Iraq Study Group an exercise in futility
Well, it only took six years but Bush has finally kept his promise to be a uniter. With his insistence on staying the course, the majority of Americans agree that it's a lamebrained policy doomed to failure and many in the GOP are reading the tea leaves and jumping aboard the anti-war ship. When you have Republican senators publicly stating it may be criminal to continue with the present policy, one might think fissures is an understatement in describing the state of the GOP. Yawning chasms is more like it.
Meanwhile, our clueless Decider decides that now might be a good time to reach a consensus and he's waiting for his minions within his appointed circle to produce some reports that agree with his failed strategy. "'Now it is the responsibility of all of us in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, to come together and find greater consensus on the best way forward,' he told radio listeners."
Well excuse me Mr. President, but in case you haven't noticed, we have reached consensus, it just doesn't agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, when Iran starts talking sense, we can only expect it be used as an excuse by Bush and his hard core warmongers to dig their heels in and to hear more nonsensical talk of "victory" coming from the White House.
Meanwhile, our clueless Decider decides that now might be a good time to reach a consensus and he's waiting for his minions within his appointed circle to produce some reports that agree with his failed strategy. "'Now it is the responsibility of all of us in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, to come together and find greater consensus on the best way forward,' he told radio listeners."
Well excuse me Mr. President, but in case you haven't noticed, we have reached consensus, it just doesn't agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, when Iran starts talking sense, we can only expect it be used as an excuse by Bush and his hard core warmongers to dig their heels in and to hear more nonsensical talk of "victory" coming from the White House.
posted by Libby Spencer at 10:43 AM
12 Comments:
The same Iran that is currently holding a conference on whether the Holocaust occurred.
The same Iran that is smuggling weapons to terrorist groups, not to mention funding and training them.
The same Iran whose leader has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
The last thing we should do is be thrilled because they agree with our approach.
You misunderstand my point Jack. I'm certainly not thrilled that the nutcase is making more sense than our own president on some levels. Make no mistake, I think Aja-whatever the heck his name is, is a total maniac and I don't trust him as far as I could throw him but there's an old saying that goes something like, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Don't get me wrong. I think Iran's position on Israel and the Holocaust is horrible and inexcusable but nonetheless, I'd rather have them sitting at the table with us talking about peace than to draw a line in the sand and dare them to cross it and then have to wonder if they'll take up the challenge.
As I recall, the last time Bush tried the "bring it on" strategy we ended up with this mess in Iraq. Do we really want a similar mess in Iran and take a chance on the Iran friendly elements in the new Iraq gov't joining their side against us while our troops are still embedded in there?
My support for talks is purely pragmatic, it doesn't imply any agreement with Aja-Nut's ideology.
Hi Libby,
Gotcha. What concerns me about Ahmadinejad and company is that I believe that he is testing the waters right now.
I think that the reason that he is making these outrageous statements is that he wants to see what kind of response he will receive.
As the world sits back and watches he gets progressively more daring.
I lost too many family members not to be concerned.
Not to mention that the world's record on dealing with maniacs intent on genocide is poor.
Look at all of the talk about Darfur and still there is no action.
Rwanda is another example.
Oh hell, Africa is just ignored by the world. It is shameful.
Sorry Jack. Stupid blogger wouldn't let me leave comments on my own blog yesterday afternoon. I hear you about Africa and totally agree and I think you're right about Ahmadinejad to some extent. He's crazy but he's not stupid and he no doubt has some plan in mind.
Nonetheless, I've always maintained that the antidote to bad speech is much more speech. I still think it's more useful to enter into a dialogue with Tehran, than to antagonize them further.
I still think it's more useful to enter into a dialogue with Tehran, than to antagonize them further.
No, no, no. We are not the ones antagonizing Iran. They are funding terrorists as well as supplying support and training.
This includes the so called insurgents in Iraq, as well as groups like Hezbollah.
I learned Chamberlain's lesson. This guy needs to change his tune or be forced to do so.
I don't like violence, but I am happy to unleash the hounds of hell upon him.
We need to stop this game where he buys more time.
I don't know Jack. I'm sure Iran is involved in mixing it up in Iraq somehow, but last I read, internal corruption was funding the insurgents in Iraq. They're more or less self-sufficient.
Also, it's not to Tehran's tactical advantage to have this tinder keg simmering on their border. I doubt Ahmadinejad wants that to explode in his face.
As to why he's promoting all this lamebrained anti-Israel, Holocaust denials, I can't figure what he hopes to gain except to mollify Muslim extremists who might turn against him as well for agreeing to diplomatic talks.
As to unleashing the hounds of hell, who do you unleash them against? Mr. Nutcase personally or innocent civilians. We already have a PR problem with the thousands of Iraqi dead. If we start wiping out civilian populations in other countries, I doubt it will help defuse the situation.
Just saying...
Libby,
I understand everything you are saying and I cannot say that it doesn't make sense, to a Western POV.
But they view things differently there. The cultural perspective and societal mores do not entirely match our own and that is part of the problem.
I am jammed for time so I cannot answer this in as much detail as I want, but let me try and add a couple more thoughts.
Hitler did not begin by sending people to the camps. He started by dehumanizing those he disliked and disagreed with. It took place over time.
The start was not all that different from what we see in Iran.
Skipping back to cultural differences, take a look An Interview With Al-Jazeera Editor-in-Chief Ahmed Sheikh it is very enlightening and in my mind quite disturbing.
The excuses and lack of accountability are horrific.
The interviewer asks:
Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?
And he responds
I think so.
Where is the accountability here. What does this have to do with the affairs outside of Israel. Why should it impact anything in Egypt or Jordan etc.
It shouldn't but the world operates differently down there.
We are engaged in an ideological battle.
In the end I come back to a place where if I have to choose between us and them, they lose.
I don't like it. It is not comfortable, it is not nice. But I will not sit idly by and watch the events of 1938 replay themselves.
Jack, you make a good case for your POV but I still think you can't bomb ideology out of existence. I think we have to be very careful, not to be perceived as doing the dehumanizing ourselves and frankly I fail to see much difference between villifying Muslims for their beliefs and wantonly killing innocent civilians who happen to practice that faith, and what Hitler did to the Jews.
The world has changed a lot since 1938. We have the technology to communicate in ways that weren't even dreamed of then. I remember before the internets when it took three days to get news here, of something that happened in China. I just believe in this communication age, words have more power than bullets.
But thanks for your thoughtful replies. It's good to have one's assumptions challenged.
Jack, you make a good case for your POV but I still think you can't bomb ideology out of existence.
No, force alone will not do it. It is a combination of force, diplomacy and economics.
I think we have to be very careful, not to be perceived as doing the dehumanizing ourselves
Absolutely. I don't believe that all Muslims are bad, never have. But I do think that it is terribly important for more Muslims to speak out about the atrocities others execute in their name.
and frankly I fail to see much difference between villifying Muslims for their beliefs and wantonly killing innocent civilians
Of course. No one wants to do so. Don't think for a moment that the goal is to engage in indiscriminate murder. That is part of why I get so angry at people who try to defend suicide bombing. What purpose is served by stepping onto a bus and trying to kill everyone on it.
Here is the catch to all of this. At what point in time do you say I am not taking a chance. When do you say that I am not going to wonder whether it is all bluster and rhetoric.
When I look at history it is not just what happened to my own people and my family. I look at the Turks and the Armenians, I look at what Pol Pot did, I look at the situation in Kosovo and Rwanda.
I look at the situation in Darfur and I see that the world will posture, but for the most part the world will watch you die. And that is unacceptable to me.
We have to take control of our destiny.
The world has changed a lot since 1938. We have the technology to communicate in ways that weren't even dreamed of then.
Sure. That is part of why I blog. I love the interaction and the chance to try and learn. I too like to have my assumptions challenged.
I believe that it is possible that things can change and that the net can make that happen. I hope that if enough people shout we will see things change.
It is not too late to prevent things from getting worse, but the hour is drawing near.
I just don't know what to tell you Jack. It appears our goals are the same, but we disagree on how best to acheive them.
I agree we need to defuse the turmoil but I simply cannot see how we're going to do that if it's perceived as imposing our will by force on the Islamic nations.
I agree we need to defuse the turmoil but I simply cannot see how we're going to do that if it's perceived as imposing our will by force on the Islamic nations.
As I said, it is a combination of force and diplomacy. The reality of the world is that sometimes you have to use force. It sounds good to claim that the Internet provides a tool that will make force unnecessary, but it is only based upon desire and not reality.
And the reality is that we are playing with the kind of fire that burns millions.
Did you read any of the interview with the EIC of Al Jazeera?
I didn't read the interview yet Jack. I've been so sick, I could hardly post. I will try to get to it today as I woke up feeling somewhat better but as a general note, I would point out that the EIC of Al-Jazeera isn't running Iran. He's just trying to sell his product. Wouldn't that be kind of like holding Bush responsible for something the NYT editorialized?
Post a Comment
<< Home