Just wondering... I've seen the same posters say both: Islam is not our enemy. Fundamentalist regimes like Iran are not our enemy. and We would risk regimes falling in the Middle East to fundamentalist uprisings if we invaded Iraq. Question - If fundamentalist regimes like Iran (which gained power through a radical revolution) are not our enemy, then why are we worried about other regimes (most of which are two faced AND oppressive) falling and being replaced by fundamentalist regimes? Then the rest of the Middle East could learn what Iranians now know, that fundamentalist regimes can NOT fix all their problems.
IMO Fundimentalist regimes may be our enemies. Certainly Iran was our enemy. They took all the U.S. hostages, and have funded terrorism etc. Since they have had some reforms, then more reforms, then some reforms were overturned again. I don't think that they are automatically our enemy, but they are prone to funding terrorism, which is our enemy. Yes most of our 'allies' in the middle east are repressive, and I don't believe they are in any way a step above fundimentalist regimes. Of course this would go case by case. Jordan isn't as bad Kuwait as far as oppressoin etc. I know that people are scared because of oil, but the oil is theirs. I think we shouldn't support oppressive regimes, like United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, etc. We should deal with whoever is in charge to buy the oil if they are fundimentalists, or not. Now if any govt. wanted our aid, I like the idea of tying assistance to human rights improvements. That way the people of the countries benefit both from U.S. aid, and from more humane treatment. We should benefit, because we aren't seen as propping up oppressive regimes etc. It seems like I've been rambling. I hope people can decipher some amount of sense from this post.
Franchise Blade, it is true you were rambling but you had some good points. It is their oil. We are not entitled to control it like it is ours. To say they are our enemies is extremely simplistic. It is for the simple minded who say you are either my enemy or my firend. To quote Bush the Younger "wit us or agin us". They are ordinary humans with commercial interests, too. They need to sell their oil, and we are there customers. Businessmen are not enemies of their customers. I would think a business guy like Hayes would understand that. They can however be made to acts like all out enemies by mistreatment. For instance if we insist on totally one sided stand to assist the Israelis in conquering permanently the West Bank and Gaza against Arab wishes and that of essntially the whole world. They can also be made to act like our enemies if we insist on helping dictators stay in power as long as they sell us oil cheaply and don't mess with our support for Israeli occupation. I'm not very religious so it is hard for me to really love the Islam of many of the Mideast countries with its brainwashing prayers five times a day, what I think is mistreatment of women etc. However, one thing for sure is that repression and mistreatment naever made anybody more moderate or less fanatically religious unless they are actually being oppressed by the clergy. A guy like Sharon understands this. Repress the Palestinians, but keep the pr machine working to disguise this. Then use the pr machine to show how immoderate and violent the Palestinians are when they fight back. In the US we have a near cabal feeding misinformation to Rumsfield and others about the Arabs and the Palestinian situation. These guys are the simpleton types who have transferred their desire for another "evil emprire" to the Arabs and others who can now be the "axis of evil". This feeds perhaps paranoid tendencies on their part, but we do know they make a killing on the arms industry that this evil simplicity feeds off of.
FranchiseBlade, I don't think it was you who was rambling. Glynch, what does this question have to do with the Palestinian situation? I feel like I'm on CNN and the Arab League rep just plopped this totally unrelated Palestinian crap in the conversation. In Iran we supported the Shah for his oil until he got kicked out by a fundamentalist Islamic revolution. That is the situation you describe, right? Now to the question at hand... If the prime example of US supported dictator in the Middle East getting overthrown did not endanger us or our interests (oil) in the region, then why do we fear MORE Islamic revolution if we invade Iraq? As you pointed out, Iran still needs to sell their oil, and so will other fundamentalist regimes.
Hayes, you attempt to make the case that there is no downside in the chaos that could result from our planned invasion of Iraq. You cite Iran as an example of how a belligerent, even fundamentalist society, is not really a threat to the US at this time. I'm surprised by this insight on your part since you are usually so down the line with conventional GOP beliefs. Have you forgotten Dubya and his inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil"? Our foreign policy toward Iran in recent years is an excellent example of how a more peaceful approach to solving differences was used. Iran was at least as hostile to the US as Iraq has been when in 1979? Iranian militants attacked our embassy and took hostages. We never invaded Iran yet now ,as you state ,they are not a threat to us. THE SAME APPROACH THAT YOU MENTION TO OUR DIFFERENCES WITH IRAN WILL WITH TIME SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS WITH IRAQ.
glynch, Let me throw this scenario at you....... <i>Due to internal political problems, Israel has early elections and Sharon is no longer in power. The new leadership in Israel decides to settle with the Palestinians and agrees to something along the Saudi proposal (but limited right of return) with settlements removed by December 31, 2003. </i> Will the fundamentalists in countries such as: Pakistan Iran Saudi Arabia Egypt be satisified and decide that the US and Israel are not their enemies and work toward better relations with Israel and the US starting on January 1, 2004? rather than continue the current attitudes
Glynch, what I'm attempting to do is keep people from saying both 'US action will cause fundamentalist revolution (which is bad)' AND 'Fundamentalism is not a threat to us, look at Iran.' If fundamentalist regimes are NOT a threat to us, then why is it bad? Nope, haven't forgotten. I pose the question for those like yourself who are most dubious of Dubya's inclusion of Iran in the 'axis-of-evil,' and those who argue both sides of the same coin: Iran is ok. Fundamentalist revolution is bad. As seen in another thread, we supported Iraq in a proxy war against Iran, rather than intervene ourselves. So I wouldn't call the last 23 years of US foreign policy towards Iran as 'peaceful.' But to answer your question, the situation in Iraq is fundamentally (no pun intended) different as the Ayatollah of Rock-n-rolla was NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, was not committing genocide en masse, and was not in violation of UN agreements for disarmament. You're taking a big leap, but also getting off the main question. IF we should NOT fear fundamentalist regimes, why do we fear fundamentalist regimes replacing Saddam? Or Mubarak? Or the Saudi or Kuwaiti royals? In other words, is the 'fundamentalist backlash' that is so often cited as a reason NOT to invade Iraq a red herring. I think so, especially if you believe countries like Iran are NOT a threat.
Didn't the Israelis launch an airstrike in the early '80s to destoy an Iranian nuclear facility capable of producing weapons-grade material?
Mango said: Will the fundamentalists in countries such as: ... be satisified and decide that the US and Israel are not their enemies and work toward better relations with Israel and the US starting on January 1, 2004? rather than continue the current attitudes Yes, Mango it would be a trememendous first step that would instantly convince many that the US has finally decided to stop oppressing middle eastern peole who aren't Israelis. It would be the single most important step that could possibly be taken. Unfortunatley historical wrongs that have continued for awhile take time to heal, but that is not an excjuse to not take the essential first step. My question is if the Palestinians nd other Arabs took the steps you suggest, would all Israelis ,Jewish Americans, conservative Christians and other supporters of Israel right or wrong immediately take further steps to improve attitudes and relations with all of the Arab World rather continue their present attitudes?
Hayes said: IF we should NOT fear fundamentalist regimes, why do we fear fundamentalist regimes replacing Saddam? Or Mubarak? Or the Saudi or Kuwaiti royals? First, liberals feel that the attack on Iraq is wrong because it is essentially unprovoked at this time. We have no moral right to invade only selected countries developing the type of weapons we lead the world in developing and wish to reserve only for friends like the current regime in Isreael. The killing that will insue is not morally justified. It will lead only to more killing and more transfer of resources from human need to these wars. Second, most liberals do not like fundamentalism because of many reasons. If they are religious they tend to not be so fundamentalist. They view the type of religion as leading to many of the great evils in the world. Look at how religious deifferences played a part in the "Yugoslavian" mess. Liberals however, don't fear fundamentalism to the point that they feel only by killing them or bombing or destroying their economic inratstructure can we interact peacefully with them. Third, those who oppose Dubya's longed for invasion of Iraq by emphasizing the creation of more fundamenalists that will result, are your fellow conservatives like Scowcroft, Kissinger, Schwartkopf. They know that no moral arguments about killing for oil or killing huge numbers of Muslims unnecessrily will reach these folks. Scwartkopf, Kissinger etc. are trying to play to th zenophobia of the ultraconservatives around Bush-- the crowd around Bush that have this extreme hatred of Muslim fundamentalism. Many of these crowd are fundamentalists themselves are at least quite comfortable with Christian fundamentalism. or Jewish fundamentalism
Glynch, just to set the record straight, you might want to leave Kissinger out of your list of conservatives who don't support taking action in Iraq: "The imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action." --Henry Kissinger, Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2002 His only caveat is that America should be prepared for extensive nation-building after the Baathists are removed from power: "Military intervention should be attempted only if we are willing to sustain such an effort for however long it is needed." --ibid The editorial is available on the WaPo archives, feel free to read it in its entirety.
OK, Glynch. It looks like you been hittin' the bottle early again, as your post is a little undecipherable, but here goes. This moral or not argument has nothing to do with this thread. There are ample justifications, moral and otherwise, for invading Iraq. But we have examined those at length in other threads (and can certainly do so again if you wish). One particular point does intrigue me: Do you believe we should allow horizontal nuclear proliferation to ANY state that wants it? You seem to from your above quote, but you couldn't possibly be so foolish. Elaborate if you want. OK, this starts the part that is confusing (re: what you're saying). It sounds like you are saying Islamic or ANY fundamentalism is bad and causes bad things. If true, then why don't you think the Iranian regime is worth opposing. And how do you reconcile placing yourself 'morally' above all those fundamentalists? You think your culture is better than theirs? Classic liberal fundamentalism. OK, so Saddam is not a fundamentalist right? So if we bomb him, why is it bad if the reaction is a rise in fundamentalism in surrounding countries. Is it better to have the oppressive regimes currently in power there? You see, if fundamentalism (as per Iran) is not bad or inherently warlike or expansionist, then wouldn't it be BETTER to have fundamentalist regimes in the rest of the Middle East? And you seem to think 'liberals' never vote/act to bomb or hinder economies etc. Always the joker, that Glynch. Cracks me up. Uh, that is completely incorrect. Kissinger et al have warned about the dangers of a patchwork plan, but there is no more (much less actually) of that rhetoric coming from them than from R Fisk and your cronies at anti-war.com. What?
Since when did Iran get moved to the "Not a threat anymore" list? They are still an even larger long-term threat than Saddam is, unless the popular (anti-fundamentalist) movement succeeds in toppling the mullahs. Glynch said: Ahh... He finally reveals the true depths of his delusional thinking. All Israel has to do is to do everything that the Arabs want them to do, and then the Arabs will instantly decide to live in peace with them? Surrre... Sure. Forgive me if I don't buy it, but I have a feeling that the region-wide chants of Death to Israel! Death to America!" won't stop the next day. Please, don't preach to me about morality. Your version of morality will A) leave one of history's most vile and oppressive leaders fully in power, and B) effectively give him a green light to acquire nuclear weapons, with which he can terrorize billions and hold the global economy completely hostage. Doing nothing to stop that would be immoral. Our leaders have a moral duty to protect both our lives and our well-being. To abdicate that responsibility would be immoral (not to mention terribly irresponsible). BTW, exactly how will liberating the Iraqi people be immoral? Do they not deserve a chance at freedom? Please explain that to me. When the last Al Qaeda is dead, we will be able to peacefully interact with them. For example, I am fairly confident that were I to take a leak on one of their gravesites, no bloodshed would ensue. Until then, peaceful coexistence is totally impossible with such people. They are simply incapable of coexisting peacefully with any non-Islamic, non-fundamentalist parties. For starters, Kissinger has never stated his opposition to it, only urged that it be planned in a thoughtful manner and executed well, with an eye on possible negative outcomes (and he is right to caution that). He has actually said that as long as this is done, he favors removing Saddam. He is not opposed to it; that is just ridiculous NYT spin, and patently false. An article that will shed a little light on Scowcroft's motivation: http://64.46.114.80/index.jsp?section=papers&code=02-F_28 Scowcroft is also not nearly as bright as some appear to believe. Don't forget that he is responsible for halting the first Gulf War prematurely (certainly a mistake), urging Bush Sr. to side with Gorbachev in order to keep the Soviet Union together (a real whopper), and also urging inaction while the Serbs were rampaging through Bosnia (also a mistake). As far as foreign policy "experts" go, his track record for being totally butt-ass wrong is nearly perfect. Schwarzkopf simply doesn't like to admit that he is wrong, and he would have to do so in order to explain why he also urged Bush Sr. to stop the war early. Who said anything about doing that? Uhh... This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Isn't your point here that they're trying to combat such "xenophobia"?
Glynch, Of course there would be some unhappy rightwing Israelis, so <b>your</b> usage of <b>all</b> is problemsome, but Israel would have done a major part in the <i>Land for Peace</i> concept. As far as improving relation with other Arab countries, Israel seems to get along fine with Jordan and OK with Egypt. Of course, those two countries have some relations with Israel and are not actively catering to fundamentalist groups inside their countries. Why do you think that Israel wouldn't be interested in improving relations with its Arab neighbors and other Islamic countries? Saudi Arabia kept nuancing what kind of relations that Israel could expect from the Arab and Islamic countries (after a Israeli - Palestinian settlement), so it seems the attitude adjustment will be a smaller hurdle for Israel than the other side. I hope you realize that once the Palestinian issue would be off the table, many troubled countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria etc) would need to correct their internal problems. HRW, AnitWar, Fisk, the Guardian et al would display the same zest & zeal for correcting and improving those countries as they have for backing Arafat? The non Arab countries of Iran and Pakistan that have active fundamentalists groups would also need to elimnate the anti Israel sentiment that is flowing in their countries. Since Musharraf is busy just trying to stay in power (alive), it is doubtful that he has the political capital available to tackle the fundamentalist problem that is rampant in his country.
Mango said: I hope you realize that once the Palestinian issue would be off the table, many troubled countries (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria etc) would need to correct their internal problems. HRW, AnitWar, Fisk, the Guardian et al would display the same zest & zeal for correcting and improving those countries as they have for backing Arafat? Of course they would. These groups support democracy in the middle east period, whether or not the Palestinian issue is off the table. On the other hand the US and Israel at this point support demcocracy in the middle east only if the results support present occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel and cheap oil for the USA.
