North Korea begging to have the s*** bombed out of them.

I don't necessarily disagree, but why?

 

Mr.Clutch I'll answer by providing the guts of an article that I largely agree with.

*******************
Some Mideast Realism, Please
The war on terrorism hinges on renewing the peace process.
By John B. Judis


As George Kennan observed 50 years ago in American Diplomacy, American foreign policy has been periodically affected by bouts of evangelical idealism, which date from the country's Puritan founding and which have led Americans to seek to transform the world in our image -- and to demonize any country or regime that stands in the way.

Since September 11, a group of Washington neoconservatives, some of whom serve under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have attempted to define America's objectives in the Middle East and the war against terrorism in these evangelical terms. Arrayed against them have been Secretary of State Colin Powell and his principal ally and mentor, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. …..


Scowcroft and Powell's realistic approach to the region can be boiled down to two propositions: first, that if forced to choose among waging the war against terrorism, seeking regime change in Iraq and reviving the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians, regime change in Iraq is the least important and should be approached the most gingerly; second, that immediately resuming negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians is integral to waging the war on terrorism.

By contrast, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense; Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Board; William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, and other neoconservatives see removing Saddam Hussein as an overriding priority, and Hussein himself as a figure of transcendent evil.

Moreover, they believe that out of Hussein's ouster will come a transformed, democratic Middle East in which the Palestinians, deprived of their radical leadership, will accept a significant Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Scowcroft and Powell reject the Pentagon obsession with ousting Hussein -- which recalls an earlier American fixation with getting rid of Cuba's Fidel Castro. They see the Iraqi leader as a brutal dictator but not as an immediate threat to the United States or to its neighbors. A nuclear-armed Iraq could menace its neighbors and the stability of world oil supplies, but as Scowcroft argued in his August column, this threat could be met initially through resuming United Nations arms inspections. ….


The heart of Scowcroft and Powell's realism is a rejection ….Hussein's Iraq -- deeply divided by religion, tribe and nationality and lacking an independent bureaucracy or even civil society -- cannot easily be turned into a post-Hideki Tojo Japan. But an invasion without UN backing could transform Hussein into an Islamic martyr.

The United States could eventually pay a price in a deep and unyielding anti-Americanism -- just as it eventually did in Iran after it overthrew nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and installed the Shah. And as for a "chain reaction," it's equally likely that after an interval of months or years, Hussein's overthrow would set off an explosion of Islamic radicalism and terrorism that would resound for decades to come.


In his November column, Scowcroft argued that having mobilized the UN Security Council against Hussein, the United States should now devote "the same kind of skill, audacity and laser-like attention to the Israeli-Palestinian issue." …

Bush's administration has rejected this strategy. While proclaiming its nominal support for a Palestinian state, it has cast its lot with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a foe of the Oslo Accords and a proponent of continued settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon's version of a two-state solution consists of a Palestinian Bantustan on 42 percent of the West Bank, surrounded by new Israeli settlements. In December, Bush appointed Elliott Abrams, a foe of the Oslo Accords, to be in charge of Arab-Israeli relations on the National Security Council.

Abrams' opposition to a genuine Palestinian state, based on thorough Israeli withdrawal from its settlements, will be seconded by Perle, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and other administration neoconservatives....

These neoconservatives …..contend that Arab hostility toward Israel and the United States is the result of despotic Arab leaders trying to displace onto Israel and the United States the anger that the Arab masses might otherwise feel toward them. If the overthrow of Hussein were to lead to the overthrow of these despots, that could lead to regimes that wouldn't have to use anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda to curry favor with "the street."


Scowcroft and Powell rightly reject these views. For one thing, Arab hostility toward Israel is not simply the product of current manipulation by cynical elites….. Opportunistic and cynical leaders certainly have stoked this hostility, but it won't disappear if Saddam Hussein is overthrown. If anything, it will grow and intensify, providing a breeding ground for the deeply reactionary currents of Islamic radicalism from which al-Qaeda recruits.


The failure to resume the peace process in Israel could also lead to the spread of Palestinian terrorism to Europe and the United States. One achievement of Oslo was to end the export of terrorism, which had begun in the 1970s after the Palestinians -- driven out of Jordan and subject to Israeli repression on the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- sought to revenge themselves on Israel's backers. ....



The American Prospect

 

The root cause of the 9/11 attacks was the military base the US built in Saudi Arabia, sacred home of Mecca. The existence of the "satanic" US military in the Islamic holy land pushed Osama bin Laden into action (and not our love of freedom ).

 

It's a nicely written article, very clear. But there are some problems with it.



1) He says toppling an Arab government would spread anti-American feelings. But the Taliban, a strict Muslim government, was toppled and the Arab street did not rise in anger. I remember these exact same things being said before the war in Afghanistan. He also mentioned that Iran had anti-American feelings but the people right now are very pro-American. So I still don't understand how or why Arabs would hate the US for toppling a ruthless dictator.

2) Oslo also eventually lead to the Intifada. Giving Arafat more control of the territories has got to be one of the stupidest ideas in a long time. He is a terrorist.

 

So if the US closed the bases then terrorists would stop being terrorists? I seriously doubt that! Then why the attacks in Bali? It is one reason Osama went into action. But he also went into action because he is a Mulsim extremist who believes that all the infidels should be killed and that a great Muslim theocratic state (with no freedoms) should be built.

 

I dunno about the all infidels should be killed thing but I think it's obvious that bin Laden wants to prop up little Talibans all across the Middle East however he can't do that with the US military in the area. That's why we're a target in addition to his damaged pride that the Saudis turned down his help to defend from Iraq and invited the US in to do it.

 

Bin Laden said the US moved to the top of his sh*t list, when they built the military bases in Saudi in preparation for the Gulf War.

 

You really think that the *primary* motivation of your government is idealism? Despite decades of evidence to the contrary (including *very recently* attempting to foment a coup in another independent country? Hayes can say that Venezuela doesn't count all he likes, but he's full of **** on that point, sorry!)? All I can say is 'blurgh' to that theory. Foreign policy for *any* country is *not* about spreading truth and justice and never bloody has been.

Happy New Year, all. I'm quite hungover.

 

I have seen several mentions of Venezuela lately and there seems to be a distaste by some here for coup attempts against the elected government of that country.

Is there some taint/rule/ethics that should prevent the current coup leader(s) from seeking (and possibly winning) the Presidency of Venezuela in the future since they are actively working against the rightfully elected government (Chavez)?

 

1) Where is the evidence of the US supporting the coup. Chavez claimed that the US helped to get him out but I don't remember if the US really did anything.

2) I think *one* main motivation is idealism. Like the Cold War fight against communism, Venezuela is the perfect example. Chavez is a guy who admired communism and Cuba, both of whcih Bush hates for ideological reasons. The war people hate the US most for, Vietnam, was also fought for ideological reasons (I don't think there's oil in Vietnam).

3) Isn't it a bit early to be drunk?

 

Dude, it's 2pm on January 1st, 2003. I think I'm allowed to be hungover at this point.

 

Not for Aussies or Kiwis!

 

She is likely in New Zealand, so she is way ahead of you in celebrating the New Year.

 

The Taliban wasn't Arab, but instead mostly Pashtun and Tajik. We did help in the toppling, but we had special forces and bomb to comb out Al Quada terrorists. The Northern Alliance did a lot of workm and Afganistan had been in a Civil war since October of 1996.
The hard liners of Iran don't like Iran, but it has been like thtat since the Shah was exiled. However, most of the citizens, who are youths, are rather pro-american but had anti-american feelings after Bush's State of The Union in which he called Iran a member of an "Axis of Evil". Right now, Khatami is freeing Iran from the conservative rule.

 

Hey Glynch,

I doesn't piss me off being called a hawk, as I am so obviously one. I used to piss me off when you called me a neoconservative, which as I have explained previously is impossible. I appreciate the recognition, although I know we don't agree on many issues.

Re: leftwingers...definitely. In fact, my favorite neighbors in the building are a gay couple who brought about ten of their friends, none of whom did I find to be secret conservatives upon talking to them! I did get the chance to have a heated political discussion with one who turned out to be a law professor at Oxford! He ended up capitulating to removing Saddam and Kim Jr, so score one for the hawks!!! I should be the coach in Atlanta!

btw: I believe the Jenis article, which hypothesizes that the current administration believes Saddam is inherently evil, and hence should be removed, contradicts your assertion that Bush is really just interested in oil. If he truly believes Saddam is evil, and hence should be removed, then he cannot be disingenously advancing that as a reason for regime change. Oops.

Re: dimsie... I don't think the wife would appreciate me 'hanging out' with other women period, be they left or right wing! No matter how sex crazed dimsie seems on the bbs.

Dimsie,

I know you're hung over but no need to be nasty. The simple fact is that had the US given full support to the coup in Venezuela then Chavez would not be in power right now. So it is largely irrelevant. In addition, that situation is in no way comparable to the situation in Iraq nor in N Korea, also making it irrelevant to this discussion. Also, Chavez is not supported by the majority of the population, as represented in the mass strikes seen lately. Which gives credibility and legitimacy to the military's attempt to remove him, especially considering the historical role played by Latin American militaries in the political processes of their respective countries. Maybe they need a little more training at the School of the Americas!!! Finally, at no time have I ever proposed the US supporting a coup against a legitimately elected government in the post Cold War world, also making Venezuela irrelevant to this discussion.

'Blurgh' is quite a convincing argument...

 

Uh, upon some drunken consideration that was in poor taste, dimsie. Please accept my advance apologies, but I cannot edit it for some reason.

 

Gee thanks...

Well the look of that eerie radioactive glow might catch on with the American teens, and Shakobe might be just what the Lakers need to win the next 500,000 NBA titles. (Unless Yao Ming learns to perfect the finger roll with his tail)

 

I think we've gone over the subject of the pros and cons US international relations on the BBS longer than the Cold War, itself, so we are probably pretty clear on our respective positions. I'm out of this argument, in other words, but there's no need to talk to her like this.

 

It was a catalyst, but like Timing said, the motivations of Bin Laden and other terrorists like him is to topple the "fundamentally soft" regimes in his area. They view the US as the reason behind these governments power, and it happens to be a really good scapegoat to recruit members. Only recently has religious terrorism been directed at foreign areas. Before, it was mostly confined to the countries the terror groups tried to topple. Their frustrations for failing is now being directed at the US.

 

Oh yeah, if we were to pull out of Saudi Arabia now, it would be like another Somalia. Their cause would be emboldened because they'd think that we're primarily interested in American lives and that we're a decadent and soft culture waiting to be defeated. They felt like they brought down the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, so they want to bring down another superpower.