For how long will justice be muted? Iraqi war against Kuwait.

Treeman: Ah ha! Sorry for the harsh language, time to get to some more serious discussion.

All I'm reading? Of course not . Getting all one's information from one journal would be a mistake in any situation. But I do think it's the best journal for articles concerning geopolitics. They seem to represent a fair view of the moderate spectrum, ranging from Condoleeza Rice (yuck!), to Samuel Huntington (yuk!), to Stephen Walt.

Ah, you present a false dichotomy. They "won" the Cold War, but The entire Cold War was based (in US policy) on conflicting premises: first, George Kennan's theory that the totalitarian domestic politics of the Soviet Union necessitated conflict and containment, and secondarily, the Realist great power theory. Those theories don't go together well, for the obvious reason that Realism argues that the domestic affairs of states are irrelevant. In fact, in Realist thinking, winning the Cold War so utterly was probably a mistake, since a bipolar world is inherently safer than a multipolar one, as some Realists have suggested (Kenneth Waltz).

In my mind, the US and the Soviet Union could never have been good friends, but the heigth of the Cold War could easily have been avoided. A severe lack of communication caused the most notable crises after the Berlin Airlift, and if you read internal declassified documents, you see that both sides overestimated the antagonism of the other, resulting in unnecessarily and apparently aggressive preventative measures.

You're quite correct concerning the official US policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons. I oppose it on ethical grounds, as I don't think the use of WMD really is an effective threat, except in the case of a state. And if you're dealing with a state, the odds are that it's a case of mutually assurred destruction (M.A.D!). I'm actually a great believer in nuclear deterrence... but believe it should be used soberly. Deterrence has probably made the world a safer place, but I don't think it's effective against regimes or individuals with little to lose.

As the world "shrinks" and globalism becomes a reality, our own policies become inextricably linked with the rest of the world. Power tends to coalesce at the level most appropriate to deal with the primary problems of interaction. The nation-state is no longer completely viable as the highest level of organization as a result of the power of MNC's, drug trafficking, arms trafficking, the market, international terrorism, global warming, etc. In this case, unilateral action is extremely harmful to the very institutions that are necessary for our long-term protection and success. Unilateral action is inherently self-defeating in the long-term, as an individual nation cannot confront the problems of globalism alone. Rather, the safeguards that will protect us in the future must be embraced.

In this case, unilateral action would damage the credibility of international institutions and prove us hypocrites. The key to multinational institutions is that they must be mutually binding; unless we consent to be bound, other states have no initiative to do so as well.

I believe the current military operations are appropriate.

Sorry, the parallel was not meant to be extended that far. I merely meant that I believe that you interpret the situation from an excessively military situation. perhaps you are ex-army?

Hmm... the only thing that I agree with here is that all people should be evaluated on an individual basis.

Personally, I believe that culture is usually "white noise," and little more than a smoke screen for substantive issues. The West manipulated and exploited the Middle East for decades. We propped up repressive regimes, encouraged weakness, ousted any threat to our supply of cheap oil, etc. Even if our intentions are now "good," I don't blame the Arab population for being distrustful of our policies. It's not wrong to be wary of one's own strategic interests.

We are as well as them.

Haven't heard of the book. My own knowledge of the situation is based largely on 1. several articles, 2. Persian Mirrors (excellent book about modern Iran), 3. knowledge from various sources of past Arab history. My fiance has a focus on Middle Eastern studies in her major and has sort of forced me to look into the issues.

Believe things you say? Yes. Believe what appears to be professions of "insider information?" No. I hope to evaluate each post regardless of the poster based on the internal logic contained within. I'm sure I sometimes fail to achieve this, but I do try .

Well, thank you. Alas, it's looking like an all-nighter. 3:35 AM and only 2 pages done. Damn that Notre Dame - BC football game last night !

I look forward to continuing our discussion. Believe it or not, I really enjoy arguing with people who rely on logic as you seem to do. I think your arguments are flawed, but in a way that's debatable, as opposed to some completely irrational assertions made by q8 (and others!).

 

Oh, in addition to my previous post:

Treeman, I will admit one thing for the purpose of complete honesty. I personally focus more on European afairs, Far Eastern affairs, and theory more than the politics of the Middle East. My arguments concerning the Middle East are:

1. based on what I do know, which isn't completely insubstantial, just not my specialty.

2. often based more on knowledge of general theory and other situations extrapolated to specific events rather than drawn directly from "expert" source material. Not saying I'm wrong, just that I couldn't give you as many sources saying I'm right on ME affairs. For instance, great emphasis was placed on culture and ideology in the Balkans, China, and the Soviet Union by the media and some rightist (and leftist) demogogues, but now the general consensus is that culture played a far subordinate role to other more substantive factors. Case studies on this concerning the Balkans-Milosevic and Maoist China are fascinating and quite detailed, if you're interested.

 

Congrats to the managers of the board for allowing Treeman and Q 8 Rocket to continue to post. With the additional posts they have provided clarification and somewhat rehabilitated themselves.

 

glynch:

You are a PC thug. Free speech is OK unless you offend anyone, is that right? Damn, just lost another brain cell responding...

haven:

My undergrad is in Psychology, and my postgrad is in Futures Studies, so polisci is not my field. I therefore do not have your lexicon on the matter, but I think I can understand what you're getting at...

Regarding the Cold War, I would tend to say that this Realist theory you speak of is the more accurate one. I am actually surprised to see your comments on the whole thing; I find myself agreeing with you again. (the sky must be falling!) I would however say that the arms race was the primary reason for the collapse of the USSR; it forced the Soviets to spend somewhere along the lines of 20% of their budget on arms, which contributed to their economic collapse, which was the real reason for their downfall... I also agree that we never could have been friends as the ideologies were diametrically opposed, but I think some of the more open conflicts (Vietnam in particular) might have been avoided had we been less trigger-happy.

Again, I would only use it as a weapon of last resort, but I would not totally rule out nuclear use merely on ethical grounds. It would have to be a dire situation indeed... But there is only one real state in existence where MAD could even be applied now: China. And they frankly do not have the nuclear capability yet to destroy us (although they will soon). But I think we can probably avoid that confrontation with them if we don't jump the gun. Unlike some of our enemies they are not suicidal, and they can be reasoned with.

As for what situations exactly I would use nuclear weapons in, there is realistically only one situation I would use one in the current war: if we were to discover a cache of nuclear weapons or a large cache of biological weapons that was buried far underground, I would use the spiked nuke to destroy it. This is not the same thing as nuking a city, and would be the only way to destroy the nukes. There is virtually no fallout from the spiked nuke, and the effects above ground are comparable to a small, highly localized earthquake. It is one weapon I would not hesitate to use if, for example, we were to discover that Al Qaeda had obtained a Pakistani nuke and hidden it in a deep cave (which is actually not an unlikely scenario).

I agree that globalization complicates unilateral actions, but that does not mean that we should never even consider them. When our survival is at stake, I for one frankly do not care what the rest of the world thinks.

I have been hearing for a decade the predicted demise of the nation-state, but have yet to see any indication of how this will occur. The MNCs are definitely on the rise (and partially responsible for our tainted image in the ME), but I do not see them realistically replacing nation-states. I have yet to hear anyone propose a realistic change driver that will actually enable the demise of the nation-state.

Old habits die hard, you might say.

One word: oil. We all know it's the only reason we're even involved in the ME, and frankly the sooner we can shake our dependency on it the better. The regimes that we have propped up are by no means altruistic, but if you take a look at the regimes that we haven't propped up, you'll see that dictatorships are not a US-created phenomena. The closest thing in the ME to a democracy is in Iran, and their democracy is a sham as the mullahs hold the real power. They have no democratic tradition, and it's my experience that they do not really want one.

All the US has really tried to do is select dictatorships that are not openly hostile to the US. But it's dictatorships all around the region, US involvement or no US involvement. To blame that on us is a lie.

The real task ahead - the only long term solution - would have to involve deprogramming the ME populations. They have literally been taught to blame all of their problems on us. The only crime we have committed there (and it is very arguable) is propping up unpopular regimes. We are not responsible for the lack of value they place on secular education and secular government (see Turkey to get a taste of how these two concepts can change a society). We are actually responsible for every single aspect of economic success that they have ever had, yet they are angry at us for net doing more. I've got news for you, if we ever stop relying on their oil, the region's entire economy would be permanently shattered...

I notice you keep questioning my credentials / "insider info". I don't have to explain anything to you, but I will give you something to paint a wider picture: 1) I am not Condaleeza Rice masquerading as a Rockets fan, 2) I do not work for the government and am not ex-military, although I will be enlisting in about a month, and 3) I have several contacts (okay, 4) who are in the know: 1 military, 2 ex-military, and 1 who works in a think tank that contracts exclusively to DoD. I am not going to get more specific with you on that, so that will either do or it won't.

Did you finish your paper?

 

I dont really feel like taking sides on this matter, but I think its kind of messed up how we see the Jews as the good guys, and the Arabs as the bad guys. But I guess Americans can relate to kicking a race of people out of their rightful land.

 

Nomar... if you are going to make statements about whose land it rightfully is.. THEN GIVE SOME EVIDENCE.. THERE IS MORE SOLID EVIDENCE THAT JEWS HAVE A RIGHT TO THE LAND MORE THAN THE PALESTINIANS..

Heres some research guidelines for you..

1. What is Palestine?
2. Where did its decendants come from?
3. Why should they get the land over the Jews?

I want to see your reasoning before I respond with cold, hard facts.

 

Blame the UN for putting Israel where it is now. Frankly, both the Israelis and the Arabs have acted like animals, but it's hard to deny that the Arabs have been the aggressors for the past 53 years... Even so, the peace process is going no where until the Arabs start taking responsibility for their own actions and stop claiming complete innocence in the matter.

Just as everyone, needs to understand that the Native Americans weren't the nicest people in the world in order to understand the context of that conflict, everyone needs to understand that the Arabs aren't the only victims in the ME. I am not trying to justify what happened to the Native Americans, nor some of the things that the Israelis have done to the Palestinians (like the settlements and "prisoner camps"), but one needs to look at the motivation and actions of both sides in order to make any honest sense of it - or to have any realistic hope of resolution.

 

What Americans (or shall we say British, Irish, French, Germans, Spanish, etc etc) did in North America was not very unique.

BTW, didn't American Indian's migrate and defeat other tribes? Is anyone fretting over the Sioux or Apache defeating some enemies and taking their land? Not saying that it was right or wrong, that was the way of the world back then.

What was reprehensible and inexcusable was the way the Indians were treated in a sub-human fashion and the broken treaties by the US.

 

please show me where i said all of america hates arabs and muslims and that jews should be blamed for everything thats wrong? i think we muslims should learn a whole lot from jews who overcame prejudice and rose to the political cloud they have now. i don't buy this zionist conspiracy crap. however i do hate israeli actions and their leadership. i don't believe you should kill thousands of people in UN camps. and i do disagree with america giving them 3 bil a year or whatever. i also disagree with giving egypt 2 bil a year. i don't see why mubarak should get any money. if the jewish political groups are powerful its cause they worked damn hard to get there. even if you completely disagree with their viewpoints you respect it if not admire it.

 

the "arabs" (muslim and christian and i believe there are some jewish arabs too) lived there long before the european jews migrated. the muslims who lived in palestine weren't those who moved from yemen to settle in palestine and claim it for the arabs too. it was hundreds of years of mixing and conversions. thats why arabs from saudi or yemen are sometimes very dark yet arabs from for instance lebanon are white-looking. they speak arabic but they don't have the same roots all the time.

they should get land because they lived there dammit. plus in the very least they should be safe from appache helicopters shooting at them at night and killed 7 year old kids. they should get the same water their israeli neighbor who lives a couple blocks down should get. they shouldn't have thier mosques AND CHURCHES shot at cause they're arabs and not jews.

 

Eh... the Soviet Union collapsed because everything was aligned against it. The Soviet military budget was certainly a factor, but a lack of international trade, severe problems as the result of the planned economy with efficiency, internal disrest, ideological ennui, and growing dissatisfaction with the Warsaw Pact all contributed. More factors that I'm forgetting, as well, I'm sure.

We're not worried about nuclear war with China. Oh, some politicians may sound off. But the CIA, NSA, etc isn't worried. Why? Well, the reason we were on such a "hair trigger" alert with the Soviet Union was their vast superiority in their ability to project conventional forces in Europe. The US simply could not maintain an equal conventional presence that far away. Hence, we had to check Soviet aggression with a threat of massive nuclear retaliation. But that brought on a credibility problem. If we nuked them, they'd nuke us. Nobody believed that we'd really trade, say, New York for Bonn, as we'd in essence be doing.

So the US had to have a First Strike capability. First Strike just means that we had to have enough nukes to A. take out all the Soviet nukes and B. still inflict massive damage.

Thus, we had an arms race. And thus, both sides HAD to launch first to maintain credibility.

With China, that's not true. Why? Well, China dominates Asia via land. The US dominates maritime Asia. They control their land perimeter, with the exception of South Korea. And South Korea has VERY friendly relations with China for economic reasons as well as to stave for North Korea (who China controls).

The US's 7th Fleet completely dominates the sea. The Philippines, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, etc all fall under our sphere of influence. China doesn't have air craft carriers. They don't have the tech to build an aircraft carrier for at least 40 years. One sign of how pathetic their tech is: they just bought 200 20 year old Russian planes. They can't build better. Furthermore, you can bet the farm that the second China DID try to build an aircraft carrier, congress would commission 3 more. China can't win a naval armsrace. Why? The US is a maritime power. We can afford to concentrate all our energies into our navy. China has a 7000 mile border with Russia. They have to protect their northern flank with land forces.

The US can't attack China conventionally... China ain't exactly scared of a sudden amphibious invasion. China lacks the ability to project maritime force.

There's a peaceful deadlock until China builds effective ballistic missiles, and even then we won't be too worried, with the headstart we have.

Certainly, there's little danger of a nuclear war.
It's interesting stuff, isn't it? I'm a geek .

We might agree here.

The demise of tyhe nation-state will probably last as long as the birth did. And that started hundreds of years ago. Functionalism requires that multinational institutions gradually assume authority as nations come to rely on them more. Autonomy won't be surrendered for a long time.

A good case study is the EU. It started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1948. Now, limited autonomy is being surrendered to the Council of Europe. Barriers are falling, and will continue to fall, provided the EU doesn't overexpand itself.
Old habits die hard, you might say.

Agreed. Here, our biggest problem is the oil companies. Solar PVCs combined with a hydrogen storage system is feasible RIGHT NOW. But we won't invest in infrastructure because it's against the interest of too many elites in the short-term.

Iran is becoming more democratized by the year. Just last month, a completely democratic autonomous region was created. No religious authority. True democracy. They're going to carry it out as an "experiment" to study the efficacy of true democracy in Iran.

There's real change in Iran. Nobody's sure if it will succeed yet. Khatami would like nothing better than to end religious domination of the state. Most ayatollah's would love to see Khatami fall off the planet. Why don't they resort to force? This is fascinating: NOBODY knows which way the military would leap if both sides issued orders to arrest the other.

Iran is just so interesting. Freedom of the press:

Khatami and his democratically elected government control the ability to issue newspaper liscences. The religious ayatollahs control the power to CLOSE them. The result?

Some newspapers in Iran have had HUNDREDS of different names over the past few years, as the religous and secular authorities have it out.

Incredible stuff.

Side note: indigenously supported dictators are superior to "propped-up" ones. At least there's some degree of self-determination.

But we still don't have "the right" to overrule self-determination. This is a question of ideology, and therefore is impossible to resolve, so why don't we leave it alone for now?

Deprogramming seems to be a form of programming . In all honesty, I think we should enforce a second marshall plan. Ensure economic security, and hatred might cease. Right now, they see us as exploiting their oil reserves.

Fair enough. I can understand not wanting to reveal sources. I was very skeptical because while I'm not an "insider," I do follow the literature very closely, and also have somewhat close relationships with people who are "in the know." Perhaps our information just contradicts.

Yes, about an hour before it was due .

 

nothing to see here

 

haven:

I simply meant that the arms race was the straw that broke the camel's back. You could add in endemic corruption and disparate living standards between the rulers and the ruled, repressive social policy, inability to exploit internal resources like oil, timber, etc (inefficiency, I guess), and the like as reasons as well, of course. But the arms race nailed the lid on the coffin shut, so to speak, and without it (without the military budget drawing resources away from other economic areas) many of the other problems might not have been as pronounced.

I see nothing to disagree about on this point. While I do not trust the Chicoms, I do believe that they are on the whole a rational regime, and can be dealt with. All this hooplah the past few years about the China threat is just a smoke screen created by Dod in order to increase the defense budget, IMO...

Not that we do not have conflicting interests with the Chinese. If the PLA ever really took power (I'm sure you're aware of the power struggle that has been brewing there for the past decade between the Party leadership and the PLA generals), then we could very well get into it over Taiwan. But that's an unlikely scenario to my mind.

It's one thing for the Europeans to create a sort of 'United States of Europe', it's quite another thing for some multinational body to create some future 'United States of Earth'... And certainly the UN - which was designed to be impotent by the victors of WW2 - is not going to do it.

I would not go so far as to say that such a world govt will not someday be formed, I'd just say that if it is it will likely be so far ahead into the future that it's kind of pointless to think about it. For the forseeable future nation-states will continue to exist and act in their own self-interests. The only significant change that I can see is that MNCs will play a larger role in influencing policymaking than ever before, but I don't see them supplanting elected (or non-elected, for that matter) governments as policymakers.

I agree. We have fuel cell technology, workable photovoltaics, hydroelectric, nuclear (which is perfectly safe and clean if the reactors are made well, staffed by competent people, and the waste is disposed of properly), etc. Hell, we've got 4,000 years' worth of coal in Alaska alone (despite common belief, it can be made clean). But the energy companies have everything invested in oil, and are reluctant to switch. IMO only government can tell them to switch, but of course those energy companies are huge political contributors...

It is still by no means a democracy. The mullahs still run things, because the mullahs have the ultimate authority over the military. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that they have lost control of the military... yet.

IMO, they are going to have another revolution, because the current generation of young Iranians (something like 2/3 of the population is under 21) hate the mullahs' rule. They are the ones who elected Khatami. Personally, I think a Khatami-run Iran would be perfectly acceptable, as he has shown signs that he would be willing to establish a meaningful relationship with the West again.

Despite what you may think, I have no qualms with an Islamic democracy, but I think we would be stupid not to act in our own defense against a hostile Islamic democracy. If they are not hostile towards us, then more power to them.

Actually, in that respect I would consider the Iranians to be a step ahead of the Arab world (they are not Arabs, of course, but Persians): they have had their anti-Western revolution, and they are getting tired of it. It has gotten them nowhere. The next government there will probably not be nearly as hostile as the mullahs have been. I personally think that the Arab world, however, if about to go through what the Iranians went through 22 years ago. I would hope that they don't, but if they do then I hope that they don't take as long as the Iranians are to come to their senses...

I agree, but if they're hostile to the US (as in terrorism supporters) then don't expect the US to just stand idly by as they scheme our demise. If they're not hostile towards us, then that's great. See above...

I would support a second Marshall Plan in a heartbeat if I thought it might actually do some good. I would not support it to a country or people who already hated us. The real reason they hate us us because their governments have been telling them to hate us for their entire lives. Whether the regime is US-supported or not, that is universal among Arab governments. They need to stop deflecting blame for ills onto us, or the hatred will never end. We can not make their governments do that, we can only ask them to stop.

Ensure economic security? We ensure their economic security by purchasing their oil. That is by and large their only valuable resource (the real moneymaker, at least); what are we supposed to do, tell them how to spend their money? It is not our faule that their governments hoard all the wealth, and we cannot tell them what to do with their own money... Something tells me that if we told them that investing in their future by increasing education budgets would be a good idea, they'd just go out and buy another yacht instead...

Well, this is all interesting stuff. It's good to know that we don't disagree on everything...

 

Boy.. your statements are only filled with half truths.. just like most pro-palestinian propaganda. The Jews were in Aretz Yisrael waaaay before the arabs you speak of were there.. It was the Romans who conquered them and enslaved the Jews. Why do you think the name was changed to Philistine(later butchered to Palestine)? It was to mock the Jews WHO WERE THERE FIRST.

Like I said before, the land belongs to everyone and until the extremists stop thinking that they can throw all the Jews into the Meditteranean. Israel will keep the Apache Helicopters coming in retaliation for terrorist attacks. The 7 year olds(probably the ones who paraded in the streets following the Sept. 11th attacks) are collateral damage.

I honestly feel bad for the Palestinians who want peace. Unfortunately, they won't get it until they rid themselves of the maniacs within their own society.

 

first of all . i have to appreciate your posts that regard my topics . defiently you disagree with me but that doesn't make any sense . i respect you and that's the most important thing . let's discuss the subject .

i really believe those jew people that emigrated after 1917 to this date should leave palestine not all of the followers of this relegion . there is no need for a racists state in this sensitive place . tell me glynch .. why do you disagree with me in this point ?


Then we have the famous post at hand "How long will justice be muted? Stupid,unsupported charges, Israelis poisoning chocolate for Palestinina kids. DEliberately giving them aids etc. Enraging if you abgsolutely believe Israelis could never commit such atrocities never in a million years, but not anit-semitic per se. Treeman's remarks in that thread were just as objectionable.

you saw my first post about israeli masscares and crimes in48 . come on glynch what would stop these vampires to do such things ?

nobody could say one word to them . your goverment veto is ready if someone tried to condemn thier crimes . again .. who's going to stop them ?? they are killing and killing everyday and those crimes that i stated are nothing comparing to what is happening nowdays in occupied palestine !

Note I tend to strongly disbelieve the poisoned chocolate and other charges. Iif they did occur I would suspect they were the deeds of an individual Jewish Note I tend to strongly disbelieve the poisoned chocolate and other charges. Iif they did occur I would suspect they were the deeds of an individual Jewish extremists.

extremists ?? all of them are invaders i mean those who imigrated ilegally to palestine . they have no problem with that who cares ?


His english is not that good

FACT

his statements come off blunt

let's see !!

Thanks glynch for your valuable opinions

 

I think that one deserves another .

 

Q8 Rocket,

As wonderful as it might sound to you to say that all Jews that emigrated should leave, it is quite unfeasible. People are living there and unjustice and the hands of the muslims would not make them any better than the unjustices being done on the Palestinians right now.

And please refrain from calling Jewish people "vampires" and other derogatory forms of name-calling. This simply mutes any valid points you might have.

How can you argue for a people's cause and then try to do the same unjustices to the other group. I feel their are grave unjustices being done to the Palestinians and I feel that they are treated horribly, and live a life similar to pre WWII Jews in Germany. But as I have said before, many times the child of an alcoholic is a victim, but then turns out to be an alcoholic himself and become the aggressor on his own family.

I believe Isreal can exist, I feel that it should be a truly free state ala South Africa. Break down the barriers to jobs, laws etc and the Palestinian problem will go away. Allow there to be Palestinians and Israelis in the Knesset and make it a secular free state with political parties, where every man is free and has the same rights irregardless of race, religion etc.

Two brothers, of the same father.....and their progeny fight like mad over a land from a God that is trying to bring peace. Its ironic that the message of God is more often used for evil than good in this world and over the course of time.

 

I am pretty sure there are Palestinians in the Knesset. Everyone has the same rights(actually arabs have more because they have the choice not to serve in the military). The only reason they might get unfair treatment is for self-defense measures. I remember hearing the story about a palestinian teenager dressed up like an orthodox jew who blew him self up while being chased by two soldiers.. his head landed in a school yard. It is an extremely sad situation. Self-defense does take a toll on some innocent civilians, but unfortunately its justified.

 

I am pretty sure there are no Palestinian "Muslims" or "Christians" in the Knesset.

A Palestinian or Arab Jew maybe....