Someone’s drinking a bit too deeply from the Propaganda Well. :rolleyes:
Amidst the sun-bleached bones, they sat and waited. She could have gone forward in search of water, but the group was unable to determine in which direction water lay. She didn’t want to go without them, so she tried to find a spot in the sand under the sparse shade created by bones lying nearby. So they sat and waited, the sun beating down on their drying skin.
Call me Ismael…
Ish, Is**h. Dammit.
::sigh::
Obviously you won’t be making any difference to those who already claim to be terrorists. But you will be giving a lot of people who might otherwise have not been terrorists some motivation to become one.
**
So when is the time to “give peace a chance”?
Let’s not paint with too broad a brush. The Middle East is not monolithic. I’m willing to bet that there is more pro-American sentiment in Iran today than say, in France. The Iranian population is young, modern, and desiring of a democratic modern state. After 9/11, while the Palestinians were cheering the attacks, Iranians were holding pro-America demonstrations.
It’s ridiculous to talk about invading every country in the Middle East and ‘converting’ anyone to anything. I favor the war in Iraq, in part because I believe that in the end it will improve relations between moderate Arabs and other Muslims and the U.S. The reason is because it IS a just war, and after the regime is gone there will be plenty of Iraqis singing the praises of the United States. And outside of Iran, the Iraq population probably has the best chance of creating a successful democratic state. The people are reasonably modern, well educated, and they have a pretty good infrastructure to start from. They have lived under a secular government, and the forces of religious nationalism are not as strong as in, say, Saudi Arabia.
So I think Iraq has a good chance of becoming the example that helps the Middle East reform from within. But if the U.S. were to go invading every other country willy-nilly, the middle east would go up in flames. You can make a case for overthrowing Saddam that moderates in the Middle East will accept. Try the same thing with the House of Saud, and you’ve got big troubles.
I believe there will be some smaller military conflicts coming in the Middle East. Hezbollah is a big problem, and their huge influence in Lebanon is very destabilizing and is one of the main things keeping Israel from making a deal for a viable Palestinian state. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the U.S. lean on Syria to look the other way while Hezbollah is taken care of in Lebanon.
But as for ‘regime change’, I think Iraq is the end (unless Syria or Iran does something stupid). But a permanent military base in Iraq gives the U.S. clout to influence events and protect Israel, which leads to a Palestinian state. And a democratic Iraq may be the catalyst required to cause the downfall of the Mullahs in Iran. And once those two countries are real democracies and the Palestinian situation is at least under the control, the Middle East will be well on its way to a fundamental reshaping WITHOUT military conflict.
Sam, we didn’t get the memo. The last party line we got was “not staying one day longer that absolutley necessary”. Of course, that is open to a lot of interpretation…
I believe that is the same memo that blubbers damply over Ariel Sharon, the “man of peace”.
Everyone knows the U.S. military will be there, at least as peacekeeping forces, for years. Decades, probably. That doesn’t mean the U.S. will run the government. It means it will act as internal police and external army for any government the Iraqis set up. After all, they just destroyed Iraq’s army - and Iraq still has dangerous neighbors. Until Iraq can be stabilized and rebuilt, there will be a peacekeeping for there, and it will be welcomed by the Iraqis.
And once the military is established as a long-term presence, it will have a new base of operations. That’s a good thing. The U.S. can pull the troops out of Saudi Arabia now, for example. Their presence is party what got Osama’s panties in a bunch, so that’s a good thing.
And now the U.S. can do things like strike targets in Lebanon without having to worry about what the ‘host country’ thinks.
Oh, I don’t doubt for a moment that you’re right, Sam. I suspect that was in the cards from the git-go. I mean, why settle for aircraft carriers when you can have a whole country. I’m just pointing out that Fearless Misleader is swearing that it ain’t so.
Yup, as **Sam ** seems to imply, it’s just the acquisition of a valuabe supplier by the market leader. The global market, Cheney style !
Speaking of ‘global markets’, I’m currently watching the 101st Airborne in Karbala taking inventory of a number of fairly advanced weapons, like second generation starlight scopes (night vision), mortars, grenades, etc.
The source of most of this gear? France.
I don’t think so.
Even in the case of those Iraqis currently showering love on coalition forces, I think they’ll be turning on us with extreme rapidity once Saddam is gone and we are viewed as “occupiers”.
Whatever outside peacekeeping force exists will be a source of resentment and a continuous target of violence for as long as it’s in Iraq.
A huge mess awaits.
Isn’t it going to be difficult to have a Democracy in a country that doesn’t want it? (The irony!) Separation of religion and state? I don’t think so.
Just chiming in to say that I’m glad to finally read a thread about the war that voices my own ambiguity. I’m probably a liberal in American political jargon, and have kept an agnostic stance. In other words, I don’t know what to think of it all.
I guess most of the posters are in favor of the regime change with the possibility of a more liberal state, but fear the backlash of possible future terrorism and are concerned about the precedent created in this war. Furthermore it’s hard to contemplate the effects of the war on the (as far as I know) mostly blameless citizens. After reading through this thread I still don’t know what to think, other than hoping it will have a positive end result.
Whether or not the U.S. will be seen as occupiers depends entirely on its conduct.
The mere presence of the U.S. military will not do that, in my opinion. In fact, the extreme brutality of Saddam’s regime means the people will be afraid of Fedayeen forces for some time to come. So the coalition forces may be seen more as protectors as occupiers.
I note that Kuwaitis are still very friendly to U.S. forces, despite their having been in Kuwait for 12 years now. Sure, there is some opposition, but overall the Kuwaitis seem relatively happy with American forces.
On the other hand, if the Coalition forces are heavy-handed, and the government becomes a government of occupation, then sure, there could be a ton of resentment. I happen to think the coalition will be smarter than that.
What makes you think Iraqis don’t want democracy? As for the church-state issue, that’s up to the Iraqis. Lots of foreign policy gurus called Saddam’s regime secular (although I’m not so sure I agree). Regardless, an anti-Establishment Clause is not a prerequisite to democracy.
Oh, we’re pretty sure what they want is a liberal/secular type of parlitamentary democracy. What they definitely don’t want is like any sort of Islamic Republic. We real sure about that. And we can prove it.
The Kuwaiti people or the Kuwaiti government? The government definitely loves us – after all, they give us oil, and we help keep the royal family in power, without giving them any beef about shortcomings in their rule (such as the lack of elections, or treating women as second-class citizens).
But the people?
Well, from Al-Jazeerah…
To be fair, there is plenty of anti-American sentiment in Kuwait. But then, there’s plenty of anti-American sentiment everywhere, including in America.