<p>This election raises the question of who wants to be the last American to die for democracy in Shiite dominated Iraq?</p>
<p>Just the “volunteers” who aren’t young adults hanging out on cc or folks who have parents that do?</p>
<p>I have actually seen students on cc claim that, though they support the Iraq War, they are too valuable i.e., “smart” to be wasted in this particular “war of civilization” as Huntington might put it.</p>
<p>TexDad, anent of which, watch the slo-mo film play out as we start scrambing to form alliances with the Sunni minority as a counter-balance to the Iranian-sympathizing Shiite majority as result of the Iraqi secularists getting completely waxed, which any half-blind observer of the Middle East could have told you would happen despite all the glowing Pentagon-backed reports about the secular Iraqi middle class. </p>
<p>Of course, the Sunnis are also the major players in the insurgency, against both us and the Shiite majority. Watch how we get whip-sawed in the middle by both sides. And no more artificial milestones like elections that the administration can point to for the “next corner” to be turned.</p>
<p>Though I’ll make a bet with you now: this being an election year, we suddenly start having more prominent “security alerts” in an attempt to stampede the voters. “Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!” Of course, those of us who had properly educated childhoods know how that one plays out.</p>
<p>TheDad, we see this wih the whole crazy Iranian bit. The Iranis are just dying to have a couple of bombs so they can kill some civilized Israelis, or Americans. No matter that they would all die in a hail of 100’s of nuclear weapons. They are just that crazy.</p>
<p>I’m afraid the lemmings will all march in lock step. Hiliary and Kerry will be talking tough about no military options are off the table. Karl Rove will have more elections in 2006 and 2008 in “a positive issue environment” as he called it of fear mongering, the permanent war on terror and also the crazy brown hordes, who might also be terrorists or at best are crossing our southern border to dilute our precious bodily fluids as Dr. Strangelove might put it.</p>
<p>The ABC Nightly News has for several weeks been leading off each night with several terror relatd stories, barely leaving time for the obligatory story on dealing with the health problems of the aging viewership. Expect Bush’s polls to go up with the fear mongering.</p>
<p>“TheDad, we see this wih the whole crazy Iranian bit. The Iranis are just dying to have a couple of bombs so they can kill some civilized Israelis, or Americans. No matter that they would all die in a hail of 100’s of nuclear weapons. They are just that crazy.”</p>
<p>The Iranians are far from crazy. They overthrew the 5th most powerful military power in world history, backed by the most powerful military power in the world, without firing a single shot, and in doing, transformed the entire political dynamic of the Middle East for the next three generations. They organized a new constitution, a multi-party political system with wide variances among them (much wider than in the United States), and have had five peaceful transitions of power among them. They were attacked by a vicious dictator with the consent and support of the largest military power in the world, losing 300,000 soldiers in the process, weathered the invasion of their neighbor by the Russians, and now find themselves now surrounded on both sides by some 200,000 American troops, and life goes on. </p>
<p>America should only do so well under such conditions.</p>
<p>Mini: What world do you live in? Do you read anything that’s not written by Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore? For those of you on this thread who’d like a slightly more accurate view of what’s going on in Iran I suggest reading “Reading Lolita in Tehran” or this recent article in The New Yorker (not a bastion of conservatism) about the collapse of the reform movement. I have several Iranian B’ahai friends here in New Jersey whose relatives back in Iran have been jailed, tortured and/or killed by the Mullahs in power solely because of their faith - Here’s the article n the New Yorker: <a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051121fa_fact4[/url]”>http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/051121fa_fact4</a></p>
<p>Can I assume, Mini, given your great admiration for Iran’s wonderful political system and government that you agree with the recent statements of its President - that Israel should be obliterated and that the Holocaust never happened?</p>
<p>Mini - I’d like you to know that it’s rantings like yours that further motivate me to work for Republican candidates and to open my pursestrings for their campaigns. So, please keep it up - you and the other anti-Semitic wacko on this thread.</p>
<p>You can assume NOTHING, thank you.</p>
<p>I LIVED in Iran, and worked for the U.S. government - YOUR government - in Iran. I have friends both in and outside of Iran. I lived with a Bahai family in Iran, that was totally wiped out by the Shah in 1977, though one escaped to Canada. I had Jewish friends in Iran when I lived there, and still do. </p>
<p>I would not like to live in Iran. Most of the Iranians I know would not like to live here. I have no particular admiration for Iran’s goofy President, though I think his similarities with our President are much greater than the differences among them. </p>
<p>The last political reform movement in Iran collapsed. But you’re missing the bigger picture. There WAS ONE. A democratic election in Iran allowed for the election – a fair election, too – of a reformist government, and a government that was not overthrown by the rightwing religious elements. (Imagine - just if you can - the election of Bernie Sanders as President of the United States.)</p>
<p>Now, of course, the political landscape, throughout the entire Middle East, is changing. The people of Iran are afraid of the American troops on their doorsteps, and, expectedly, elected a hawk. The democratic process in Palestine, uncontested for its fairness, elected Hamas. The outlawed conservative religious party in Egypt elected 36 members of Parliament. U.S. lackeys Allawi and Chalabi - with millions of U.S. dollars in their pockets - couldn’t get out of the single digits, and the party of Ayatollah Sistani won an overwhelming victory. We prop up the Afghan government (if it could be called that) by allowing the warlords to ship heroin to American cities (and I, personally, in my professional work, end up dealing with the consequences). The Saudis and Kuwaitis want no part of our “democratic reforms”.</p>
<p>We’ve brought democracy to the Middle East. Now we are dealing with the consequences.</p>
<p>Mini: You’re rewriting history and fooling yourself. A reformist government was elected in Iran but ALL of the levers of real power, i.e. the courts, the police, the army, etc. stayed in the hands of Khameini and the Mullahs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. But, I understand what Mini is saying. People have a way of accomodating dictatorships. And, sometimes it is not so easy to determine the degree of “real power”. For example: On paper, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe held all the “real power”, but one day, they simply ceased to exist. In many ways, that’s what happened to the Shah of Iran. It’s even debateable how much “real power” the government of China has right now. Sure, they control the instruments of power, but could they stop the tsunami of capitalism sweeping the country? Or are they just along for the ride, hanging on for dear life?</p>
<p>I give Mini credit. He’s lived there. He knows that Iran is a complex place, full of people with dreams, ambitions, and fears like anywhere else. I don’t think that it lends itself to simplistic constructs.</p>
<p>Throughout the years from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, the “real levers” of power - the army, the courts, etc., may have remained in the same hands. Prior to that, J. Edgar Hoover stayed forever. But from Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, there were changes in foreign policy, changes in health care policy, changes in tax policy, changes in education policy, changes in trade policy. Not as big as those that occurred in Iran over the same 26-year period. But I doubt anyone would argue that that they remained the same, even if the “real power” and the expression of American foreign power and military might were essentially a continuum from Republocrat to Republocrat.</p>
<p>People do have a way of accommodating oligarchies. We fool ourselves into thinking that the Clinton policy of killing children and the Bush policies of invasion have different roots, or are a response to different imperatives. But one thing is for sure: neither of them ever seriously contemplated the idea that the Middle East, with its enormous supply of dinosaur bones, is really none of our business. Now you can argue that of course it is - it is simply a matter of our corporate socialist religion - much as a discussion of whether Islamic law should reign in a country which is 99% Muslim, and where a Muslim-led movement overthrew the 5th largest military power in the world without firing a shot, would be off-limits. </p>
<p>Think carefully about what you say: where are the “real levers of power” in American society, and how do they express themselves?</p>
<p>The “idea” of Iran is actually a pretty scary one to me, but it cries out for understanding. Here is state which is the expression of a 19th century nationalism, with a healthy dose of appeal to a noble and ancient history, which gains its latest expression through a long-repressed religious instinct, itself rooted in history, that paves the way for a mass populist political movement against massive repression. It is a Shiite nation. As you read the above, I hope you can see the parallels with the foundations of the modern Jewish state. There will never be an Arab ruler of a Jewish state, just as there will be no Christian rulers of a Shiite one. Both are expressions of a religious nationalism that have proven successful (to date) against their enemies. One grew out of nationalist traditions in west, the other out of (different) anti-imperialist movements in the east, and we fool ourselves in either case if we imagine that democratic institutions will ever trump, or be allowed to trump, religious nationalist ones. </p>
<p>The scary part to contemplate is that the lack of understanding is the very force undergirding recent democratic expression. It is no wonder that the U.S. backed secular Saddam against religious-nationalist Iran. It is also no wonder that Islamists have now turned the hatred of U.S. (we can discuss for a long time whether it is justified or not) as the fuel for the democratic expression of their aspirations. In Algeria, in Egypt, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Iran. Who’s next? Jordan? Syria? Saudi Arabia?</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>But, mixed in there is also the fact that the US makes a convenient “bogeyman” to rally support for politicians to deflect attention from the fact that they aren’t doing such a hot job of delivering the goods (or the electricity or the jobs or whatever).</p>
<p>Much in the same way that Kruschev banging his shoe and promising defeat of the running dog capitalists deflected attention from a crippled, corrupt Soviet economy. I don’t think the west has a monopoly on populist demagogs.</p>
<p>A growing economy that translates to a better life for the man on the street and is family reduces a lot of anger. The US has done a miserable job of focusing on that with our foreign policy. Our biggest botch in Iraq was not having any viable plan to get things up and running quickly. We probably should have jumped into bed with Sisatani from the get go and been ready to hit the ground running with a reconstruction effort.</p>
<p>“Throughout the years from Reagan to Bush to Clinton to Bush, the “real levers” of power - the army, the courts, etc., may have remained in the same hands. Prior to that, J. Edgar Hoover stayed forever.”</p>
<p>Mini- Which Chomsky book did this line come from? Have you ever had a real job or have you always worked for the government? </p>
<p>Please explain to me why millions of people every year vote with their feet and at threat of their lives try to get into the United States? Not just Mexicans but Bolivians, Venezuelans, Cubans, all types of Africans - and all from socialist paradises. </p>
<p>As far as I can tell, you are just a more sophisticated version of our friend above - goku_stage4 - and our other friend on this friend who seems to have disappeared - Thousandhands . . - who wanted to obliterate Israel and the United States.</p>
<p>You cannot remove forces of repression without unleashing other forces some of which will not be very attractive. Those forces (like Hamas) will vie for power and may achieve it at least for a while. In a democracy they become responsible for the outcome of their policies to the people who elect them. When that outcome is bad they get booted from office and replaced. </p>
<p>The status quo ante in the middle east was unacceptable because it was resulting in thousands of civilian deaths in the United States. The previous policy of support oligarchs or non-democratic parties that may have been generally friendly to the United States was not working. We made a decision to alter policy and alter the status quo and make a leap of faith. Ah there is that word the Left despises. In this case our faith is placed in the democratic process.</p>
<p>Those most vociferously opposed to the American policy in the middle east are truthfully opposed to any American policy and indeed to the idea of America itself. They view it as too rich, too big, too powerful, too capitalist, and too apt to stay that way. Their fears are all well founded - thank God in whom we trust :-)</p>
<p>Well said, CtotheC.</p>
<p>For the Chomskys of the world all problems are traceable to one of two causes. Either the US supported the failed regime in which case it is the architect or at least enabler of all of the regime’s failed policies domestic and foreign (the Saddam regime ) or the US opposed or at least did not actively support the failed regime (Cuba, Syria, Iran, Veneauela, Brazil etc etc). Either way the fault is ours, either a crime of commission or omission.</p>
<p>Note that these are the people who think George W Bush is a simpleton. But alas as the poet said “The fault is in ourselves, not the stars, if we are underlings.” The forces of oil and pharmacology in an unholy alliance with fundamentalists aren’t confining these sophisticates to their Cambridge salons, but rather the common sense of the American People.</p>
<p>
Actually, all of the possible Presidential candidates were screened by Iran’s religious leaders.</p>
<p>The real question is how stupid are the Iranian people. America went into Iraq because of we believed Iraq had WMD. Common sense would suggest, if you don’t want American to invade, don’t get WMD. Instead, Iran is hell-bent on getting WMD which merely assures American will take them out.</p>
<p>A large majority of Iranians are below the age of 20. A large majority of Iranians would through the Mullahs out tomorrow if they had the opportunity. They are all proud of being Iranians. Nothing wrong with that. The U.S. has to be very careful in dealing with the Mullahs and President A. in Iran. If we take out their nuclear capability we also have to take out their ruling elite.</p>
<p>The genie of nuclear proliferation is not going to go back into the bottle. Had there been any real support from the worthless, decadent, and corrupt Europeans the day of reckoning could have been put off for anoth generation. It is now time to prepare strategies for a world where many countries have nuclear weapons and some will inevitably use them.</p>
<p>Fortunately as the islamofacists have shown us nation states can be dealt with at the sub-state level. Asymetric warfare means that a technologically advanced people does not need to rely on presidents, secretaries of state, or the pentagon to dissuade potential aggressors. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the world as we know it.</p>
<p>When the nation state can no longer keep you secure people will turn to groups that can. When there is a need and demand there is always someone who will try to fill it.</p>
<p>I find it extremely disrepectful to associate Islam with Fascism. No wonder why they want to kill Americans. I dont blame them.</p>
<p>Islamofacism is simply a historical fact. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem raised a division of Muslim SS tropp for Hitler and Mufti’s spiritual and political descendents are still at it. I am not particularly proud that some Christians have used the Christian faith to justify all sorts of abuses but I am not about to deny that it has happened.</p>