...
Bullcrap. Having a different opinion about the judgement of those who lead us into this war isn't treason, and it isn't encouraging the enemy; it is natural that people don't agree, and natural to express one's opinion, and moreover, a respected and protected part of our society to do so.
To seek to punish people for protected and respected dissent is to deny what it means to be an American; not the first time that you've done so, Ican. I really don't think our personal liberties and freedoms mean a thing to you, not when they are inconveinent.
Cycloptichorn
To seek to punish people for protected and respected dissent is to deny what it means to be an American; not the first time that you've done so, Ican. I really don't think our personal liberties and freedoms mean a thing to you, not when they are inconveinent.
...
George Soros and the faithful adherents to his particular gospel of pseudology (i.e., falsity or lying), have encouraged IT to keep on killing non-combatants, and have thereby made the Afghanistan and Iraq efforts to secure democracies there, far more difficult and deadly than they would have been had he early on been removed from control of the Democratic party.
I'll give that damn pseudology gospel an acronym:
GSPG = George Soros Pseudology Gospel.
IT = Islamo Totalitarians (e.g., Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists).
GSPG gives "aid and comfort" to IT, the enemy of humanity in general and of Americans in particular.
...
Blatham, How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces. Look at the trouble the UN has had coming up with an acceptable force to keep the truce agreement between Lebanon and Israel. They STILL haven't been able to do much about Darfur. Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.
How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces.
Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.
Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.
I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.
Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."
It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.
The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.
However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.
Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.
Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."
He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."
A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week - the highest of the war - and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.
Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.
"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."
According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.
"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."
Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."
Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.
"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.

McGentrix wrote:How can the UN become a truly effective power when member states can't or won't participate? The US can not be the sole supplier of UN forces.
Quick fact check:
Number of troops deployed in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:
Police: 7,302
Military Observers: 2,591
Troops: 63,115
Number of US personnel participating in United Nations peacekeeping missions as of July 2006:
Police: 311
Military Observers: 16
Troops: 13
The majority of the US troops (6) are deployed in Liberia, as part of UNMIL (the United Nations Mission in Liberia), which followed the resignation of President Charles Taylor. UNMIL currently consists of 14,569 UN troops, 1,011 police officers and 204 military observers.
(source: UN website)
McGentrix wrote:Throwing money into the UN trash can will not help much as long as so many countries refuse to risk their blood or treasure furthering the UN's mission.
A good and valid point, McGentrix.
I don't believe discussing what might be different if the past had not occured does any good. What has happened has happened.
It's hard to imagine how any workable or sane strategy or policy might arise like magic from amnesia. Ought all history books and studies to be tossed into recycling? Perhaps folks ought to just continually repeat all the things which have created problems? Maybe just do them louder or in greater magnitude?
The UN is not the making or unmaking of the US, but of all it's member states. Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.
Of course they are. A policy of hegemony (which seeks a unipolar world, dominated by an arrogant and self-interested America) will immediately place others in opposition to America because it pre-supposes that opposition and is self-fulling. And where oil is involved, those nations' self-interest IS threatened by this administration's policies. Why would they act differently?
As to chaos created..."Fiasco" is a book you really must read, McG, if you want to know what the military community, the intelligence community, and the State/diplomatic community REALLY think about the Bush administration's policies and personnel and why they think it and if you want to gain greater understanding on the level of chaos now extant in the middle east and how that came about.
Of course many will say, especially many here, that it is the US creating the chaos. *shrug* People say lots of crazy **** these days.
Even framing your idea in that manner excludes understanding. Criticizing Nixon's policies or Clinton's policies or LBJ's policies or FDR's policies means you are criticizing "the US" and thus it is all automatically "crazy ****"?
Democracy and freedom has never come without a cost associated with it.
That's not terribly helpful.
Brought to you by the American Committees on Foreign Relations ACFR NewsGroup No. 764, Monday, September 4, 2006
[I'm not aware of where this originally appeared. I was sent it by a virulently pro-Palestinian organization. KMJ]
Consequences of the War on Terror
by George Soros
The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.
In response to Hezbollah's attacks, Israel was justified in attacking Hezbollah to protect itself against the threat of missiles on its border. However, Israel should have taken greater care to minimize collateral damage. The civilian casualties and material damage inflicted on Lebanon inflamed Muslims and world opinion against Israel and converted Hezbollah from aggressors to heroes of resistance for many. Weakening Lebanon has also made it more difficult to rein in Hezbollah.
Another weakness of the war-on-terror concept is that it relies on military action and rules out political approaches. Israel previously withdrew from Lebanon and then from Gaza unilaterally, rather than negotiating political settlements with the Lebanese government and the Palestinian authority. The strengthening of Hezbollah and Hamas was a direct consequence of that approach. The war-on-terror concept stands in the way of recognizing this fact because it separates "us" from "them" and denies that our actions help shape their behavior.
A third weakness is that the war-on-terror concept lumps together different political movements that use terrorist tactics. It fails to distinguish between Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi militia in Iraq. Yet all these terrorist manifestations, being different, require different responses. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah can be treated merely as targets in the war on terror because they have deep roots in their societies; yet there are profound differences between them.
Looking back, it is easy to see where Israeli policy went wrong. When Mahmoud Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority, Israel should have gone out of its way to strengthen him and his reformist team. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the former head of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, negotiated a six-point plan on behalf of the Quartet for the Middle East (Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations). It included opening crossings between Gaza and the West Bank, an airport and seaport in Gaza, opening the border with Egypt, and transferring the greenhouses abandoned by Israeli settlers into Arab hands.
None of the six points was implemented. This contributed to Hamas's electoral victory. The Bush administration, having pushed Israel to allow the Palestinians to hold elections, then backed Israel's refusal to deal with a Hamas government. The effect was to impose further hardship on the Palestinians.
Nevertheless, Abbas was able to forge an agreement with the political arm of Hamas for the formation of a unity government. It was to foil this agreement that the military branch of Hamas, run from Damascus, engaged in the provocation that brought a heavy-handed response from Israel - which in turn incited Hezbollah to further provocation, opening a second front. That is how extremists play off against each other to destroy any chance of political progress.
Israel has been a participant in this game, and President Bush bought into this flawed policy, uncritically supporting Israel. Events have shown that this policy leads to the escalation of violence. The process has advanced to the point where Israel's unquestioned military superiority is no longer sufficient to overcome the negative consequences of its policy.
Israel is now more endangered in it existence that it was at the time of the Oslo Agreement on peace. Similarly, The United States has become less safe since President Bush declared war on terror.
The time has come to realize that the present policies are counterproductive. There will be no end to the vicious circle of escalating violence without a political settlement of the Palestine question. In fact, the prospects for engaging in negotiations are better now than they were a few months ago. The Israelis must realize that a military deterrent is not sufficient on its own. And Arabs, having redeemed themselves on the battlefield, may be more willing to entertain a compromise.
There are strong voices arguing that Israel must never negotiate from a position of weakness. They are wrong. Israel's position is liable to become weaker the longer it persists on its present course. Similarly Hezbollah, having tasted the sense but not the reality of victory (and egged on by Syria and Iran) may prove recalcitrant. But that is where the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas comes into play. The Palestinian people yearn for peace and relief from suffering. The political - as distinct from the military - wing of Hamas must be responsive to their desires. It is not too late for Israel to encourage and deal with an Abbas-led Palestinian unity government as the first step toward a better-balanced approach. Given how strong the U.S.-Israeli relationship is, it would help Israel achieve its own legitimate aims if the U.S. government were not blinded by the war-on-terror concept.
George Soros, a financier and philanthropist, is author of the new book "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror."
What Bush Should Have Said
An alternative speech for a president seeking support on Iraq
By JOE KLEIN
My fellow members of the American Legion, I have made some serious mistakes and miscalculations in our struggle against Islamic extremism over the past five years. Some of these were made out of anger and impatience in the months after we were so viciously attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. Others were made out of my heartfelt belief that our American values?-freedom, democracy, market economics?-are the surest path away from the fury and despair that have plagued the nations at the heart of the Islamic world. I still believe deeply in those values.
I am still convinced that we are facing a long-term campaign against Islamic extremists who have the means to bring unimaginable horrors to our streets. But events in Lebanon and Iraq this summer have convinced me that our Freedom Agenda must be modified.
I was going to deliver a speech today in which I said, "The war we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." But then I thought about a conversation I had recently with a young U.S. military officer, a combat veteran of the Iraq war who remains on active duty, committed to our mission. "Mr. President," he said. "If this struggle is so important, why is this the only war in American history where we haven't increased the size of the Army and raised taxes to pay for it? Why haven't you mobilized the nation?"
In the speech I planned to deliver, I would have spoken?-too easily, too dismissively?-about how previous Presidents pursued a mistaken policy of seeking "stability" in the Middle East, which resulted in the terrorist attacks against us. I would have implied that my aggressive promotion of democracy was the only alternative to the failed policies of the past. But that would have posed a false choice. Stability is, after all, our goal for the region. And we have learned, sadly, in recent years that the mere act of holding an election does not create a democracy. Indeed, in many countries of the region?-in the Palestinian territories, Iran and, yes, Iraq?-elections have brought the forces of instability to power.
Which brings me to Iraq. I want to tell you something I've never acknowledged: the U.N. inspection regime that was forced on Saddam Hussein in 2002 was working. We should have had more patience with it and supported it more fully. In the end, it would have revealed what we now know: that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. That revelation would have destroyed the dictator's credibility. His brutal regime might have toppled from within. At the very least, his power would have been severely compromised. But?-impatient again?-we rushed to war, without sufficient preparation and sufficient allies. Today we face a very difficult situation in Iraq. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is riddled with Islamic radicals. This week elements of the Iraqi army were attacked and defeated in Diwaniyah by a sectarian militia led by the radical Shi'ite Muqtada al-Sadr. This is the same al-Sadr who attacked U.S. forces in 2004, the same al-Sadr who controls 30 seats in the Iraqi parliament?-and who is the linchpin of al-Maliki's governing coalition. I say this to Prime Minister al-Maliki: The U.S. cannot support a government that includes Muqtada al-Sadr. You must build a new coalition, one that includes the secular political parties and Sunnis and guarantees the Sunni minority the rights and the share of Iraqi oil revenues it deserves. We have not sacrificed 2,600 Americans to create a radical Shi'ite government in Iraq.
One of the many books I've read this summer was Fiasco, by Tom Ricks of the Washington Post. It is a careful summation of the military mistakes we've made in Iraq. It ends with a series of scenarios for what might happen if we withdraw now. All have terrible implications for the region and the world. So we must stay in Iraq, but we must stay smarter. To that end, I announce the following initiatives. I call on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to meet with me one on one to discuss the stabilization of Iraq. In time I hope we can also discuss other issues, like his government's nuclear program and support for Hizballah, and the resumption of normal diplomatic relations between our countries. But, President Ahmadinejad, as a veteran of the Iran-Iraq war, you must appreciate the disastrous potential of the chaos on your western border. Surely you don't want to risk the possibility of a regional Sunni reaction that would bring fire to your oil fields and death, once again, to the streets of Tehran.
Here at home, I call on Democrats to join with me in building an alternative energy strategy to limit our dependence on foreign oil. Everything is on the table, including a tax on carbon-based fuels. Finally, to achieve stability in Baghdad during the creation of the new governing coalition, I am temporarily sending two divisions?-30,000 more troops?-to pacify that troubled city. If a stable, moderate, inclusive Iraqi government is not created, we may be forced to reassess our military posture in the region. These initiatives may not succeed. But the time for fancy words and grand theories about changing the world has passed. We need to take action now.???
On Time Mobile, now you can read Joe Klein's column every week free on the Web browser of your cell phone or mobile device. Go to mobile.time.com
McGentrix wrote:I don't believe discussing what might be different if the past had not occured does any good. What has happened has happened.
It's hard to imagine how any workable or sane strategy or policy might arise like magic from amnesia. Ought all history books and studies to be tossed into recycling? Perhaps folks ought to just continually repeat all the things which have created problems? Maybe just do them louder or in greater magnitude?
The UN is not the making or unmaking of the US, but of all it's member states. Right now, China and Russia are siding with the many despotic regimes that are creating the most chaos in the world today.
Of course they are. A policy of hegemony (which seeks a unipolar world, dominated by an arrogant and self-interested America) will immediately place others in opposition to America because it pre-supposes that opposition and is self-fulling. And where oil is involved, those nations' self-interest IS threatened by this administration's policies. Why would they act differently?
[color]As to chaos created..."Fiasco" is a book you really must read, McG, if you want to know what the military community, the intelligence community, and the State/diplomatic community REALLY think about the Bush administration's policies and personnel and why they think it and if you want to gain greater understanding on the level of chaos now extant in the middle east and how that came about. [/color]
Of course many will say, especially many here, that it is the US creating the chaos. *shrug* People say lots of crazy **** these days.
Even framing your idea in that manner excludes understanding. Criticizing Nixon's policies or Clinton's policies or LBJ's policies or FDR's policies means you are criticizing "the US" and thus it is all automatically "crazy ****"?
Democracy and freedom has never come without a cost associated with it.
That's not terribly helpful.
