Democracy in Iraq...not (?) - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-10-2005, 04:34 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It is not the job of the US to win the proverbial peace, that will require the Iraqi's and I think that they will rise to the challenge just like South Vietnam did after Vietnamisation. While the South was defeated it was not toppled by the VC insurgency rather the North Vietnamese Army using weapons given to it by the USSR and to a much lesser extent China, the sucess it had against the insurgency will likely be mirrored in Iraq.



Excellant Point!
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 11:49 AM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 05:44 AM
(I just posted this over in the Michael Moore Loses thread but looks like it belongs here instead.)

from a talk by Noam Chomsky that I attended a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the International Relations Center

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation
by Noam Chomsky

Let’s just imagine what the policies might be of an independent Iraq, independent, sovereign Iraq, let’s say more or less democratic. What are the policies likely to be?

Well there’s going to be a Shiite majority, so they’ll have some significant influence over policy. The first thing they’ll do is reestablish relations with Iran. Now they don’t particularly like Iran, but they don’t want to go to war with them so they’ll move toward what was happening already even under Saddam, that is, restoring some sort of friendly relations with Iran.

That’s the last thing the United States wants. It has worked very hard to try to isolate Iran. The next thing that might happen is that a Shiite-controlled, more or less democratic Iraq might stir up feelings in the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia, which happen to be right nearby and which happen to be where all the oil is. So you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare—a Shiite region which controls most of the world’s oil and is independent. Furthermore, it is very likely that an independent, sovereign Iraq would try to take its natural place as a leading state in the Arab world, maybe the leading state. And you know that’s something that goes back to biblical times.

What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

What I’ve just read from the business press the last couple of days probably reflects the thinking in Washington and London: “Uh well, okay, we’ll let them have a government, but we’re not going to pay any attention to what they say.” In fact the Pentagon announced at the same time two days ago: we’re keeping 120,000 troops there into at least 2007, even if they call for withdrawal tomorrow.
__________________

__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:17 PM   #18
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
I can think of a few other scenarios as well Noam. You just don't get it. Israel wants to be left the fuck alone. They aren't a danger to anyone who doesn't want to drive them into the sea. You're wrong as always. But please, keep talking. Your groupies need you. Without your ideas, they wouldn't be able to write punk rock lyrics anymore.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-11-2005, 02:59 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:44 AM
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 04:53 PM   #20
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0203-22.htm

Published on Thursday, February 3, 2005 by the International Relations Center

The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation
by Noam Chomsky

......What does that mean? Well it means rearming, first of all. They have to confront the regional enemy. Now the regional enemy, overpowering enemy, is Israel. They’re going to have to rearm to confront Israel—which means probably developing weapons of mass destruction, just as a deterrent. So here’s the picture of what they must be dreaming about in Washington—and probably 10 Downing street in London—that here you might get a substantial Shiite majority rearming, developing weapons of mass destruction, to try to get rid of the U.S. outposts that are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world. Is Washington going to sit there and allow that? That’s kind of next to inconceivable.

You can roll your eyes all you want.

This guy's saying that the overpowering enemy is Israel and that Iraq is going to have to confront them with weapons of mass destruction? What does he think Israel's going to do? The only war Israel has ever been in has been for self defense.

The US "outposts" are there to try to make sure that the U.S. controls most of the oil reserves of the world? What does he mean by control? Does he really think the US controls all the world's oil? Of course we have to prevent the middle east from falling into the hands of an aggressive fascist or theocratic knucklehead but does that mean we control it?

This guys in la la land.

Feel free to respond, or just roll your eyes
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 05:03 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by drhark
You're wrong as always. But please, keep talking. Your groupies need you. Without your ideas, they wouldn't be able to write punk rock lyrics anymore.
No really it was just this part that made me roll my eyes. You could be right, but when you spew out this shit it really doesn't help your case.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 09:05 PM   #22
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
sorry I tend to use sarcasm which dosn't always come across as intended
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-14-2005, 09:53 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:44 AM
I'll admit your comment was pretty jabby, but I couldn't help but laugh.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 12:04 AM   #24
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Seriously, I used to hear a lot about Chomsky and how brilliant he was, then I read some of his stuff and realized his logic leaves a lot to be desired. His ideas are full of holes.

So when I hear guys like Tom Morello talk politics, I just tune them right out. That Katrina van der Heuvel?? is always so pissed off and can't put forth a coherent argument. People who wear Che T-shirts are hilarious to me. It's like they're advertising their IQ on their tshirts.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 03:16 AM   #25
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 03:44 PM
i was just reading a wall street journal article, by robin wright of the washington post.

election victory by parties linked to iran (shiites and the kurds) is an ironic result for US

iraqis shrugged the secular US backed candidates and went for the shiites with their islamist tendencies. when iraq is in no way going to become a theocracy overnight, it will side with iran on many issues, and it will not be the pro-US pro-israel iraq US was hoping for.

of course a lot of people said that iraq is still going to be dependent on the US and, well, theyre under occupation so they dont have a lot of choice, but in terms of regional geopolitics it wasnt the result US was hoping for.

on another note, the shiites will probably press for islamic law to be included in the new constitution, and being such a strong majority, it seems like they will be able to do whatever they want unless US intervenes.. but then, wouldnt such an action make the whole concept of democracy a bit pointless?

so all in all, this is just great. you guys created an iran wannabe in the middle east
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 03:36 AM   #26
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 03:44 PM
i found the article:


Iraq Winners Allied With Iran Are the Opposite of U.S. Vision

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 14, 2005; Page A08

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

Adnan Pachachi's U.S.-backed party fared poorly in the election. (File Photo)

Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."

The results have long-term implications. For decades, both Republican and Democratic administrations played Baghdad and Tehran off each other to ensure neither became a regional giant threatening or dominant over U.S. allies, notably Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Gulf sheikdoms.

But now, Cole said, Iraq and Iran are likely to take similar positions on many issues, from oil prices to U.S. policy on Iran. "If the United States had decided three years ago to bomb Iran, it would have produced joy in Baghdad," he added. "Now it might produce strong protests from Baghdad."

Conversely, the Iraqi secular democrats backed most strongly by the Bush administration lost big. During his State of the Union address last year, Bush invited Adnan Pachachi, a longtime Sunni politician and then-president of the Iraqi Governing Council, to sit with first lady Laura Bush. Pachachi's party fared so poorly in the election that it won no seats in the national assembly.

And current Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, backed by the CIA during his years in exile and handpicked by U.S. and U.N. officials to lead the interim government, came in third. He addressed a joint session of Congress in September, a rare honor reserved for heads of state of the closest U.S. allies. But now, U.S. hopes that Allawi will tally enough votes to vie as a compromise candidate and continue his leadership are unrealistic, analysts say.

"The big losers in this election are the liberals," said Stanford University's Larry Diamond, who was an adviser to the U.S. occupation government. "The fact that three-quarters of the national assembly seats have gone to just two [out of 111] slates is a worrisome trend. Unless the ruling coalition reaches out to broaden itself to include all groups, the insurgency will continue -- and may gain ground."

Adel Abdul Mahdi, who is a leading contender to be prime minister, reiterated yesterday that the new government does not want to emulate Iran. "We don't want either a Shiite government or an Islamic government," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "Now we are working for a democratic government. This is our choice."

And a senior State Department official said yesterday that the 48 percent vote won by the Shiite slate deprives it of an outright majority. "If it had been higher, the slate would be seen with a lot more trepidation," he said on the condition of anonymity because of department rules.

U.S. and regional analysts agree that Iraq is not likely to become an Iranian surrogate. Iraq's Arabs and Iran's Persians have a long and rocky history. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Shiite troops did not defect to Iran.

"There's the assumption that the new government will be close to Iran or influenced by Iran. That's a strong and reasonable assumption," Khouri said. "But I don't think anyone knows -- including Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani -- where the fault line is between Shiite religious identity and Iraqi national identity."

Iranian-born Sistani is now Iraq's top cleric -- and the leader who pressed for elections when Washington favored a caucus system to pick a government. His aides have also rejected Iran's theocracy as a model, although the Shiite slate is expected to press for Islamic law to be incorporated in the new constitution.

For now, the United States appears prepared to accept the results -- in large part because it has no choice.

But the results were announced at a time when the United States faces mounting tensions with Iran over its alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, support for extremism and human rights violations. On her first trip abroad this month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's behavior was "something to be loathed" and charged that the "unelected mullahs" are not good for Iran or the region.

One of the biggest questions, analysts say, is whether Iraq's democratic election will make it easier -- or harder -- to pressure Iran.
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 04:29 AM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:44 PM
Juan Cole's analysis of the situation regarding the elections was false in advance and his view of it today overlooks the balance of power resting in the hands of moderates. Iraq is not looking to become an Iranian style theocracy, the Shiite Alliance lacks a majority and will either rely on Allawi's block or the Kurdish parties ~ either way moderates will hold the key. The Iraqi people do not want to live under a despotic system, the alliances are not single ideology monoliths, in this post-election period the centre is going to be courted for power.

I recomend that everybody does themselves a favour and reads James Robbins piece in NRO on what the results of the election mean.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0502140752.asp
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 11:49 AM   #28
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
so all in all, this is just great. you guys created an iran wannabe in the middle east
While the rest of your post may be worthy of discussion, your conclusion is wrong.
__________________
drhark is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 12:26 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Juan Cole's analysis of the situation regarding the elections was false in advance and his view of it today overlooks the balance of power resting in the hands of moderates. Iraq is not looking to become an Iranian style theocracy, the Shiite Alliance lacks a majority and will either rely on Allawi's block or the Kurdish parties ~ either way moderates will hold the key. The Iraqi people do not want to live under a despotic system, the alliances are not single ideology monoliths, in this post-election period the centre is going to be courted for power.

I recomend that everybody does themselves a favour and reads James Robbins piece in NRO on what the results of the election mean.

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbin...0502140752.asp
Each time you post from NRO it suggests that you can not find a credible source to support your beliefs.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-15-2005, 03:03 PM   #30
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 442
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Each time you post from NRO it suggests that you can not find a credible source to support your beliefs.
like CBS news or the New York Times.


But seriously, I agree that you're not going to convince a liberal with an article from the National Review, even if it is credible, as I believe it is.

And I will naturally be suspicious of anything printed in the pages of The Nation.

But I'll go out on a limb and say the Nation probably has more conspiracy theorists on their staff than NR
__________________

__________________
drhark is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com