How can Obama be just as wrong as Bush?

Last week, Barack Obama delivered a major speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Despite its virtues, it is overall an erroneous reading of the world's geo-political landscape; that his understanding of terrorism is deeply flawed and that his specifics on action in Pakistan should bring a smile to any fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The speech contains Obama's boilerplate mixture of poetic flourishes, declarative statements, and heavy-handed hypotheticals [binary positions only, please]. Here are his basic critiques of US foreign policy: Iraq was the wrong war; we did not finish the job in Afghanistan; we lacked international cooperation and diplomacy; we lost the battle for the hearts and minds. In response to these failures he provides a five-pronged policy for his presidency:

When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

I will largely restrict my comments to the first element - leaving Iraq for Pakistan. A couple of casual observation, first: This ‘getting out of Iraq' business is just not gonna happen as envisioned by many Democrats. Colin Powell told many deliberate lies to this world but he said one thing right: you break it, you own it. However, once Obama suggests that we get our troops out of Iraq only to send them to Pakistan, it makes an ill-advised proposition calamitous. Normally, I would also have cheered the idealism in his speech. For example, he was surely picking up on something I wrote here many moons ago when he stated that:

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with — and listen to — the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

But when read in the context of his whole speech, the idealism remains a plain contradiction. Which world will be receptive to America's Voice Corps after we would have invaded three countries in half a decade?

I have been a fan of Barack Obama's candidacy for a long while - I am his constituent - but I would have expected this speech to come from Charles Krauthammer. For seven years, millions have been hoping that a change in the White House will be a change in our policies at home and abroad. The hope being that a democratic administration will not start pre-emptive wars nor freeze the world out from our deliberations. Yet, here we stand. Clinton wants to invade Iran and Obama wants to invade Pakistan. It appears that there is unanimity in our political spectrum as far as global terrorism, and our reaction to it, is concerned. We clearly know and understand who our enemy is, what he wants and how will we combat him - no inquiry, no analysis, no knowledge of the local is needed nor required.

Point, if you can, to the difference between this spurious understanding of terrorism from Obama to anything you can find amid the neo-con library. Compare, as well, the blanket and generalized statements, the assertions of fallacies, and the monolithic construction of “their" narratives:

Al Qaeda's new recruits come from Africa and Asia, the Middle East and Europe. Many come from disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world. And it makes you stop and wonder: when those faces look up at an American helicopter, do they feel hope, or do they feel hate?

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim — nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.

And we know what the extremists say about us. America is just an occupying Army in Muslim lands, the shadow of a shrouded figure standing on a box at Abu Ghraib, the power behind the throne of a repressive leader. They say we are at war with Islam. That is the whispered line of the extremist who has nothing to offer in this battle of ideas but blame — blame America, blame progress, blame Jews. And often he offers something along with the hate. A sense of empowerment. Maybe an education at a madrasa, some charity for your family, some basic services in the neighborhood. And then: a mission and a gun.

We know we are not who they say we are. America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.

This theory of global Islamic terrorism - poverty, chaos and conflict, disjunctive communities, the charismatic whisperer - is the one that Bernard Lewis has told and retold millions of times - despite all scholarship and evidence to the contrary. Lewis' model - derived from the Hashashin of Syria aka the Old Man of the Mountain - has this narrative: Islamdom and Christendom are embroiled in a Crusade. The charismatic Old Man of the Mountain takes poor and abandoned young Muslims, spirits them away to the mountain hiding ground where he has built a paradise of beautiful girls and virginal waters. He feeds them, sends aid to their family, shows them tantalizing glimpses of “Paradise" and brain washes them - with the help of hashish. Eventually, they are given a suicide mission to go kill and gain access to that Paradise they briefly encountered - with virgins etc. Lewis had peddled this particular reading of Islamic terrorism as early as 1991 but it was only after September 2001 that this emerged as the definitive understanding of the “Why do they hate us?" mind-bender. Despite being completely ahistorical, it cleverly explained the appeal and command of someone like Usama b. Laden, confirmed the basic truth of the civilizational clash, and also negated any culpability in the American history.

Needless to say, there is no place for facts in this narrative and the underlining assumptions remain unshakeable. For example, our enemy cannot be rational nor modern - Muhammad Atta or Shahzad Tanveer or Kafeel Ahmed notwithstanding. Why not? Because Modernity and Enlightenment, are forces which, by definition, should have no space for such actions. Consider further, that in Obama's retelling Abu Ghraib is not an actual war crime but something extremists “say" - tripping on Hashish, no doubt. Similarly our occupation of Iraq is not an imperial reality but a mirage of elaborate lies. In effect the “whispers" of the extremists, devoid of any truth, remain the hypnosis of the Old Man of the Mountain. All we have to do is to proclaim them as such - call them out as Lies - and the spell will be broken. The unmistakable conclusion of that narrative, of course escapes Obama and others who still cling to such theories. We will have to end the incubators in London, in Amsterdam, in Madrid, and in Bali - surely by invading these countries which provide a safe haven to these terrorists.

This national discourse comes from a deep Orientalism that has been a staple of our political lives prior to and since that “bright and beautiful Tuesday morning”. It is what enables us to question the sanity and the patriotism of anyone who dares raise the long history of American involvement across the globe as a contributing factor. It enables us to collapse real geographies from Leeds and Glasgow to Karachi and Islamabad into “wind-swept deserts and cave-dotted mountains”.

Pakistan, of course, is the main thrust of Obama's speech. Here is his declaration: Al Qaeda has a sanctuary in Pakistan.. Note that the word “sanctuary" necessarily implies state protection and safety and that “Pakistan" indeed refers to the entire country. To reinforce his point, he states again, “[Al Qaeda is] training new recruits in Pakistan”. These could easily be the exact words used by Bush to describe Afghanistan right before the US invasion in 2001. And invasion is the only conclusion one can reach when Obama states that he wants to “deploy troops to the “right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. The only way I know of deploying troops to a sovereign nation is by invading said nation.

Obama demands his pre-emptive strike both as justification for WTC attacks and also because Pakistan has not proven a good enough ally:

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

Of course, President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

One should remind Barack Obama, and the US Congress which just passed such a conditional bill, that Pakistan is, in clear and evident fact, fighting a war in Waziristan - with scores of military casualties seemingly every day. One can also remind him that since the Lal Masjid stand off - July 3rd - there have been a dozen suicide bombings across Pakistan killing over 200 civilians - almost keeping pace with Baghdad. One can further remind him that Pakistan has indeed allowed US military strikes on its sovereign territory, even with questionable intelligence. On November 10, 2006, US missiles hit a madrasa in Bajaur aimed at killing the elusive No. 2 of Al Qaeda but managed mainly to kill children. They must all be casualties of Pakistan's soft focus in the war on terrorism.

To be crystal clear, Obama suggests that a country that is a sovereign nation and ally, that has full nuclear capability, has the ability to carry out nuclear attacks, has the ability to give nuclear technologies to the card-carrying-member-of-the-Axis-of-Evil-next-door Iran, has a unpopular dictator supported and maintained by the United States, has deployed 100,000 troops across its North Western borders, has suffered thousands of casualties - army and civilians - carrying out the Global War on Terror, has seen its cities and deserts flood with the detritus from the forgotten war going on in Afghanistan, but has nonetheless maintained complete compliance by killing and capturing many key members of the Al Qaeda … should be invaded.

Strategically, conceptually, operationally and politically, this is as bad a policy statement as was introduced in March 2003. It ought to be self-evident, according to Obama even, that if invading a country of 30 million, who were under severe sanctions for over a decade, at false pretense was a “wrong war”, then invading a country of 165 million, with nuclear power, could prove a slightly more egregious blunder.

I could plumb further depths of this inanity by showing how flawed Obama is on his reading of Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran and how his diplomatically mature outlook fails to even mention India or China - two major powers of the region - but I will stop here.

Instead, let's go back and ask this simple question: How can Obama be just as wrong as Bush? Or more specifically, why is it that the world from Obama's or Bush's eyes appears no different?

There is no doubt that there are very real enemies intent on carrying out their own civilizational mission. But instead of focusing on the historical, cultural, religious, or political specificities of these enemies, our public discourse remains intent on reproducing imagined entities - and the aforementioned deep Orientalism surely plays a significant role in this. This discourse makes potent, global actors out of local thugs. More importantly, it obfuscates any distinction between the local thug and someone like Usama b. Laden. It keeps alive our prejudices and assumptions about Islam. The fact that Bush did not know of the presence of Shi'a and Sunni sects in Islam (in Iraq or in general) is not simply comment on him being dull. He is a sharp man. He has many, many advisors who know and can comprehend ‘difference'. That fact is actually a revelation of our systematic conceptualization of that uniform Other - the Muslim Terrorist. The thought that there may be differences and details and histories simply shouldn't have occurred to him. It is no surprise that the clash of civilization operates not on differences but on sameness - whether in Us or in Them. When Bush stated, “You are with us or you are against us”, he was not being brash and belligerent, he was being honest.

Similarly the hegemonized ‘imperialism' of America in the Islamist discourse cannot differentiate between actors near or far, nor can it understand any history, or geo-political narrative. In their discourses centuries of corruption and weakness in Islam will be swept away only by the cleansing power of their militant actions. The Muslim victims, Shi'a or Sunni or anything, are no different from the infidels because they really are no different in their eyes. The West is just as monolithic and undifferentiated. Usama b. Laden will surely flunk a basic history or cultural test of United States. He cannot tell you the difference between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic or between the imperialisms of the Ottoman empire, the British empire or the conceived American empire. Such distinctions are immaterial to his Occidentalism.

All this is no great insight. We cannot explain how we are able to systematically generate a comprehension of the world we inhabit without examining the ways in which we construct our knowledges. Why are we, four years after our indefensible invasion of Iraq and nearly six years after the attack on us, still unable to comprehend our enemies as capable, rational, modern agents? Every new instance of a new cell in our modern cosmopolitans, of a doctor or an engineer blowing himself is met either with universal bewilderment or universal condemnation of the very soul of Islam. Our terrorists, even when they are born in Bradford or housed in Hamburg remain in the wild frontier of our imagination. When terrorism happens in the domestic context, at Virginia Tech for example, we seek pathologies and sickness and material differences. When the same act is repeated in a crowded Baghdad market or a fruit stand in Islamabad, we summarily assign blame to an ever-lengthening chain of transmission that inevitably goes back to the whisperer in caves afar. Islam, we conclude, is still medieval, it needs rationality, science, a reformation.

When Obama refuses to even know the facts of Pakistan or Iran or Saudi Arabia, he is not being careless, he is just re-affirming the dominant discourse of American imperialism. Our actions, pre-emptive or post-partum leave us with nothing more than empty platitudes of God-given Freedom or New Hope. We are reluctant to Know. We do not want to investigate, to learn, or to understand. We insist on our global, flat, and binary world no matter how many facts pile up proving us wrong.

Unless we decide to get local, to pay attention to local narratives, facts, histories, realities, languages, religions, ethnicities, cultures, etc. we will remain in this deeply flawed discourse. So the answer to my question, how can Obama be just as wrong as Bush, is simple enough: There is only one answer available at the moment.

BushTerror...
I rest my case. You can continue to make a fool of yourself on your own.

You never had a case, just feeble minded excuses rationalizing your crimes, Bob. Let me try to do that…uhhhh, the enemy is….people like YOU. Who wave a flag and have not clue one what your country has done to OTHER PEOPLE in your name. Now, when the chickens come home to roost - you don’t want to understand why. You want to suck your thumb with one hand and throw a bomb with the other.
Spare us your childish antics.

WOW.

Therapist...needed....fast!!!!

I would like the two of you to read your posts again. Do these sound like sane rational discussions to you?

This type of self manifested anger is the reason for today's violence. The exact rationalizations you each use to present your point is the same ones the leaders you speak of used to justify thier actions.

You can't blame the entire United States and the American public for past mistakes of a few leaders. You can't generally call an entire poulation murderers. Thank God the world is not saying all Muslims are murderers like you are saying all Americans are.

How can anyone who claims to be civilized and intelligent say that someone doing what they are told by their leaders deserve to die in Iraq? Or state that all of those in iraq are rapists and murderers?

Please each of you read all your posts, and try to think, what you would be thinking reading them if you had not wrote them.

Now let's not just go on a tyraid and start attacking me too. Look at my post it was how we can stop the violence. Not who to blame.

Yours? It's what we see on the news after someone has lost it and killed a bunch of people. He posted this, on this date, he was clearly distrout.

As I said in my post the distortion of a very proud religion that speaks more of orphans and the poor than of murdering those who disagree with you has been used to justify terrorism since the 1700s. The Barbary States were kidnapping anyone who was not a Muslim, enslaving them, and holding them for ransom. i doubt American policy had anything to do with that or the continued distortion of Islam to justify terrorism. If you want to look at history, look at history, all the way back.

I would have liked a rational discussion about how the US can avoid situations like Iraq and future problems with Iran. To do this requires some realistic discussion of the motives/fears of the US and the other side, and how to address them so that neither invasions nor terrorist bombings are the solution. I specifically and respectfully offered several times to hear what others think the actual motivations and fears.

In the posts above, I asked the opinion of others about alternatives to the actions which were taken. No one--neither individuals nor countries--does things without motives. If fear of attack is the motive, it only makes sense to discuss how to alleviate it or point out its fallacy convincingly. Simply demonizing and assailing either side repetitively with the negatives of its actions won't change anything, regardless of whether the negatives are facts, half-truths, or lies.

The past is the past, and only useful for learning, but what about the future? How about Iran? If we actually hope to achieve anything with all these discussions (and I'm not optimistic), it would make sense to nail down coherently the list of fears and motives of both Iran and the US that are driving them both toward another serious conflict. Being unpopular is the least of either country's priorities, so all anger and name calling doesn't help address how to avoid the coming conflicts. The only solution is compromise. In my opinion, common sense dictates that a compromise that doesn't include elimination of the fear of nuclear terrorism probably won't work, either for the people of the US, the West in general, or for its leaders. If someone disagrees, fine, explain why.

Even so, if someone wants to propose some different, supportable motivations than the ones which seem obvious, it would be refreshing to at least begin discussing those. If there's no common agreement about these, moving on to how to address and neutralize the conflicting motives is impossible. Wasting time demonizing anyone is even more pointless.

So I respectfully disagree that the main intent of my posts wasn't rational. I can only presume that the basic point, which I've restated here, was missed, or that certain parties are not interested in anything but venting. If someone disagrees that a discussion of the motives is worthwhile, say so, and why. If someone sees alternatives which could resolve the problems on both sides and avoid conflict, describe them. That's not irrational.


PS-Voice, if you see something irrational in my posts, please point it out to me. Likewise, if you see something you think was written in anger, tell me, but if it comes across as anything other than me calling a spade a spade, it was not intended as such. Yes, my last two posts were not to the point, but were intended to use humor to express my exasperation and exit the discussion after I realized there would be no rational discussion of motives/alternatives. Maybe you were just trying to avoid taking sides because you don't agree with either of us, but I'm afraid I can't see where I was venting anger at anyone or being irrational. It genuinely distresses me to be lumped with BushTerror...etc. regarding those two traits. :)

You started out as sounding somewhat logical but ended up making excuses, voices. The discussion is about American politicians and their bellicose attitudes towards foreign nation in 2007, not your simplistic distraction about Barbary states. I'm not a politician, so I don't need to use false terminology and hide behind honeyed words to conceal facts and figures which are beyond dispute. Bob is a perfect example of an American who pretends to be a moderate and rational individual yet his words reveal him to be just another exponent for American aggression. He can't debate, telling opponents to "blow themselves up" like a stupid child unable to have his own way.
I doubt you would appreciate hundreds of thousands of invaders on your soil, jailing, torturing, raping killing your people. Thats exactly what the Americans are doing in Iraq, and other countries they invaded, almost always based on a false premise. The Iraqis have every right to resist and kill them for the misery they've brought to their country. The Iranians will do the same as you beat your war drums. Its time Americans grew up and faced the force of reason.
Americans may have a vague feeling of disatisfaction, and sense that they are being had, but it does not follow that more than a miniscule number have any idea of what is really going on. Ignorance, lack of any ability to reason, a wretched educational system, the use of television as their only source of "information", all make it quite certain that the vast majority will embrace the truth in the same useless, unthinking way that they have embraced the lies.
Enough is enough.

Let's talk logical then, shall we? Let's look at two of your statements:

I doubt you would appreciate hundreds of thousands of invaders on your soil, jailing, torturing, raping killing your people"

and

"The Iraqis have every right to resist and kill them for the misery they've brought to their country"

You speak of education and not listening to the so called news on television these days, yet you make statements like this.

Are they resisting the Americans by bombing Mosques?
Are they resisting the Americans by torturing and killing Iraqi Muslims all day every day?
Are they fighting the Americans by bombing schools?
Sunni and Shia violence against each other has been going on for hundreds of years? That was fighting America too, right?

Yes, they have the right to resist the occupation. But the daily attacks on the Iraqi people? Car bombs in market places? The Iraqi people are being driven into the arms of the Americans because there are more attacks on Iraqi civilians than there is on American forces.

I asked that you read your posts again. You clearly did not. You have a very one sided opinion that seems to be based on the fact that America is to blame for everything that is wrong in the world. No one else is killing innocent people. No one is kidnapping and beheading innocent civilians. Oh except America, they seem to be killing everyone in Iraq. The car bombs in the market place where innocent civilians are trying to get some food is a justifiable resistance to America? Kidnapping and killing the Koreans because of what America did...to you this is okay...completely justifiable.

You speak of history, but only want to go back so far. The fact that Islam was being manipulated to justify terrorism in the 1700s has nothing to do with current terrorism. In your opinion, current terrorism is solely because of America. The fact that Islamic terrorism existed before America ever did is beside the point. America started terrorism because of their policies. In your opinion.

Unless Muslims stand up and demand that terorism in the name if Islam is a violation of its principles and a danger to all Muslims it will not stop. Ranting over and over that Americas evils created this problem is not going to make it go away. Burning America to the ground will not stop terrorism. Muslim against Muslim violence is completely forgotten as it is easier to blame it all on America.

Please read your posts again. Look up the Barbary States War. Stand up against the real threat to Islam...Terrorism. Read the Quran. Feed the poor and adopt the orphans. God will chastise the non-believers...it is not yours to do so.

Stop allowing the murder of innocents to be justified by manipulating a religion and blaming it on someone else. In the end the one who pushed the button will pay, not the one who sent him, not the Americans, it will be God asking him why he killed his creations.

I know what I've posted, and I stand behind every word, Voices. Your entire argument is based on a false and absurd premise. Why were all these atrocities not happening BEFORE the Americans invaded Iraq? Why should anyone believe anything you Americans have to say? You are liars and given your history of attacking non-aggressive nations its far more likely that your soldiers planted bombs in market places, and mosques to terrorize the population for supporting the resistance. Your CIA is notorious for this sort of "black ops." You are trying to divert attention from your crimes by falsely depicting the situation as Iraqis killing each other while you brave American liberators are stuck in the middle.
Iraq is the seat of the oldest civilization on earth. They invented government. They will do just fine when the occupiers pack up their bags and leave(or shipped out in boxes). The occupation is simply amplifying the natural differences that you will find in any country, and there has never been a history of civil war in Iraq. Removing the troops from Iraq will seal the disastrous failure of the neo-cons. So, staying in Iraq, and pretending to prevent a civil war will give them a little (fat) chance at redeeming themselves. They created the problem, and now are offering to "solve it." Same crap that went into the invasion. They build up Saddam into a monster threatening to take over the world, and then in search of phony glory, went in and destroyed the iraqi society, expecting to earn the honor of saving the world. This is like those firemen who committed arson in hopes of being called to put out the fires, and become heroes. Heroism, first and foremost requires honesty. Something most American are in short supply of...
You are in no position to demand that the victims of your terrorism denounce their own. Islam has never had a history of terrorism, atleast nothing close to what you've done, and I say that as a student of history and I say that as an agnostic. Americans get to hate all muslims for 3000 deaths NOT sanctioned by the overwhelming muslim majority, but they're not supposed to care about the murder of a million iraqis over oil over 4 years, and 1000 Lebanese in 30 days for zionist terrorism, with the approval of a majority of Americans.
No wonder so many countries are trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons.

You do read your posts?

There was no murder and torture in Iraq before the invasion? There were no turture and rape rooms? Saddam didn't drain a marshland to to make it unlivable for his opposition? Saddam didn't use Mustard gas on the Kurds? He didn't torture anyone?

So Sunni and Shia conflict never existed? Sunni Muslims will not kill you simply beacuse you are Shia? This in your country, I guess, is considered natural differances. Sunni and Shia attacks on each other are thousands of years old.

You state you are a student of history, yet have no idea that Iraq has been the center of war and confilct for thousands of years. Iraq (AKA - Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Erak Arabi) has been invaded more times than any other geographical area on this planet. This area is the birthplace of political, religious, and sectarian warfare.

You believe that Americans are planting these bombs in the markets and Mosques but believe that Saddam was deamonized? Americans made up the invasion of Kuwait? Americans started the Iran / Iraq war?

There was not Terrorism before America was created? BARBARY STATES WAR!!! I have said it several times....look it up!!!

I would love to see a list of these non-aggressive states that America supposedly invaded. Everytime a government wants help they call on the Americnas.

You can sit and call every citizen of an entire country all liars? You are probably a very prejudice person who applies stereotypes to everyone of a race, religion, or nationality. There are thousands of Mosques in America. Is anyone bombing them? You state Amricans are murderers and liars, why are they not doing these things in America? Do you realy listen to yourself? You are not reading your posts.

I don't know where you live or what they teach you in school but you are so out of touch with reality it is scary. What history do you study? Who writes your history books? People that spout off the propganda that the terrorist preach like it is gospal and will not listen to any information that may be contrary are scary.

I am not asking you to take Americas version of history. Look up the History of Islam, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Erak Arabi, Iraq, and the Sunni-Shia conflict and then you can say you are a student of history. You my friend are a student of misperception.

Have you ever visited America? Keep believing what they spoon feed you if you want.

voices,

Just because the United States provides many freedoms to people inside the country, it doesn't make 'sacceptable that it bomb other countries and support terrorism that causes suffering around the world.

Have you ever tried to find out about what the United States states has done in other countries, not only in the MIddle East, but also in South America, Africa and Asia?

Here is some information about its involvement in Irag and Iran:


"Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power" at
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

Here is a history of the relationship between Iraq and the United States, inclulding the fact that the U.S. sold Saddam Hussein chemical weapons, knowing that Saddam Hussein had used them before.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17891.htm

Here is a film on YouTube made by Barry Lando (former "60 minutes" producer) about the relationship between the U.S. and Saddam Hussein.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeY05iS5iv0

Here is an article about how the United States sold weapons and gave false intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292

Here is a list of some of the United States' war crimes against Iraq.
http://deoxy.org/wc/warcrim2.htm

Here is a review of the book "All the Shahā€™s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terrror" http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml

Voices, I suggest you not waste your time with this clown. Same old stuff, all the time. No real understanding of history so he can understand the context, thinks he's found something astounding in the US helping the non-communist leaning side of Iraq years ago, never offers anything constructive, and drags the internet for whatever supports his hate of the US, whether it includes lies, conspiracy nonsense, or half-truths. The bits of truth included are useless and inflammatory facts when no consideration is given to the context. Focusing on any country's actions is a waste of time if the motives and goals of that action are ignored. The Iraqi invasion of Iran is more a study in the stupidity and aggressiveness of Saddam who, by the way, fought primarily with Soviet and French weaponry, and later with chemical weapons developed at home. To understand and/or intelligently discuss any conflict, both sides have to understand the motives of both sides and begin from there. Mr. Clown thinks it's just good vs. evil (i.e., the US, in his mind). I won't be responding to whatever his response is, and I suggest you just ignore him as well.

Voice, you like Bob are an ignorant American afraid of facts. Both of you are childish cowards. If you read my posts properly, you wouldn't be making a fool out of yourself repeating the same old refuted points. Reading your posts is like scanning pre-Iraq invasion US propaganda. Wow, so Americans invade countries for having "rape rooms" and "torture chambers" now? How benevolent of you, maybe you should go after your allies who do the same, or even bomb yourself for contracting torture through rendition flights to countries where you do whatever you want. The rules change when you do the raping and torturing. Now that I think about, the reason for invading Iraq was WMD wasn't it? Hows that search going while you draw up contracts to put control of Iraq's oil in the hands of your oil companies?
I never said there was NO terrorism before the creation of America, so get your claims in order. I'm supposed to be afraid of Muslims because of pirates off the Libyan coast hundreds of years ago? Apparently pirates don't deserve recognition when they aren't Muslim. Are you really THAT stupid? As if that makes American terrorism OK. The US has killed far more Iraqis then Saddam ever did(you had no problem with him when he worked for YOU, including selling him mustard gas he used during the Iran-Iraq war), both through sanctions, war and depleted uranium poisoning. Iraq was never a threat to the US, neither was Philipines, Grenada, Vietnam, and others in Asia and South America. Read a history book.
Your arrogance and inability to digest information not filtered through your corrupt state media deserves not just ridicule and condemnation, but pity. Your reputation as disingenuous liars is well earned.

TO: Dr. BobE, Professor Emeritus of Ringling Brothers, and Barnum & Bailey Clown College


The links I have put in my previous comment, regarding Iraq and Iraq, provides information from people who have many years experience in journalism, government, or academia.

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is often called crazy or evil for denying the Holocaust; but at least it wasnā€™t Iran that committed the Holocaust. In the meanwhile, many Americans (even those on the political left) are in denial of the millions of deaths the United States is responsible for when it toppled regimes (even democratically elected ones), dropped bombs and chemical weapons on countries, and funded and collaborated with terrorists and dictators. The excuse made for these crimes, involved the need to fight communism.

Look at this interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html ) where he says

ā€¯According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
.
.
.
Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.ā€¯

Here is what RAWA (Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women) has to say about U.S. involvement in Afghanistan (from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Women/RevolAfghanWomen.html )

ā€¯RAWA has pointed out that there were several democratic-minded groups the U.S. and other countries could have supported if they had wanted to drive out the Communists and help restore independence to Afghanistan. Why did these countries instead back the fundamentalist Mujaheddin? RAWA member Sajeda told Said lt magazine in August that pro-democracy groups would have refused to act as "puppets" for other countries, and would have made it difficult for those countries to "maintain their economic and political interests in Afghanistan."
When the Soviet Union withdrew its army in 1989, the Mujaheddin, under the command of the despotic Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and still funded by the U.S., began shelling Afghanistan's cities, killing thousands of civilians.ā€¯

RandallJones --

Finally, you wrote something which at least touches on the fact that the US had a particular motivation for its actions.

First a few details about the Brzezinski interview. It's worth mentioning that the order signed in July 1979 was for covert "propaganda" aid only. The Soviet invasion as well as weapons for the Mujaheddin came later. Secondly, Brzezinski stated in the same interview that it wasn't their intent to push the Soviets to invade, but they knew that their actions would increase the chances (this is a weak defense, especially in regard to his later remarks in hindsight). It's fair to say that he doesn't sound like he was displeased that they did invade. He explained why, but his reasons certainly didn't express any concern for the Afghans. That's pretty cold, I admit.

It's also pertinent to recognize that the insurrection against the Soviet-friendly (and dependent) Afgan regime was already extensive and bloody. Before the invasion the Soviets and the Afghan government bombed Herat in response for the killing of 100 Soviet advisors, killing over 24,000 in that city within a week. Before the invasion they also killed tens of thousands of political opponents. It's clear there would have been a bloody war even without a formal multi-division troop invasion by the Soviets. Whether or not the insurrection would have failed, or succeeded and been more or less bloody or more or less lengthy without US aid is a question I don't know the answer to. The Soviets had motives for being in Afghanistan, too. They weren't supporting the government there out of the kindness in their hearts.

Other quotes in that interview by Brzezinski I want to include which further emphasize the motives, even though they aren't a testament to the US foresight:

"Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries."

I included these comments only because they make it clear what Brzezinski's and Carter's major concerns were. I'll be the first to admit that he was arrogant (in this 1998 interview) and wrong about the long term results of arming the Mujaheddin. I'm sure he didn't care much if Afghanistan became an Islamic theocracy as long as it wasn't a communist pawn of Moscow. Also, if Carter believed he was going to increase the suffering of the Afghans, he has to bear the moral responsibility for that. This interview doesn't discuss what Carter thought about Brzezinski's prediction, however. In any event, it's clearly possible that the Soviets would have invaded to quell the rebellion even without Carter's propaganda aid decision.

Re: RAWA, I don't know anything about the other potential democratically-minded groups in Afghanistan, so I'll just say that if they had the potential to effectively combat the government forces, they probably should have been the ones we aided. If not, it's only with hindsight that aiding the Mujahedin seems a terrible choice.

The most important thing that's different in this post is that you're at least touching on the fact that the US supported the rebels for a strategic reason (though I'm sure you don't agree with the justification), instead of leaving us to assume the US is just run by men who do evil for the sheer pleasure of it.

There were two parties involved in most of the cold war struggle, ever since the Soviet Union emerged from WWII with an active, idealogical vision of global communism. Those of us who lived during that time, especially during the 50's and 60's, lived under the very real threat of global nuclear annihilation, peaking with the Cuban missile crisis. The Cold War was a real war fought on the lands and in the politics of many countries who were unfortunate to be caught in the middle. Unquestionably, if the USSR and the US could both have just left the world alone, maybe some brutal conflicts could have been avoided, or at least fought purely by the local parties.
(continued...)

(continued from last post)

But the actions taken were not made with evil intent; they were made in response to the realities of the time. My own firm view is that the US was reacting to the USSR, who had a stated goal of worldwide communism. The US had no stated objective other than preventing it. Afghanistan was, unfortunately, one more token on the giant game board of the Cold War in which the US didn't want to wake up suddenly and find itself in checkmate by ignoring Soviet pushes throughout the world. Others might disagree, but it doesn't really matter now.

Those who were hurt in these struggles and wish to exact revenge for the past are probably justified in doing so--I can't blame them for wanting to--but revenge won't accomplish anything worthwhile. Focusing on the current situation and looking for solutions which take into account the fears and motivations of all parties has at least the possibility of doing some good.

Back to the present. Motivations: The US would like to leave Iraq stable and withdraw. Even if one disagrees with the invasion, it won't change the fact that it happened. The world doesn't want instability in the Middle East to impact the oil production and destroy the world economy. The West needs to know that Iran isn't going to have nuclear weapons, at least under the current regime. Those are serious motivations which need to be addressed.

Likewise, Iran, factions in Iraq, Israel, and even Al Qaeda have goals which can explain all of their decision-making. I don't know what all of Iran's leaders' goals are, but perhaps some of them could be conceded to in exchange for verifiable cessation of nuclear weapons development. I suspect many of them are impossible to condede, such as the elimination of Israel and a free hand at spreading Taliban-style Islamist revolution. Goals which don't threaten others, such as normalizing relations, trade benefits, being certain the West wouldn't interfere internally with their regime, etc. would certainly be conceded to them in exchange for eliminating the concerns of the West. I'd be extremely curious to hear any opinions of any reasonable solution which would pacify Al Qaeda.

Unless some compromise is possible, things won't change for the better. Forgetting the past for just a moment, what do you suggest would lead to stability in Iraq? What do you suggest we could offer Iran in exchange for a halt to nuclear weapons development and eschewing terrorism? Is there a way we can normalize relations and be sure that bombs developed there don't wind up in the hands of terrorists and explode in Western cities?

There has to be such a trade. Even if a US president decided that from now on, US policy would be "hands off" the entire world, he would be impeached immediately for being mad. There's not a single country that isn't actively pushing some agenda outside of its own borders and which isn't seriously affected by what happens in other countries. A hands-off, trusting approach to Germany's re-arming resulted in 70 million deaths in WWII, the destruction of Europe, the arbitrary and often tragic drawing of new borders, and a more suspicious world.

We need to deal with the realities. Demonizing may provide emotional release, but accomplishes nothing. All countries try to make rational decisions when their survival is at stake. To expect blind trust, relativism, or a desire to be popular to enter into those decisions is naive. If the concerns can be met by diplomacy, wars and covert action will be less likely. If Iran were to offer a compromise which verifiably allays the West's fears (previously stated), I'm sure the West (and even G. Bush) would leap at the offer and quickly normalize relations.

I don't expect Iran will make such an offer (though it's possible when things reach the brink). Why not? Other than a strong desire to be free to do whatever they feel like doing, I would think they'd want to ease tensions and extract some concessions in return. They've got to know there's no other way to avoid conflict--that's the cold truth. Do you believe you know Iran's goals and are you aware of any possible compromise which meets the needs of both sides? Who should give in and what should they give up? The entire world would sincerely like to find the solution.

Well Bob at first I thought you were right. I was wasting my time. Although I was wasting my time with the BushTerror Guy, I was not wasting my time, as I have been enlightened a little.

It was so strange to me that someone could be convinced to blow themselves up to kill a bus load of people on the way to school, work, or the market to buy food. Random people that have nothing to do with thier issues. I didn't understand why it didn't matter how many Muslims were on the bus. Or why they thought they all deserved to be killed no matter who they were or what they believed.

Now I have seen the brainwashing first hand. This person has been convinced, unequivically, by whoever, that there is no evil in the world except for America. He has been convinced that if America were not on this planet there would be no killings. That all the worlds problems come directly and solely from America.

I couldn't believe it when you told him to strap a bomb to himself and blow himself up. Why would you say such a thing? I see now how frustrating it is trying to converse with someone so indoctrinated, so convinced all the worlds problems can be blamed on America. Everything he has been told is the truth and everyone else is a liar. To him all Americans are liars, I guess even the millions of Muslims living in America. I wouldn't be surprised if he had the belt sittin on his desk waiting, waiting for a bus load of children or nuns, doesn't matter who they are, he can always blame it on America, oh that's right he'll be in paradise trying to justify why Americas actions made it okay for him to kill God's creatures.

I doubt there can ever be a dialogue with people so extreme they can justify the murder of anyone they want to kill, simply by blaming it all on America.

I had hope though, hope that slowly fades in the face of hate. He can not love anyone, Muslim or otherwise, not if they live in America. They are all liars and deserve to die in his mind. Can there be peace with someone so tought to hate people they never met.

He didn't hear the parts of my posts about the generosity of Islam. That feeding the poor and adopting the orphans are spoke of more than killing. He skipped that part and concentrated on his hate and opinion of America.

This will be my last post. My hope for humanity fading in the darkness and abyss this world his heading for.

You're projecting your lies and inscurities again, Voices. You and Bob are typical american extremists and apologists for terrorism. You play victim while committing atrocities all over the globe, and complain about buses being blown up.
Your crocodile tears fool no one. You are good at projecting your fantasies on other people, a legend in your own mind you are - small mind, hard heart, totally bereft of any honesty. In the meantime stop trying to be something you are not, you are not given to an ounce of sound reasoning, and cling to a joke of a world view. You are a cog in a bankrupt system, and the only time you will awaken at this point is when you face the last challenge in life (if then).

BushTerror in the above exchanges is failing, sadly, to remember the netiquette guidelines as posted by the moderator.

Fanatical hatred against any country is not discussion; it is ranting.
Please, discuss without personal attacks or rabble-rousing.

Grace

I have not violated netiquette at all, grace. I am not going sit by idly listening to Amerkanists tell me to go "blow myself up" because I'm not swayed by their simplistic lies and pirate tales from hundreds of years ago.

voices,

You keep on talking about people who blow themselves up, but you have nothing to say about the millions more killed by the weapons of the United States and its allies.

Israel funbded Hamas and allowed it to flourish as a rival to the secular Yasser Arafat, no doubt that agent provocateurs infiltrated Hamas and whenever Israel needed an excuse to destroy Palestinian property or to refuse to talk peace with the Palestinians, a bomb conveniently went off.

As for bombing buses, the Europeans and the Untied States where bombing trains, buses, and schools filled with innocent children, women and men during Operation Gladio, after WOrld War II.

The major problem is that all people want to dictate the terms of peace. And all people in situations of power (as Americans find them now), want to dictate the terms of that peace with an overwhelmingly entitlement to security and peace over and above others. Its not that Americans only want peace. It is that they always want other people to make sacrifices for the peace they envision. Which in most of the current circumstances is a very economically prosperous and expanding "peace" that gives them (Americans) the first entitlement to all benefits. If they invade Iraq they must get the oil. If the execute Saddam they must dicate the terms for government. If the give you a loan, you buy their resources with it. Deeper and deeper they encroach into the global communities liberty, finding themselves blameless innocent victims of their own "success".