<p>Read another piece by the same guy. While I will agree that he is a valuable contributor to any discussion on the region, but his words sound like he isn’t playing for our team:</p>
<p>“the deafening saber-rattling against Iran by the United States and Israel”</p>
<p>Let’s remember that the man running Iran supports the elimination of Israel. Personally, when someone tells you that they want to destroy you, I think you have the right to take it seriously.</p>
<p>^^^
And it is our job to deliver democracy to countries no matter what these countries think of that…</p>
<p>What people want foremostly is to be able to eat and be safe.</p>
<p>What you fail to realize is that when you go to a country and invade it to give it democracy, it has the opposite effect and produces a lot of destruction and insurgency in the process. You spur nationalism that supports the strongest, and often undemocratic, leaders.</p>
<p>Wow, the silly Europe “analogy” rears its ugly head. We didn’t find Germany to give it democracy. We fought it because it was threatening the entire world. Before the rise of fascism, it had a democratic tradition and we wisely decided the best way to support democracy’s return was to invest heavily in its economy and oversee the RETURN to democracy. This process had a lot more in common with the process in Taiwan I described than the debacle in Iraq.</p>
<p>This belief that democracy is a flame that we can be the torch-bearer for throughout the world is just daffy. Look, I love democracy. I am happy to see it arise anywhere. Are you aware, though, what would happen to several Islamic countries if full-on one-person, one-vote were given tomorrow? They’d vote in religious fundamentalists who would disband democracy and impose religious law. What drugs are you smoking? This is not a process that requires a couple of years of slightly expanded aid and a bit of cajoling by a foreign power. Spideygirl, you are incredibly naive. Heck, Saddam (torturer and bad actor that he was) was much more secular than the govt. we are likely to see arise in Iraq.</p>
<p>Bedhead: “no matter what these countries think of that…”</p>
<p>Are you talking about the governements who are holding their own populations hostage? Who should we support? I am quite sure that Germany didn’t think much of our butting in during the last world war.</p>
<p>Bedhead: “What you fail to realize is that when you go to a country and invade it to give it democracy, it has the opposite effect and produces a lot of destruction and insurgency in the process”</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to be that way. And as I described earlier, think of other successes where there was also insurgency (which died out because it received no support). Our soldiers are fighting the American media and a liberal left (determined to win the White House) as much as they are fighting the insurgents.</p>
<p>Uh, we do this all the time. I really hate to break it to you. What do you think goes on in Saudi Arabia. What about China? There are countless dictators and military regimes that we deal with or sometimes implicitly or explicitly support and adopt the notion that these issues are there internal affairs. I think it’s just laughable to imagine that our hope that these countries would adopt democracy is anything new, but that now even after Bush has diminished our power considerably in the world, there are wingnuts among the Administration and its supporters who think we have the power to shove democracy down these countries’ throats. Are we seriously going to turn around tomorrow and credibly tell Putin that he’d better stop his anti-democratic tendencies and straighten up or they’ll be hell to pay? Wow, the dreamworld that gives rise to this kind of thinking absolutely astonishes me.</p>
<p>Yes, eureka, many governments hold their own populations hostage. There’s not a damned thing we can do about it in many cases except be incredibly happy we live in a nation where this doesn’t happen. And know that in many cases we have chosen to work with and sometimes support those very govts, as we did for several years with Saddam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the sense that they were our bitter enemies, no I am sure they didn’t. This could only be a revelation to you if somewhere along the line you decided that the purpose of World War II wasn’t essentially about us defending ourselves for ourselves but was about spreading democracy to fascist lands. After we won the war, we showed remarkable generosity and intelligence by letting democracy re-assert itself and by choosing not to draw and quarter Germany financially after that war the way we had done after WWI, a mistake which led directly to Hitler and WWII.</p>
<p>You wonder why I would trash your thinking with some forceful language. It’s because I, a leftist (by your terms) and a patriot, am not fighting our soldiers as you maliciously claim. You have seriously insulted me by suggesting to me that I am some kind of hater of America or anti-soldier. You started this. I won’t let it stand. I made this point yesterday or the day before. You call me anti-American. In response, I call you names that will get me kicked off this board (and therefore I wont’ write them out). I am proud to be an American. I am sad that America is fighting a war that is against its interests. Never once did I suggest you weren’t a patriot or a proud American.</p>
<p>Spidey, that’s the whole point. He’s NOT playing for our team. I posted the link because it’s a good example of how many internationals view US foreign policy.</p>
<p>Spidey, I really wish your idealistic vision of global democracy were achievable.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the US vision of democracy for other nations may–like Iraq-- come with conditions. As such, it’s not true democracy, and other nations see it clearly for what it is. Here’s a quote from the article in my previous link:</p>
<p>“But, for example, the mere thought that ‘Iraq’s freedom’ may also mean freedom from foreign hegemonic domination is simply foreign to the discourse and understanding of US officials such as Rice.”</p>
<p>BedHead also makes a great point about the type of democracy we’d get in several Islamic countries if one-person, one-vote were given tomorrow.</p>
<p>mapesy: “Spidey, I really wish your idealistic vision of global democracy were achievable.”</p>
<p>Obviously, I do as well. I would think that to some extent all political visions of the future are by their very nature idealistic. </p>
<p>mapesy: “I posted the link because it’s a good example of how many internationals view US foreign policy.”</p>
<p>Afrasiabi is a great source for that information. Well educated, and an effective communicator of another perspective. Certainly, that makes him persuasive (or at the very least, interesting to those of us who like this sort of thing).</p>
<p>“Let’s remember that the man running Iran supports the elimination of Israel.”</p>
<p>Evidence, please? Just because a lie is repeated often enough doesn’t make it true. Look quite specifically at what he has said. (I’m not fond of him, but that’s another matter.)</p>
<p>mini–I don’t know how accurate this quote is, but it’s certainly made the rounds. </p>
<p>Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting IRIB News Network reported the following statements by Ahmadinejad on their website[1] :
IRIB News Department News Headlines 2005/10/26
Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map
01:34:13 </p>
<p>Thank you for the quote. Ahmadinejad said THAT KHOMEINI said Israel must be wiped off the map.</p>
<p>Except even there the translation was incorrect. There is no such idiom in Farsi. (If you check the sources, you can find out more correctly what he said, and from the nation’s leading expert on Iran and Middle East policy, Juan Cole:)</p>
<p>I generally agree with what you say, mini, but I’m not sure about this. Here’s something from CNN, which may or may not be the most reliable source in the world. But if they aren’t, who is?</p>
<p>mini: “through systemic policy, Israel is seeking the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people”</p>
<p>Which Arab nations opened doors to the Palestinian people? Which welcomed them, and offered them a safe place to live? </p>
<p>Israel is a nation surrounded by enemies which must always struggle to survive. The Palestinian-problem-as-caused-by-Israel is a big myth used by Arab nations which have done nothing themselves to help the Palestinians. Instead, to many nations in the Middle East, the Palestinians are merely an excuse to keep persecuting Israel.</p>
<p>Hindoo: “How did I miss this free-for-all?”</p>
<p>It’s just a free-for one. A little manic rage and making things up when losing a debate honorably becomes elusive. I actually find it to be mildly entertaining, in a sad sort of way.</p>
<hr>
<p>BTW, for any anti-war folks (like who isn’t anti-war - I mean people who have protested this war specifically), I don’t think that anyone lacks patriotism if they protest (I believe people who activity participate in a democracy are the best sort of patriots). It is true, though, when our nation is in the middle of an ideological civil war, that of course bolsters insurgent resolve because they know there is a real chance that we will eventually give up. It is common sense. That means more fighting, and more deaths, but not because any war protesters had that as a goal. I’m quite confident that no American one would want that on either side of this issue. By the same token, I don’t think any pro-war folks have body counts as a goal, nor do they lack patriotism and sensitivity about what is going on in Iraq in terms of loss of life. </p>
<p>The issue is not about people’s character. It’s about believing which approach brings us to the best long term result. That is a reasonable place to debate. Stooping to personal attacks and pretending that it is some kind of response to imagined slights is not reasonable (nor is it an excuse). Attributing made-up positions and opinons to those who look at a situation differently is quite immature.</p>
<p>Which is essentially saying that those against the war are actually fighting our soldiers (***?), you have insulted people. There was no perceived slight. This is real. You are just to self-righteous to see it. For someone who writes what you wrote above, it would seemingly never have occurred to you that true patriots who are not anti-soldier (and in fact have soldier and governmental official friends who have served in Iraq) are actually against this war and in many cases always have been. And that their protests represent the heart of patriotism.</p>
<p>You learn the wrong lesson about the connection between protest and insurgency:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The burden is on our government to make sure that we go into wars that are necessary, that are pursued for honest reasons, and that have a reasonable likelihood of achieving good results namely our defense. That’s just common sense. Bush’s failure was in doing all this wrong. He thought it would be an easy win. He was incurious about the possibility of a long fight. He didn’t care about lying. People are angry – and somehow their being angry is their fault.</p>
<p>That you would blame protestors for wanting to stop this war is pretty funny. Why wouldn’t you turn your criticism and wrath on the decider who got us into the mess in the first place?</p>
<p>If you had just left it at this, I would say you would have learned something or evolved:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are the kind of person that says we should support our troops by supporting the misguided war. I notice that Bush, McCain and others use this line of “support our troops” as a cudgel against protest. However, when it comes to the soldiers returning home and needing medical care or wanting to go to school, Bush and McCain are nowhere to be seen in supporting our troops. It’s a pretty empty statement.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification about your remarks. I was going to stay out of this, but I feel I have to stick up for BedHead. You said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These are the statements that offended BedHead, who is a self-described liberal. Your statements imply that liberalsa group that includes BedHeadare somehow responsible for contributing to US military and Iraqi civilian deaths. </p>
<p>Id like to point out that some of the most vociferous anti-war protesters are republicans, independents, and even former members of the armed forces. Im very close to two retired career servicemen who loudly condemn the war to anyone who will listen. Are they unpatriotic and somehow contributing to the deaths of US military personnel and civilians in Iraq? I think not. In fact, I believe its blatant demagoguery of the worst kind to suggest such a thing.</p>
<p>Youve said you love democracy, Spidey. But is it true democracy when our elected representatives, who are supposedly representing the views of their constituents, lie and/or deceive their constituents about a misguided war thats cost us dearly in terms of blood and treasure? Since this is a democracy, and we are represented by elected officials who ostensibly reflect our views, then I believe its wrong NOT to protest when they deceive the very people who elected them. Their policies are NOT reflecting the will of the people.</p>
<p>I appreciate these debates as much as anyone, but it dismays me when posters attach negative labels to groups of people. Were all just Americans who care very much about our country.</p>