"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We do have to destroy Hezbollah"-John Kerry

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060723/UPDATE/607230360

[Edited by - colorfl1 on 07-24-2006 01:49 AM]

Posted by Rich:

[quote]Posted by colorfl1:

As I said, noble ideas are nice, but pragmatism has to trump everything else.

well said.
But why does the rest of the world get to stand on the sidelines and let the afghani and Iraqi people suffer... are these peoples not worthy of the worlds resources, energy and consensus to help them make a go of it???
I ask again:
The reason why we have the mess - is important - but ultimately irrelvant at this stage from the perspective of the innocent Iraqi and afghani civilian's who want a better life!!!

--- what is the excuse for not helping the Iraqi people secure and build a country by consensus... why do they not thwart Iran and Syria from wrecking thier development as a people...
Bush is irrelevent, he will come and go... but the people of afghanastan and Iraq deserve the world's commitment to do all that we can for them...

Thet decry the loss of life, but they stand by and do nothing as rogue elements indiscimantly slaughter innocence... it is shameful.

I agree about Iraq. It was a ponintless war. I beleive there is a term for what US tried to do in Russian, I dunno how well it translates into English, but I'll try it. We call progressivism - at attempt by a more developed civilization to accelerate the development of what they consider a lesser developed one by any means necessary. Some of the best Russian 20th century fiction that was banned by the Soviets was written about this topic. The concensus seems to be that prgessivism is simply not possible because in order ot act like gods, we need to be truly gods, both in terms of power and purity of intentin. As much as I love US, but we are not gods, and certainly not all pure. We have our problems, major ones, too. We are not a nation capable of nation buidling, its as simple as that.

Another thing about Iraq, is the same thing I'll say about the former Yuogslavia. Tito held it togeher with an iron fist, he died, and looked what happened to the Balkans. Same here. Sometimes, brutal dictators are the best thing that can happen to a country. I hate to admit it, but some culturs are not just not ready for democracy.

Prolly the best example that comes to mind if Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (not sure about the splling). He is one of my biggest heroes, but he was no benine leader in Turkey. He drowned the Islamic Fundamentalist movement there in blood. Yet what he did made Turkey the progessive moden nation of today. It is a shame a leader like that was not available in other Muslim natoins.
Who knows, mabye years from now, if Saddam stayed in power, people would remembe him for battling radical Islam, now we'll never know.

History is not a matter of the last 20 years, you must look at the big picture.

Posted by martin:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/24/blame_the_terrorists_not_israel/

Blame the terrorists, not Israel
By Alan M. Dershowitz

THE HEZBOLLAH and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.


There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of ``overreaction," ``disproportionality," and ``violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.

If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.

It should be obvious by now that Hezbollah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians. That is why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian ``shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities. They regard these human shields as ``Shahids," or martyrs, even if they did not volunteer for the lethal jobs. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of their shields, even if the bullets that kill them come from policemen's guns.

Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them -- on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians. Now that some of those who are launching rockets at Israeli cities have announced that they have new surprises in store for Israel that may include chemical and biological weapons, the stakes are even higher. What would Israeli critics regard as ``proportioned" to a chemical or biological attack? What would they say if Israel tried to preempt such an attack and, in the process, killed some civilians? Must a democracy absorb a first strike from a weapon of mass destruction before it fights back?

The world must come to recognize the cynical way in which terrorists exploit civilian casualties. They launch antipersonnel rockets designed to maximize enemy civilian deaths, then they cry ``human rights" when their own civilians -- behind whom they are hiding -- are killed by the democracies while trying to prevent further terrorism. The idea that terrorists who use women and children as suicide bombers against other women and children shed crocodile tears over the deaths of civilians whom they deliberately put in harm's way gives new meaning to hypocrisy. We all know that hypocrisy is a terrorist tactic, but it is shocking that others fall for it and become complicit with the terrorists. Let the blame fall where it belongs: on the terrorists who seek to kill enemy civilians and give democratic enemies little choice but to kill some civilians behind whom the terrorists hide. Those who condemn Israel cause more civilian deaths and make it harder for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank.

How the world reacts to Israel's military efforts to protect its citizens will have a considerable impact on future Israeli steps toward peace. Prior to the recent kidnappings and rocket attacks, the Israeli government announced its intention to engage in further withdrawals -- this time from large portions of the West Bank. Israelis think of it as ``land for peace."

But how can Israel be expected to move forward with any withdrawal plan if all it can expect in return is more terrorism -- what the terrorists regard as ``land for rocket launchings" -- and more condemnation when it seeks to protect its civilians?

Thanks Martin
This is a great article.
I want to add to it some thoughts about why many in US are falling in the trap of sympathy to terrorists and blaming Israel for "disproportional" reply. We in US are separated from the world by Oceans and we have only friendly nations on our borders. Not to say about the biggest and well equipped army in world.
Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies. The Israeli people are always under the gun.
Even taking this difference we reply to 9/11 with Iraq and Afghan retaliation killing thousands of civilians in a process. Even if 9/11 terrorists was Saudis. Just to give a lesson...
We reply to Russian communism thread by dropping the nukes on Japanese cities. Just to warn the Stalin...

Now about the solutions that same like Rich are dimmed inaccessible.
There is proven tactics that work. Leave the Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc. alone with their faith and let the people of this countries figure out themselves through pain and suffering what is good for them.
US did it with Soviet Union during Cold War and eventually Soviet Union self destroyed in no time. Just because the people or Russia was seek and tired of their life and wanted a change.
So we have a proven tactics that worked and it is even not on political agenda. Why?
Because the people who control our government want the money from Iraq oil and Afghan Drugs to go into their pockets directly or indirectly. Do they care about people in this countries or about us? You are kidding.

We are here to have our job to do - to say NO to making out troop the contractor guards for wealthy corporations paid by our tax money. To say NO to try to stop the fire with dropping the fuel. To say No to people in America and beyond who want to divide the world and rule. We have no interest in this.

surely we all must be saddened by the world's indifference to the Iraq people...

The EU must help Iraq
By Richard Youngs. Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung, 15 December 2004

Interim Prime Minister Allawi's attack on "spectator" nations during his recent visit to Brussels is a measure of the frustration felt over Europe's stance on Iraq. Since the US-led invasion of March 2003, European opponents of the war have chosen to remain on the sidelines of reconstruction. Despite the formal handover of power to an interim government this summer, a comprehensive EU plan for assistance has still not been formulated.
European qualms are understandable. But the EU could now implement a number of programmes that would make a significant contribution to improving the security situation in Iraq and creating the building blocks of democracy. Laying the foundations for a deeper European engagement in Iraq need not compromise sincerely-held convictions about the wrongs of the invasion. The Iraqi people need help to build a peaceful, prosperous and open society - it must not continue to get caught in the cross-fire of transatlantic politics.
As yet Iraq has received no convincing answer as to how it can guarantee security and build viable and democratic political institutions from the international actors best equipped to help - its Middle Eastern neighbours and regional players. Nothing more was agreed at the regional conference at Sharm el-Sheikh this week than a vague expression of support for Iraqi elections, optimistically scheduled for January 30th 2005. The EU, with its expertise in post-conflict reconstruction and strong track record in dialogue with local groups, is now the most important organisation for Iraq. And the prospects for a constructive EU plan are more favourable than previously. In June 2004, the EU agreed a common strategy paper promising consideration of further cooperation. To create a serious partnership for democracy with Iraq, it must now take this forward with concrete proposals for assistance.
The EU must first of all recognize that it can no longer legitimately criticize the US for neglecting human rights issues and focusing overwhelmingly on infrastructure and security forces training, without contributing itself to democratisation. With the notable exception of Germany, European members outside the US-led coalition have so far declined to offer any significant amount of development assistance to Iraq. This has been a source of bitter disappointment to many fledgling grassroots groups eager for non-US funding. For 2004-5, out of a total Commission commitment of 200 million euros, only 10 million euros was set aside for the construction of new democratic institutions in Iraq.
The second step is to recognize that Europe can make a unique and vital contribution to reconstruction that the US cannot provide. The US has for instance been attacked for imposing overly harsh neo-conservative market solutions on Iraq, and for focusing on high-visibility, "white elephant" projects devoid of relevance to the daily concerns of ordinary Iraqis. The EU has been particularly successful in other post-conflict zones in creating efficient economic structures at the local level and inclusive "social market" reforms, principles that could usefully be applied to Iraq.
Well-developed regional partnerships are another asset that the US cannot claim to share, and where a European contribution would have real added value. Despite the disappointing outcome of Sharm el-Sheikh, the EU should use its leverage with other Middle Eastern states to push them into more constructive partnership with the new Iraqi government. The EU has signed a trade agreement with Syria; it should use dialogue with Damascus - which Washington lacks - to push for a commitment from Bashar Assad to clamp down on the recruitment of jihad fighters from Syria. Europe must inscribe Iraq into its region-wide strategy on democracy, creating partnerships stretching across the region.
The third step is to outline concrete recommendations for European action that would make the best use of EU expertise with local groups at the sub-national level. Improving the physical security of Iraqis is the first priority. So far European nations have only trained hundreds of police officers instead of the necessary thousands. Just a fraction of the 100,000-strong security force needed in Iraq is properly equipped, and the resources allocated to this must be dramatically increased. Europe could also make a vital contribution by agreeing to train Iraqi border guards to stop the passage of foreign fighters into the country. More generally, Europeans could place greater emphasis on the democratic control of Iraqi security forces, something that is not far enough up the list of US priorities.
The disarmament of local insurgents is a major security issue that will become increasingly important as and when rebel groups choose to buy into the democratic process. European nations - including Germany - have a good record from Kosovo and Bosnia in running social, political and economic reintegration programmes for insurgents. This should be put to immediate use in Iraq, where weapons ownership among the population is rife and initiatives such as cash-for-guns sorely missing.
Non-coalition European states have also blocked proposals to make money from the EU's large MEDA funds quickly available for Iraq. While a massive diversion of aid from other recipient countries is undesirable, there is scope for including Iraq in some of the softer social and cultural EuroMed programmes, which would be relatively low cost and symbolically important.
On the political level finally, the international media has focused on the importance of national elections. But building legitimacy through local structures is just as important - and is a longstanding European specialty. Here a more coordinated EU effort could build on the British approach in Southern Iraq of fostering citizens' participation in local institutions. This assistance could give Iraqi citizens the perception of participation in the decisions affecting their daily lives - something they are unlikely to get from amorphous national coalition that is likely to emerge from January's elections.
European opponents of the war have attacked the US for favouring former exiles and allowing Iraq to drift towards religious-sectarian politics. But they themselves have done nothing to help foster secular and ethnically diverse grassroots parties. The EU must move to support the development of a dense web of national institutions, such as professional associations, chambers of commerce and universities. If power is to be dispersed from US-backed former exiles, the 100-plus political parties that have emerged must be helped to develop coherent manifestos and effective election strategies.
The challenge lies in formulating a united European strategy that can reconcile the bitter differences over the invasion. Some European leaders apparently still feel that scoring political points over Iraq is more important than helping it - as the last-minute cancellation of the Iraqi president's talks with French ministers in Paris appeared to confirm. Conversely, European supporters of the war have been insensitive to the depth of moral and political opposition to the war among other nations, which make them reluctant to contribute without qualification to the reconstruction process. But when Iraqi democrats came looking for European support during the 1990s they were rebuffed - broad strategic calculations were deemed more important than fostering Iraqi democracy. To repeat this oversight today would represent a mistake of historical magnitude.

Dr Richard Youngs is Senior Researcher at the Fundácion para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE), Madrid, and Senior Research Associate at the Foreign Policy Centre. "Europe and Iraq: From Stand-Off to Engagement" is published by the Foreign Policy Centre, http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/331.pdf

"More important, perhaps, is the need to solve Iraq’s debt problem. Iraq’s foreign debt is around $120 billion, a huge burden for a crippled economy. Of these some $22 billion consists of arrears accumulated by Saddam Hussein over the past 13 years. A further $20 billion is owed to the Paris Club countries, notably Russia, France, Germany, Britain and the United States. The Arab states of the Arabian Gulf account for a further $60 billion of Iraqi debt. The rest is owed to other countries and banks.
As things stand Iraq would have to allocate a third of its oil income to servicing its debt. This translates into slower economic growth and cuts in social services.
The Arab part of the Iraqi debt consists of the money given to Iraq during the eight-year war against Iran. It would be both honorable and good politics to write off that debt. The Arab states do not need the money.
The Paris Club should write off at least 60 percent of the debt. The US has asked for a total write-off, while Russia proposes 50 percent. France, however, says it would not go beyond 30 percent."


('');This right here is your answer why the world stands by as innocent Iraqis get blown up by terrorists each day... they are all complicit in their innaction...
They letting the deaths mount and conditions worsen in order to pressure the Iraqi government to commit to all of Sadaam's old debts... this is not 1936 this is in the year 2006! shameful...('');

The more time passes and situations develop in the Middle East, the more I believe nothing in the region will ever be stable until someone(U.S. or Israel) takes out Iran. Syria is a weak country that will conform to international standards once Iran is eliminated.

Posted by colorfl1:

[quote]Posted by Rich:

From my perspective, the Iraqi people are suffering as a result of the civil war that is breaking out. How does the U.S, or any country, change that reality? Do we take sides? .
.... So I ask you: How does the U.S. or its allies unite a society that is composed of people that have nothing in common, and were only held together through the hammer that Saddam held over them.
.....How does the U.S or its allies overcome the tribal hatred that is thousands of years old.

The civil war is breaking out in no small part because Iran and Syria enable rogue agents to finance, coordinate and support groups that blow-up innocent Iraqis. Where is the world's outrage, diplomatic pressure and censure of the aid given to forces that are seeking to fuel secritarian hatred to the masacre of innocence...
this is so odd and tragic... you will hear the world talk about how much they care about the Iraqi people, but that is all propaganda... they are not prepared to do everything in their power to help the Iraqi and Afgahni governements slowly gain control of order... we live in a disposable society... this is peoples lives here... people just like you andf me and they deserve a safe and fair country... I needn't tell you how the world cried for the Iraqis during the period of sanctions... but now the world is prepared to damn them and turn their backs because it is too much trouble... that in a ll honesty smacks of racism (the world's attitude)... beacuse these people are tribal they cannot coexist... that is just so dismissive... the Middle East is full of countries taht are composed of differrent tribal lines and manage to live in relative peaceful coexistance... people ignore that pre-Sadaam, Iraq was considered one of the more sophisticated and multicultural countries in the Middle East... the idea that true healing cannot take place is highly cynical and historically untrue...

The entire world must come to the aid of these people and exert whatever powers they have to help them find their own destinys w/o outside rogue group cunducting masacres to draw the counrty into chaos.

It takes at least 15 years to aid a situation like this into normalcy to create a better future for the next generations of Iraqis... the world knew that... why do they dismiss the innocent Iraqis and afgahanis with sarcastic and offensive classifications of tribalism, it is not that simple... these are mostly ordinary people that get up each day and want to provide for their families in a safe environment.. what would a typical Iraqi say, if you told him that the world does not feel you guys are worth their energy because you guys have ancient tribal differences... they would say that is a cynical and hateful assessment.
give these people credit in many cases thier patience has been extraordinarly

But the world's real indifference to these people is alarming.

I disagree. The civil war is breaking out because ancient tribal hatreds are no longer being repressed by the iron fist of Saddam. The situation is similar to what happened to the old Yogoslavia after Tito died.

Remember. Iraq has no history of an ethnic identity. It was merely a vehicle thrown together by the Brits.

How is foreign aid going to fix it? The gov't of Iraq is dominated by Shiites who are aligned with Iran. How is it in our interest to help them?

It's not like this outcome wasn't predicted. To the contrary, it was by many non neo-con commentators.

In fact, some neo-cons are now attempting to excuse Bush's mismanagement by arguing that the ethnic hatred is so intense and long standing that there was nothing Bush could have done to prevent it.

As I said, the decision to invade Iraq was the biggest foreing policy mistake in US history because Iraq is no longer a couterweight to Iran.

It's not like this fact wasn't known before the war started. It was, except by some neo-cons who fatuously thought that the Iraqi would greet us with candy and flowers. As if.

[Edited by - Rich on 07-24-2006 11:27 PM]

You know one thing I can't stress enough is that separate issues must be keapt separate when you discuss them. While their is ofcourse a general trend that one should see, but its still important to realize that sometimes two things really are different.

Afghanistan and Iraq are very different things for US. What US did in Afghanistan was a sucess. They were able to form a coalition inside the country against the Taliban and help them massively. However there was a force in Afghanistan that was ready to fill the power vacum left by the Taliban once they were dealt a blow. That is why event thought he fighting still continus, with much much smaller American presense in the country than in Iraq, the local regimes (and yes the central government is really just a ornament there) can and will keep the Taliban at bay as long as US supplies them with military resources. Maybe in 20-30 years the country will produce a generation of men who grew up in relativeley better conditions as far as freedom and access to knowledge is inovovled and be able to build a better country fro themselves.

I'm sorry, but Taliban was by far the worst thing that could have happened to any country. An opressive, violent riligious regime. That is much worse then just as imple secular dictator, or even "communism", which btw never really existed anywhere, people just used that as a propoganda word to keep themselves in power.

When they freedom is not free they are not kiddin. However what the right wing and many Americans need to realize is that freedom is not free for them either. Being unsecure to a degree comes with the territory of being a free naition. We should remember that and refuse to compromise our freedoms here at home for security gains. People need to understand that there will always be a price to pay for freedom, and changing our way of life as the current government is pushign for with its many secruity policies, would in fact be the true surrender to terrorism.

what the conservatives are thinking...


ACROSS THE MIDDLE EAST, THE MULLAHS ARE MEDDLING
July 22, 2006, National Post
David Frum

War is bomb blasts, explosions, violence, confusion. But maybe a short chronology of events can bring a little order to the story--and help us to understand the origins of this latest spasm of violence in the Middle East.


Through this hot summer, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, have been working furiously to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of the Iranian nuclear bomb. In mid-June, the six powers formally offered Iran a set of incentives for abandoning its nuclear enrichment program, including light-water nuclear reactors and technology for Iran's civil aviation fleet. Iran spurned the offer. After another month of discussions, the six powers agreed to threaten Iran with economic sanctions. The threat was publicly issued in Paris on July 12 and reaffirmed at the G8 meeting in St. Petersburg on July 17.


As the nuke cops closed in, the Iranians flexed a little muscle of their own.


Iran has this year emerged as the most important patron and supporter of the Hamas terrorist movement. It pledged $50-million in aid to Hamas in April; Israeli sources report that Iranian intelligence officers have trained Hamas guerillas.


On June 25, Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier in a carefully planned and executed attack. The guerillas erupted from a 700-foot tunnel they'd dug underneath the border between Israel and Gaza, surprising an Israeli outpost from the rear. The attack predictably provoked Israeli retaliation.


Then, on July 9, the level of violence in the region surged upward again. That day, uniformed militiamen blockaded a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad and massacred up to 50 civilians, dragging them from homes and cars to shoot them in the head in the streets. The unusually well-co-ordinated slaughter triggered a cycle of sectarian retaliation and counter-retaliation that left 628 people dead over the following week--and may push the total civilian death count for the month to 2,000, up from a horrifying enough 1,000 in June.


Again, the authorship of the July 9 massacre traces back to Teheran. The militia that carried out the attack, the Mahdi army, professes loyalty to the loudmouthed young cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. But as the Mahdi army has grown, it has generated its own military leadership, paid and trained by Iran.


In the first months after the liberation of Baghdad, al-Sadr tried to manipulate Iraqi nationalism against his more prestigious Shiite rival, the Iranian-born Ayatollah al-Sistani. Under pressure from his militia, however, al-Sadr has grown closer to Iran in recent months--and last month declared that his army would fight for Iran if the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.


After the sanctions threat on July 12, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator flew home via Damascus, where he reportedly met with Hezbollah leaders.


That same day, July 12, Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers on the northern border. The next day, July 13, Hezbollah rockets were fired at Haifa and Israel's northern cities, forcing a full-scale Israel-Hezbollah war.


Does that make things a little clearer?


Iran's precise goals remain murky. Are they seeking only to pre-empt the Security Council calendar and divert attention away from the sanctions vote?


Or do they have bigger goals? Are they trying to rally Islamic opinion worldwide to their support? Do the rulers of Iran hope that inciting conflict with Israel and America will consolidate their claims to lead the Islamic world?


Or are they more audacious still? Might they possibly imagine that by turning up the level of terrorist violence against Israel and Iraq they might inflict a humiliating direct defeat upon the United States? With the U.S. Congress demoralized, the Iranians may calculate that they do not have to defeat American forces on the ground to break American public opinion--any more than the Viet Cong defeated the U.S. Army in the Tet Offensive.


In the same way, the mullahs may believe that Hezbollah can emerge strengthened from a battle with Israel. If this conflict ends with a negotiated ceasefire that leaves Hezbollah in control of south Lebanon, then Hezbollah has won--and so has Iran.


If Iran sees its goals as strengthening Hezbollah, driving the U.S. out of Iraq, and obtaining a nuclear bomb for itself, that list of priorities indicates what the Western world's counter-priorities have to be: destroying Hezbollah, securing Iraq, and halting the Iranian bomb program. The campaign to achieve those counter-priorities begins in Lebanon. It cannot end there.

Good post Rich: Iraq is going into a Civil War. People that know their stuff, knew this was a real possibility. Iraq makes that entire region extremely unstable and tense. Also, OUR soldiers are dieing for absolutely no reason. All this for no reason other than oil and Haliburton making rebuilding money.