R
Robert Evans - The Comeback Kid
Guest
Bushistas "know nothing" approach and the Third World realities.
Oaf, I understand that your views of world history are influenced by your highly idiosyncratic understanding of morality and idealism. Also, I understand your very natural desire to support the most militantly interventionist administration in the American history. You are romantisizing Bush & Powell tandem. For you, they are idealistic reformers, who are out on the crusade to fight evil Islamic regimes and enlighten the muslim civilization with Judeo-Christian ways of life and American-style consumerist liberal society etc...
In particular, perhaps you consider Israel as an agent of enlightment in the Dark Sea of backwardness of Islam. I promised not to argue with you (and definitely not to go down and dirty on you), yet I'm just trying to give you some food for thought, that's all. Some historic facts, free of my (OR YOUR!) personal biases.
Crushing Bore discussant stated in one of his postings, that what irritates him about Bush is George Junior ignorance of world history, his lack of subtliety and "bad guys - good guys" approach toward complicated international issues. Cat't agree more! Let's discuss this point a little bit further.
I will start with a little journey back to the 80s. (I guess, it's ok on the board dedicated to the 80s idol.
)
OK, what is Saddam true ideology? Saddam Hussein is an Arab socialist of an pan-Arabic BAATH party. Egyptian Hamal Abdel Nasser is Saddam's teacher and hero.
I have no desire to describe in details Nasser ideology, but in one sentence, Nasser wanted all Arab nations to be unified at one state under ideology of a Soviet style of "socialism" with strong state - the owner of land and industry, private enterprise limited to small businesses and a strong charismatic centralist dictatorship of a Stalin-like leader, presumably based in Cairo.
Nasser wanted Arabic cultural and political renaissance. He firmly took Soviet side at the Cold War. Many Arabs didn't like this self-styled power-hungry socialist Egyptian to be their leader, yet they toyed with socialist ideas. Nasser even succeeded for a while to unite Syria and Egypt at United Arab State, it existed only a short time at 60s... The main disappointment for Nasser was a crushing defeat from Israelis in 1967 war. Israelis totally defeated Egyptians back then. Another thing, Nasser debacle proved the superiority of American made weapons Israelis were using over Soviet weaponry and technology of Nasser. Also, quite a few Egyptians detested socialism and were looking in the direction of Paris or Washington, not Moscow. 1967 was a warning light for Soviets: your technology is inferior! Nasser sky-high prestige at Arab world had been rapidly declining after that 1967 war. Yet, Soviet Union was spending billions to help Nasser survive. After Nasser successor, Anwar Sadat, betrayed his Soviet masters and became a pro-American (Camp Davids negotiations and a subsequent separate peace between Egypt and Israel), Soviets naturally chose Iraq as a main ally of Russia in the Muslim world. That's were the events under whose Saddam was raised up and formed as a personality, however evil and repulsive.
Saddam came to power at 1971 with support of Soviet agents in Iraq. Saddam (like later Syrian president Hafez Assad) was fighting both British influence and Islamist reactionaries at his country, and he did it in accordance with his Moscow-based masters wishes. Both Soviets and Americans were more then willing to close their eyes on Saddam poor human rights record back then. For example, prior to 1991, American State Department didn't give a flying duck about Kurdish self-determination. During 70s, Saddam created a semi-modern semi-feudal yet secular-oriented Iraqi society with some rudimentary schools and hospitals, he also gave SOME limited rights to Iraqi women, etc... He did it mostly because a plentiful of oil dividents. Of course, Saddam socialism is a Stalinist ugly version of a "socialism with unhuman face". Since 1991, he misspent his oil money for weapons instead of helping his own starving masses. Like Uncle Joe, he liquidated all his political rivals and even potential opposition, he ruled Iraq with an iron hand, his socialism was truly a "barrack socialism". On the other hand, Saddam was a secular leader, he was rather unfriendly to Saudi Arabian wakhabist ideology. All 70s and 80s, Saddam was supported mostly by Soviet Union. During Iran-Iraq war, however, Saddam bifriended Saudis cause Iran is of Shiite brand of Islam and both Saddam and Saudis are Sunnites. Yet, by invading Kuweit, Saddam became Saudis archenemy. That's a middle east for you... Yesterday'd friends are tomorrows rivals and vice versa... Both Saddam and Bin Laden are our truly enemies, yet those two rascals are not necessarily in love with each other... In his recent madcap "message", Bin Laden called Saddam "infidel".
Saddam apparently didn't help Al Quaeda. Yet he supported Palestinian suicide bombers, but he did it sa an Pan-Arab nationalist, not as an Islamist.
Also the Powell proof of the Saddam - Bin Laden link is highly circumspect at best and unconvincing at the worst. Remember, that Toni Blairs materials proved to be fake and even some CIA figures are publicly doubting Saddam Hussein - Al Quaeda link.
OK, I'm telling all that only to prove an obvious fact that Saddam and Al Quaeda have no common ideological ground, except both of those hate America and the West.
Saddam deserves to be toppled. But it must be done by Iraquis themselves. Any "know nothing" foreign intervention could have a disastrous side effects.
Who armed Saddam at the first place? Both former Soviet Union and Reagan administration gave to Saddam billions in weaponry to support him against ayatollah Homeini's Iran in that semi-forgotten Iran-Iraqi war at 80s. The same way as Bin Laden was financed and supported by CIA agents at 80s during civil war at Afganistan. You see, Bin Laden back then was a rich but rather military-wise ignorant Saudi Arabian volunteer to help Afghani reactionary islamic clerics and feudals in their war against Soviet Union supported Afghani Communist regime of Babrak Karmal and later Najibullah. CIA trained Bin Laden and his motley crew of reactionary bandits (mujahedeens) to fight Soviet Union puppet regime at Kabul. Apparently, all his life Bin Laden was resenting not only Communism but christian civilization also, and therefore he was "American friend" only when he needed American help against Russia. When Soviet Union first left Afghans to their own devices and latter disappeared, Bin Laden didn't want to go back to his family construction business, he had some crazy pan-Islamist ambitions, yet America did not needed his service any more. As a result, he became an archenemy of America. The rest is history.
In a sense, I support Bush efforts to defend America from "Islamo-fascists". After all, America has a right to defend itself. I supported destruction of Taliban (under all my nicks... ). The question is, I doubt Bush political savvyness, I'm not sure that Bush knows exactly what he is doing. By crushing Saddam with American might, Bush may provoke a tremendous wave of anti-American pan-Arab Socialism. Even worse, Islamic reactionaries could unite with Arab secularists as an reaction to an "collateral damage" (civilian casualities) at proposed war. Saudi Arabian reactionary elite could extract quite a few advantages from this anti-West momentum, and America would lose a potential as well as current friends in the Arab world very fast. As of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I already stated, that the only way to solve it is for Israelis to give Israeli passports to all Palestinians at West Bank and Gaza, which means a de-Zionisation and a real post-Zionist democratization of the Holy Land. Israeli-Arab Federation or Republic of Palestine (or whatever the name of the future state should be) ought to be a democratic secular state with both Jews and Arabs equal in their rights and responsibilities. It takes a courage of course, but Israel Jews must realize that Jewish-dominated state is impossible both from the moral and from the DEMOGRAPHIC reality of the situation on the hand. Now, the double effect of Palestinian sufferings and Iraqi civilian's corpses could make Arab Street extremely angry and an easy material for Al Quaeda reqruits. If I were Bush, I would try to destroy Saddam within by financing Iraqi anti-Saddam emigres as well as training Shiite and Kurdish anti-Saddam fighters, yet I would clearly abstain from the sad situation of Americans fighting Arabs. As of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would put a tremendous moral and economical pressure ON BOTH ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS to stop mutual killings and terror, including the option of UN troops in the Palestine to isolate a warring parties. In addition, I would give both sides an clear understanding, that America would be ready to boycott either of those sides in case of continuing terrorism. In case of a normalization, I would gather Jewish and Arab leaders in Washington to discuss the 2 options of conflict resolution: either Jewish and Palestinian states along each other or a common Jewish-Arab state. Again, I would try to solve conflicts by abstaining from American military interventions. Nowadays, Bush simply gave Israelis (Sharon & Natanuahu) a cart blanche, but the result could be disastrous for both Palestinians and the Jews. Now, what will happen if Iraquis would dislike America-installed leader in Bagdad after Saddam would be surely toppled? What will happen if civil war would start between Sunnites (Iraqi elite) and Shiites (majority of population)? What will happen if Iran would support Iraqi Shiites and Saudi Arabia would arm Iraqi Sunnites, and American occupation troops are being caught clueless in the middle of the whole mess. Meanwhile, usually pro-American pro-Western Turkey would be fighting Kurdish separatists at the oil-rich Turkish Kurdistan... The whole middle eastern vulcano would explode, with Bush and his peoples realizing that now American GIs must be a human buffer between warring parties and therefore be wholly responsible for potential civilian massacres a la Sabra and Shatila! I'm not sure that Bush Jr with his B-student know-nothing mentality is wholly realizing, in what mess he is getting into, what kind of passionate irrational anti-Americanism he is provoking by his sable-rattling. He is not realizing, that China, Russia, France and Germany are refusing to support America, he is not realizing that now Saddam (who is a conniving son of the gun, of course) is being considered a victim himself of an American dictate in the eyes of the Third World as well as of the majority in Europe, not vise versa.
In one word, I'm for defending American interests in the Middle East, I just want Bush to do it in a smart way. Right my impression of Bush team is a team of amateurs, who are pretty oblivious to Middle East recent realities and who are conducting their international affairs Las Vegas Russian Roulette style. Instead of a methodical clear-headed actions of "making friends & influencing peoples", Bush & Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz managed to irritate everybody in vicinity (including good portion of our European allies) by their childish know-nothing arrogance and yes, AMATEURISHNESS!
Oaf, I understand that your views of world history are influenced by your highly idiosyncratic understanding of morality and idealism. Also, I understand your very natural desire to support the most militantly interventionist administration in the American history. You are romantisizing Bush & Powell tandem. For you, they are idealistic reformers, who are out on the crusade to fight evil Islamic regimes and enlighten the muslim civilization with Judeo-Christian ways of life and American-style consumerist liberal society etc...
In particular, perhaps you consider Israel as an agent of enlightment in the Dark Sea of backwardness of Islam. I promised not to argue with you (and definitely not to go down and dirty on you), yet I'm just trying to give you some food for thought, that's all. Some historic facts, free of my (OR YOUR!) personal biases.
Crushing Bore discussant stated in one of his postings, that what irritates him about Bush is George Junior ignorance of world history, his lack of subtliety and "bad guys - good guys" approach toward complicated international issues. Cat't agree more! Let's discuss this point a little bit further.
I will start with a little journey back to the 80s. (I guess, it's ok on the board dedicated to the 80s idol.
)OK, what is Saddam true ideology? Saddam Hussein is an Arab socialist of an pan-Arabic BAATH party. Egyptian Hamal Abdel Nasser is Saddam's teacher and hero.
I have no desire to describe in details Nasser ideology, but in one sentence, Nasser wanted all Arab nations to be unified at one state under ideology of a Soviet style of "socialism" with strong state - the owner of land and industry, private enterprise limited to small businesses and a strong charismatic centralist dictatorship of a Stalin-like leader, presumably based in Cairo.
Nasser wanted Arabic cultural and political renaissance. He firmly took Soviet side at the Cold War. Many Arabs didn't like this self-styled power-hungry socialist Egyptian to be their leader, yet they toyed with socialist ideas. Nasser even succeeded for a while to unite Syria and Egypt at United Arab State, it existed only a short time at 60s... The main disappointment for Nasser was a crushing defeat from Israelis in 1967 war. Israelis totally defeated Egyptians back then. Another thing, Nasser debacle proved the superiority of American made weapons Israelis were using over Soviet weaponry and technology of Nasser. Also, quite a few Egyptians detested socialism and were looking in the direction of Paris or Washington, not Moscow. 1967 was a warning light for Soviets: your technology is inferior! Nasser sky-high prestige at Arab world had been rapidly declining after that 1967 war. Yet, Soviet Union was spending billions to help Nasser survive. After Nasser successor, Anwar Sadat, betrayed his Soviet masters and became a pro-American (Camp Davids negotiations and a subsequent separate peace between Egypt and Israel), Soviets naturally chose Iraq as a main ally of Russia in the Muslim world. That's were the events under whose Saddam was raised up and formed as a personality, however evil and repulsive.
Saddam came to power at 1971 with support of Soviet agents in Iraq. Saddam (like later Syrian president Hafez Assad) was fighting both British influence and Islamist reactionaries at his country, and he did it in accordance with his Moscow-based masters wishes. Both Soviets and Americans were more then willing to close their eyes on Saddam poor human rights record back then. For example, prior to 1991, American State Department didn't give a flying duck about Kurdish self-determination. During 70s, Saddam created a semi-modern semi-feudal yet secular-oriented Iraqi society with some rudimentary schools and hospitals, he also gave SOME limited rights to Iraqi women, etc... He did it mostly because a plentiful of oil dividents. Of course, Saddam socialism is a Stalinist ugly version of a "socialism with unhuman face". Since 1991, he misspent his oil money for weapons instead of helping his own starving masses. Like Uncle Joe, he liquidated all his political rivals and even potential opposition, he ruled Iraq with an iron hand, his socialism was truly a "barrack socialism". On the other hand, Saddam was a secular leader, he was rather unfriendly to Saudi Arabian wakhabist ideology. All 70s and 80s, Saddam was supported mostly by Soviet Union. During Iran-Iraq war, however, Saddam bifriended Saudis cause Iran is of Shiite brand of Islam and both Saddam and Saudis are Sunnites. Yet, by invading Kuweit, Saddam became Saudis archenemy. That's a middle east for you...
Yesterday'd friends are tomorrows rivals and vice versa... Both Saddam and Bin Laden are our truly enemies, yet those two rascals are not necessarily in love with each other... In his recent madcap "message", Bin Laden called Saddam "infidel".Saddam apparently didn't help Al Quaeda. Yet he supported Palestinian suicide bombers, but he did it sa an Pan-Arab nationalist, not as an Islamist.
Also the Powell proof of the Saddam - Bin Laden link is highly circumspect at best and unconvincing at the worst. Remember, that Toni Blairs materials proved to be fake and even some CIA figures are publicly doubting Saddam Hussein - Al Quaeda link.
OK, I'm telling all that only to prove an obvious fact that Saddam and Al Quaeda have no common ideological ground, except both of those hate America and the West.
Saddam deserves to be toppled. But it must be done by Iraquis themselves. Any "know nothing" foreign intervention could have a disastrous side effects.
Who armed Saddam at the first place? Both former Soviet Union and Reagan administration gave to Saddam billions in weaponry to support him against ayatollah Homeini's Iran in that semi-forgotten Iran-Iraqi war at 80s. The same way as Bin Laden was financed and supported by CIA agents at 80s during civil war at Afganistan. You see, Bin Laden back then was a rich but rather military-wise ignorant Saudi Arabian volunteer to help Afghani reactionary islamic clerics and feudals in their war against Soviet Union supported Afghani Communist regime of Babrak Karmal and later Najibullah. CIA trained Bin Laden and his motley crew of reactionary bandits (mujahedeens) to fight Soviet Union puppet regime at Kabul. Apparently, all his life Bin Laden was resenting not only Communism but christian civilization also, and therefore he was "American friend" only when he needed American help against Russia. When Soviet Union first left Afghans to their own devices and latter disappeared, Bin Laden didn't want to go back to his family construction business, he had some crazy pan-Islamist ambitions, yet America did not needed his service any more. As a result, he became an archenemy of America. The rest is history.
In a sense, I support Bush efforts to defend America from "Islamo-fascists". After all, America has a right to defend itself. I supported destruction of Taliban (under all my nicks...
). The question is, I doubt Bush political savvyness, I'm not sure that Bush knows exactly what he is doing. By crushing Saddam with American might, Bush may provoke a tremendous wave of anti-American pan-Arab Socialism. Even worse, Islamic reactionaries could unite with Arab secularists as an reaction to an "collateral damage" (civilian casualities) at proposed war. Saudi Arabian reactionary elite could extract quite a few advantages from this anti-West momentum, and America would lose a potential as well as current friends in the Arab world very fast. As of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I already stated, that the only way to solve it is for Israelis to give Israeli passports to all Palestinians at West Bank and Gaza, which means a de-Zionisation and a real post-Zionist democratization of the Holy Land. Israeli-Arab Federation or Republic of Palestine (or whatever the name of the future state should be) ought to be a democratic secular state with both Jews and Arabs equal in their rights and responsibilities. It takes a courage of course, but Israel Jews must realize that Jewish-dominated state is impossible both from the moral and from the DEMOGRAPHIC reality of the situation on the hand. Now, the double effect of Palestinian sufferings and Iraqi civilian's corpses could make Arab Street extremely angry and an easy material for Al Quaeda reqruits. If I were Bush, I would try to destroy Saddam within by financing Iraqi anti-Saddam emigres as well as training Shiite and Kurdish anti-Saddam fighters, yet I would clearly abstain from the sad situation of Americans fighting Arabs. As of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I would put a tremendous moral and economical pressure ON BOTH ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS to stop mutual killings and terror, including the option of UN troops in the Palestine to isolate a warring parties. In addition, I would give both sides an clear understanding, that America would be ready to boycott either of those sides in case of continuing terrorism. In case of a normalization, I would gather Jewish and Arab leaders in Washington to discuss the 2 options of conflict resolution: either Jewish and Palestinian states along each other or a common Jewish-Arab state. Again, I would try to solve conflicts by abstaining from American military interventions. Nowadays, Bush simply gave Israelis (Sharon & Natanuahu) a cart blanche, but the result could be disastrous for both Palestinians and the Jews. Now, what will happen if Iraquis would dislike America-installed leader in Bagdad after Saddam would be surely toppled? What will happen if civil war would start between Sunnites (Iraqi elite) and Shiites (majority of population)? What will happen if Iran would support Iraqi Shiites and Saudi Arabia would arm Iraqi Sunnites, and American occupation troops are being caught clueless in the middle of the whole mess. Meanwhile, usually pro-American pro-Western Turkey would be fighting Kurdish separatists at the oil-rich Turkish Kurdistan... The whole middle eastern vulcano would explode, with Bush and his peoples realizing that now American GIs must be a human buffer between warring parties and therefore be wholly responsible for potential civilian massacres a la Sabra and Shatila! I'm not sure that Bush Jr with his B-student know-nothing mentality is wholly realizing, in what mess he is getting into, what kind of passionate irrational anti-Americanism he is provoking by his sable-rattling. He is not realizing, that China, Russia, France and Germany are refusing to support America, he is not realizing that now Saddam (who is a conniving son of the gun, of course) is being considered a victim himself of an American dictate in the eyes of the Third World as well as of the majority in Europe, not vise versa.In one word, I'm for defending American interests in the Middle East, I just want Bush to do it in a smart way. Right my impression of Bush team is a team of amateurs, who are pretty oblivious to Middle East recent realities and who are conducting their international affairs Las Vegas Russian Roulette style. Instead of a methodical clear-headed actions of "making friends & influencing peoples", Bush & Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz managed to irritate everybody in vicinity (including good portion of our European allies) by their childish know-nothing arrogance and yes, AMATEURISHNESS!
