extremists.
But your response is rather beside the point in any case.
Blatham's signature:
Quote: No person is entitled to elevate hisher beliefs about how others should act above those of anyone else. It is very important to emphasise that for the state to allow an action is not to favour it." Ronald Dworkin
I disagree with Mr. Dworkin. I believe every innocent human being has an inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and their own property. I believe I am entitled to
elevate that belief of mine above that contrary belief that innocent humans have no such inalienable right.
blatham wrote:Really? ... But your response is rather beside the point in any case.
No! It is exactly the point. Absent those Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis murdering and maiming both members of the interim Iraqi government and those Iraqi citizens not attempting to murder or maim anyone, there would not be a war in Iraq now. It is therefore true, that the biggest
contributors to the war in Iraq are those Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis murdering and maiming both members of the interim Iraqi government and those Iraqi citizens not attempting to murder or maim anyone.
No, actually, you don't disagree with Dworkin, you merely misunderstand him. He refers to 'acts'. His justice rationale is the same as what you've just said.
blatham wrote:No, actually, you don't disagree with Dworkin, you merely misunderstand him. He refers to 'acts'. His justice rationale is the same as what you've just said.
CORRECTION
I disagree with YOUR QUOTE OF Mr. Dworkin. I believe every innocent human being has an inalienable right to their own life, their own liberty, and their own property,
AND SHOULD ACT TOWARD OTHERS ACCORDINGLY. I believe I am entitled to elevate that belief of mine above that contrary belief that innocent humans have no such inalienable right
AND SHOULD ACT TOWARD OTHERS ACCORDINGLY.
Blatham, you are engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man. ;0)
0
ican711nm wrote: Absent those Iraqis, Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis murdering and maiming both members of the interim Iraqi government and those Iraqi citizens not attempting to murder or maim anyone, there would not be a war in Iraq now. It is therefore true that the biggest contributors to the war in Iraq are...
I smash my way into your home, and you and your neighbours fight with me.
Who is the biggest contributor to the conflict?
Is it you, your neighbours, or me?
