Thank you Rafe once again... Well said.

In North America the Europeans called FN's people, "blood thirsty savages". The demonization of these gentle people helped to justify stealing from them for both the present and the future generations. What are the "Euopeans" going to tell their children?,ie "Yes Johnny we stole from these gentle, peaceful people and killed their children so you could have this land and live without "their" interferance". I doubt it...

What about warning ones children and preparing them for these cruel visitors who want nothing more than to rob from them??

The FN's people suffering this tyranny is a fact. Why should I believe "we" are no longer like this. Maybe instead of stealing land, we are stealing Oil? Maybe we need to look closer at our historic patterns...??

It is hard to know what to believe Rafe. What REALLY are we doing over in these countries...?? Are we doing good or evil...?

Peace and Love

RTB

Gwynne Dyer thinks Iraq is less about oil then about a superpower flexing its muscle. "They could have just written a cheque" as I recall from his talk last year. Even Robert Fisk raised the same possibility on June 4th after first asking rhetorically" if Iraq's main export commodity was asparagus would we be interested in that country?" Empires show the flag not just to protect the flow of a vital resource but because they have to assert their claim to superior moral values. Why else would the US invade Grenada in 1983? Was it because Grenada is the largest exporter of nutmeg so vital to imbibers of eggnog at Christmas? Or was this an instructive lesson to Cuba and the Sandinistas that this is still an American hemisphere?

There was a segment on television news about a week ago about some guy in the U.S. who uses water in his car as a combustible fuel because he has developed some sort of hydrogenic igniting power. Hadn't heard about it before or since and although the foreign automakers are interested in hydrogen development I don't expect that Detroit is in any big hurry to convert.
There is big money in oil and a lot of influential people stand to lose a lot of money on other sources of energy - unless they're in on it. Hence the problem.
Oil countries as well as companies have a big investment and are the control behind world power.

And, wouldn't you know it - about 1990, a group of U.S. geologists discovered 'significant' oil reserves in Afghanistan - which is when the U.S. became interested in 'democratising' that region.

Nice touch in an ending, Rafe!

Rafe - pretty fair and balanced article. I do disagree with you though. The middle east threatens world peace and further globalization. I do agree that the US has economic interests at mind here, because imagine the growth if the Middle East embraced capitalism. However, I have to believe that they do care.

Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. Everytime there is a natural disaster, Americans are the first to respond and provide the most.

In fact, they all but fund the World Bank and the UN. The middle east is a violent place with violent people. It has nothing to do with Islam, but cultural evolution. They have not developed to the same extent as the Western World and for the first time in modern history - they have visibility into our world.

The Americans wish to stabalize the middle east. They fight amongst each other and attack the Western world. They have enemies everywhere. Some might forget, but Sadaam tried to take over Kuwait - for its oil. Many of the countries are controlled by violent tyrants.

25 years ago - Iran tried to take over Iraq - until the US stepped in (at international request) funded and trained the Iraqi army - a few years later they are using these weapons to try and take over Kuwait.

This is not about oil per say - but about globalization and safety in our shrinking world. Embassy's are being bombed all over the world and terrorist attacks keep increasing.

While I agree with Rafe in that there are economic instances at play - I think it is much larger than a shrinking supply of the black gold.

Absolutely correct - political correctness and market share concerns make it exceedingly difficult to get anyone to say the unbridled truth about Islam and all the rest. Good on you.

One thing the all have in common is that they teach their kids to hate!
All in the name of religion!
so, One more time religion is EVIL

I beg to differ...

The U.N. had a helluva job trying to get the U.S. to cough up what it owed before Bill Gates very generously kicked in.

I wonder what the economic world would be like for the U.S. if Euros were the standard currency for oil?

Incidentally the quote to which I referred was from Capitalism's post.

Capitalism - I'm inclined to agree. The West didn't make the Middle East nasty, bitter, backward and hateful. That's just our liberal guilt talking. They already hated us.

Take any peripheral European population - the Irish, the Poles, the Ukrainians - they've been through much, much worse over the last century than has befallen the Arabs. Yet they've grown beyond it to construct fully functional societies that are fully integrated into the international and supranational treaty frameworks, and have done their best to catch up with modernity. It's been a hard learning curve, but they're coming along. In the short time since 1989, Eastern Europe has totally reformed their entire societies and foundational ethos...and assimilated the entire rubric of 20th century social, political and intellectual development too. Even the Serbs are starting to catch on now, after a short and nasty decline into social atavism in the immediate post-Communist dysphoria.

Christians and Jews have been persecuted in Muslim lands for centuries. The developments of the 20th century (from League Mandates, though the est. Israel, right up to the current occupation of Iraq) simply gave Arab countries more justification for pre-existing hatreds, and those hatreds have proven to be a most useful opiate for Arab economic and clerical elites. Far too much is made of Israel and America as the source of Arab alienation from the modern world. They've done it to themselves.

War is always catalyzed by ruthless self-interest. But that doesn't mean all the changes which spring from war are bad. The encounter between East and West is a cultural synthesis that has been frustrated and stalled for the last two and half millennia. Now that it's finally begun, did you really expect it to be pretty?

Anglo-American avarice and exploitative self-interest may have started the ball rolling, but you don't have to be an oracle to see that a much, much larger meta-process has kicked in. It's in an ugly phase at the moment. We don't know what awaits 100 years down the road, but whether the outcome is good or bad depends on how we now decide the manage this fateful East/West encounter. What's done is done - Israel exists, the Americans are in Iraq. Viable policy options for the future have to be explored, and they don't include a wholesale abandonment of both.

Rafe, now eating a little crow:

This was not their mantra before going into Iraq, back then Rafe you were fooled by the moralizing about WMD's that Blair was spouting and believed the 'intelligence' that was presented by Powell.

Thank you now for at least remembering one of your 'axioms':

Do not assume that the people in charge actually know what they are doing.

It is only thru further questioning, of not only the persons whom say they 'lead' us, but also of the way we organize ourselves, thru elections - which currently are nothing more than a popularity contest.

Interesting thoughts for an ending here Rafe, for there are more than the 3 obvious choices that you cite for 'sides' to choose here.

Well, call me naive, but I thought Canadians were considered relatively nice guys/gals by the muslim world until the U.S. talked us into the war situation in Afghanistan.
I heard one U.S. columnist chide Canada about the 'nice' guy image - then wrote an I-told-you-so article when terrorists recently tried to do damage in our country.

Thank you Rafe for touching on all sides of this nearly intractible problem. The heart of the world's security problem in the 21st century is to be found in the Middle East. In particular, the Isreal-Palestinian conflict.

Can there be a solution? Of course there can. The process in theory is quite simple. The execution however is foundering on US imperial ambitions which have guaranteed a stalemate.

First, there are very intelligent, well reasoned political bodies in both Isreal and Palestine who seek a resolution. Political scientists have a name for them: MODERATES.

If the UN were allowed to do its work--if the US would let the UN do its work--the moderates of Isreal and Palestine could implement peace. Its that simple. But the US wishes to aide and abet the right wing extremists in Isreal. Which in turn fosters the right wing extremists in Palestine. And thus the war continues.

I strongly urge the readers of the Tyee to subsribe to the Gush Shalom website. There you will read about the Jewish Palestinian peace movement which would have solved this issue a long time ago. Without having to resort to finger pointing as to who is worse.

Women, children, families and people everywhere in Isreal and Palestine want peace, deserve peace. It just takes the support of Western Democracies.

nightbloom
You can't seriously expect anyone to take that post at face value. Should we reverse to Clermont-Ferrand and re-fight the Crusades?

I wish I had more time - your blinkered historical perspective is almost as irrational as Capitalism/Maybelle's in this case. I'm disappointed! A couple of nominally fair-minded references to the horrors of ‘all’ wars notwithstanding – are you sure you surrendered your commission?

This is the same kind of thinking that led the US commander at Guantanamo to declare at the weekend that the suicides of 3 prisoners there were acts of war and not a result of desperation.

For me it's a really basic issue that determines my primary sentiment and intellectual position on this war, which actually comes back around and has to do with the Canadian national interests, and the larger global interest outside of just the selfishness of the West, than merely as well Iraq or even the entire Middle East. If you are in somebody else's country with an invading army, and what are transparently "imperial motivations", whatever your bullshit propaganda claims, and especially if you border on my own country as well and are behaving aggressively and unfairly even to me and mine, you are the "primary enemy".

And coupled with that, of course, is my other position, recognized in international law, that every people and nation, be it Canada, Iraq, Iran, Palestine or the USA, has the right, nay the obligation, to resist by whatever means an "occupying foreign power."

And it is that practical position, more even than any other or particularly "moral" value per se that determines my own stance on the Middle East and the behaviours of the major Western imperial powers and their "puppet states" like Canada.

Even though there is a very important level on which Rafe is actually right and I much agree with him. And this is "technically" a rather good piece of writing by him-, in a often rather "inconsistent, limp dick" record of political writing by Rafe. My view.

We, as in The World, are living through another especially dangerous time primarily characterized by the rise of a very particularly dangerous brand of Conservatism in the West, that is really but another thinly veiled fascist/racist ideology, which serves as the "rationale base" to justify an Empire Assertion quest, or armed romp across the Middle East. Primarily, on the immediate surface of it of course, behind a smokescreening, hyperbole and propaganda concern about "democracy", it is really all about the theft of oil 'n stuff, but also the more complex issues and assertions of world domination. Amerikkka is also attempting to assert its special Super Power Rights against rivals it fears emerging in The East-, China primarily, but also what Russia might yet become, and even Iran. (In short, Amerikkka itself is really about precisely what it attempts to accuse others.) And the response to that Empire assertion and theft within the Middle East is not dissimilarly, a particularly militaristic and fundamentalist form of the local religious Islamist ideology, seeking to provide a "Resistance Rationale" to the local inhabitants.

But in such as the complex chain of cause and inevitable effect, as this has unfolded in the Middle East, there is always a "primary or initiating cause", and that is and can only be the outside interferences, schemes, military interventions and occupations of The One against the other since the end of WW2. And I note that it is not any Middle East force occupying or having brought an invading army into any Western nation, nor transporting a population to supplant the population of an already existing Western country (say as is occurring in Palestine/so-called Israel.

So, a generally good article Rafe, with a number of good and useful points, but as you are sometimes wont, especially on this issue, overly simplistic and timid of assigning legitimate and reasonable blame. The old, and I suggest phony "objectivist journalistic" style typical of yourself and indeed the entire Western "journalism tradition", which is the part of the world and interest that really only benefits from it, of saying, "Both sides are wrong.", though it may be at some Ivory Tower level, is not really adequate here, nor is it practical to actually securing justice for the oppressed-, not anywhere, here or there.

Really Rafe, I think you are guilty of a kind of intellectual cowardice here. Never really admirable.

First of all, Rafe, it's 72 virgins. I've asked a few if it was the same 72 for everyone, but they don't think it's funny. Oddly enough, Israeliis bust a gut.

Second, Geezer65; don't go buying stock in the water as fuel idea: Remember the ghost dancers in the late 1800s, as the FNs danced for the return of the buffalo and their way of life? Well, this is the 21st century equivalent, and you'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of horse manure as the oil runs out. Who says we are any different? Gives a whole new meaning to the 'brotherhood of man' idea.

You heard the analogy here first.

As Kunstler writes in "the Long Emergency" (for another of his books, see http://thetyee.ca/Books/2006/06/12/Kunstler/ ), the U.S. has no experience fighting a war against a culture (and yes, there is a war, and militant Islam has declared it, to the last beating heart of the west), and doesn't know what to do. They are only used to fighting governments,

The book should be required reading for us all.

Alcibiades - I'm afraid I can't form any logical connection between my original post and your illogical response to it. You're not making sense to me. What do my comments have in common with that general's absurd remark, I wonder...?

Perhaps when you have a bit more time you'd like to connect the dots on your disjointed statements.

geezer65:

Look at the contributors to both - the US funds the lions share of either, despite the fact that neither does ANYTHING for the country.

Both are corrupt, inefficient organizations controlled by the third world countries.

The US contributes anywhere between 20-30% of the operating budget for each.

Beg to differ all you want....

A more thought provoking look at the real issues...and from the Catholic Left no less:

http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/fwis/
An update that unmasks the missing morality By Sister Joan Chittister, OSB (Order of Saint Benedict)

Jeffrey J.:

The UN is part of the problem. They are an absolutely useless organization. It is full of ideologues and political scientists who spend more time debating than taking action.

Part of the problem is the divide in the western world. One one side you have US, AUS and the UK - on the other you have France, Germany and the Netherlands.

In the middle you have Canada which leans from one side to the other depending on who's in charge.

The French and Germans and the Liberal Party of Canada are America haters. They have opposed everything the US has ever done. They don't believe that that the Middle East is a real threat - despite attacks and islamic rioting in each.

The world changed with 9/11. It showed us that that these people are willing and able to attack us on our own turf. This is not a group of people revolting against America and George Bush. They have attacked every non-islamic Western Country. Many believe they are in a holy war. Bush and Colon Powell (amoung others) decided that they would attack the terrorists before they could strike again. This has very little to do with oil in itself - the US is letting Venezuela and Bolivia naturualize their oil reserves and forfeit assets from corporations.

The best thing the world can do right now is take action. However, the socialists won't let us. We have injustices in Darfur, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and the middle east. Yet, socialists expose the evils of war and don't see the benefits.

U.N. Statistics as of the end of 2005.

This might interest you Capitalism. The U.S. is by far the richest U.N. member so why shouldn't it contribute the most? However it's another thing to get them to pay up.

Couldn't resist 'differ-begging all I want'

O.k., Capitalism, why don't you enlighten us by describing the benefits of the war in Darfur, Afghanistan, and elsewhere...

The French and Germans and the Liberal Party of Canada are America haters.

That's a pretty broad brush you paint w/Cap, I know you find nuanced debate difficult but it would be helpful if you could distinguish between the American people and it's government... never mind assigning the whole Liberal party, and two entire countries as American haters.

Oh, and like ripponfalls above I'm waiting to hear about all those benefits of war... you know, beyond the weapons manufacturers reaping millions.

That's not funny, Coyote--stealing all my ideas again.

Yeah, anybody can just say everybody's guilty. But at some times and in some places one side is usually just a bit more guilty than the other side.

Right on ripponfalls..

The American government has successfully talked other nations in trying to finish what the U.S. started. This was all done though the U.N.
Now our Canadian boys/girls are being grouped into a muslim hate scenario by being in Afghanistan.
That's thanks also to our gullible leaders.

Really - I think the U.S. not too long ago was a well-meaning nation for the most part...but since Bush and the Republican money machine it has taken a different road that is planet threatening.

There is, however, one glaring deficiency in Rafe's thesis: Seeing as how we all agree it's about oil, dummy, wouldn't it be possible to get up a theory that the West's obsession with oil and its meddling in the middle east to ensure a steady supply--regardless of who it supports etc--might just have pissed off Muslims enough to declare various jihads on them. And thus, wouldn't Rafe's thesis regarding moral equivalence therefore turn inward on itself and be the best evidence of its banality?--moral equivalence in journalism sometimes being the last refuge of a coward?

As Coyote suggests.

Truth, nightbloom, truth!
Your comment identified and agreed with Capitalism's post, these were your words:

To pretend that the West, led by an America which serves it's own self-interest without making a meaningful commitment to international governance (notice the rest of what Capitalism tries to spin in his post) especially since 1989 and more egregiously since 2000, is to pay no more service to truth than that General whose appalling words I referred to at the end of my remarks. To say nothing of the history of the Middle East throughout the whole (not just the last half) of the last century with respect to relativistic conclusions about who might have created the backward, bitter and hateful atmosphere in that region.

Capitalism's purblind attitude toward reality and history is no different from the normal nonsense he posts. From you, I expect something a little more honest and less programmatic…to wit, my response above.

Right to bear

Ah yes the “gentle people” you mean like the Haida or the Cowichen? You need to pay more attention to Native history, they had wars, slavery, trade, the whole gambit of human interactions, this myth promotion is as bad for them as the crap about them not being smart enough.

Nightbloom
Good post

Jefferies
The UN allowed to do it’s work? You mean like the oil for food program or how about the WMD inspection process? It’s only because of defectors and insiders that exposed hidden components in both the Iraqi & Iranian WMD programs that they had any success at all. Hans Blixes report to the Security council reported progress but also concerns about the Iraqis hiding stuff, even the Russians believed Saddam had not come clean. The last report just before the invasion was a complete about face, likely Blix was hoping to prevent the invasion by changing his tone, or he knew about the corruption in regards to the oil for food and was trying to protect the UN from being found out.

Rippionfalls
I was reading a story by a Arabic scholar that suggested that the term in Arabic being used for “virgins” actually meant at the time “raisins” in particular a white raisin, which was very rare and cherished for it’s sweet taste. Just imagine, some Arabs blows himself up, arrives in Arabic heavens to handed his 72 raisins, with Mohammad saying: “don’t eat them all at once, eternity is a long time…

Well China is the main benefiting party from the war in the Dafur, as they quietly go about supplying weapons to the government in exchange for oil.

Rafe
If it’s all about oil, why support Israeli that has approximately 3 operating wells? Why not just continue to support Saddam when he took over Kuwait? He would have happily supplied oil to the US and the enlarged Iraq would be in a better position to counter Iran. It would seem that there is more than just oil at play here.

As for North Korea, I can think of 1,000,000 reasons why they are reluctant to fight there (that is the approx size of the army) plus Seoul is in the range of a few thousand artillery guns, they could reduce the city to rubble in a day.

People also forget that the Palestinians never actually had a state in Gaza or the Westbank, they were part of Egypt and Jordan, and part of the Ottoman Empire prior to that (except for a brief period under the British). In fact Jordan is supposed to be the Palestinian state, since the majority of it’s population is Palestinian.

Don't be too caustic at the reference to perpetual virgins in the Muslim afterlife, the Christian one is not that much better. We have a 10 horned wild beast with seven heads and a hooker riding it's back, remember, and it is going to be chained up by a soldier with a sword sticking out of his mouth and then thrown in a pit for 1,000 years. During that time we are going to all live in a city a mile high, whose streets are paved with gold, singing in a chorus.

Colin
The oil for food project was meant to provide food for Iraqi families who would otherwise have been seriously malnourished or perhaps starved without it.

While it was abused from the oil/dollars side of the ledger, it is interesting to note how totally silent critics like you are as to how supremely successful it was in achieving its other objective.

Another example of selective dishonesty, I'd say.

It would also have been nice if the article had mentioned the fact that Omar Bakri Mohammad is no longer in the UK. He left England last summer, I believe it was, to fly to Jordan. Since then he has been denied permission to return to Great Britain.

Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. Everytime there is a natural disaster, Americans are the first to respond and provide the most.

Except Katrina...?

Which is to say, "ideologues" different than his own chosen "ideological horse". Really a spurious criticism, such as to expect from this wingnut ideologue.

And for which I apologize again, Truman. It would piss me off too. :-)

But what goes around, comes around, so doubtless you will get your revenge in due course, :-)

Though, it is pleasant that we are quite so agreed on many issues. Two persons cannot likely expect to be agreed upon everything, of course, but when it does occur, agreement is always more pleasant and preferable than disagreement. For sure, brother. :-)

ammonra,

And I indeed did get much amusement out of these comments of yours. And true they are.

To say nothing of the "virgin" birth mother of Jesus.

Religions generally are pretty damned fantasmagorical, and no less or bloody, Christianity.

My compliments on your insight into this very Catholic fantasy. 8-D LOL.

While it was abused from the oil/dollars side of the ledger, it is interesting to note how totally silent critics like you are as to how supremely successful it was in achieving its other objective.

Another example of selective dishonesty, I'd say.

Or Saddam could complied right away with the UN inspection teams and alleviated the suffering of his people and brought his country back into compliance. You don’t get it, the sanctions were the best thing that happened to Saddam, it gave him control over everything, he used access for food, medicine and health care as a way to reward or punish people. He then corrupted the people that were supposed to oversee the program and built palaces with the money meant for food.

Saddam didn’t give a Sh*t about his people. The US should have finished the job in 91 instead of stopping and letting Saddam’s henchman murder people while the rest of the world rotated on their thumbs watching.

Jack's:

Except Katrina...?

You are now an idiot. Imagine what would happen if East Vancouver was flooded and the downtown destroyed.

Americans donated tens of billions of dollars to the relief effort. The US government introduced $200 billion spending bills.

I have personally been down to the gulf coast a number of times since Katrina and find that comment insulting. The carnage down there is unbelievable. There aren't enough people to do all the work. They have brought in 100K migrant workers to deal with labour shortages.

Corporations, citizens and the government are all chipping in.

Colin - well put!

Truth, Alcibiades...?

Are you trying to tell us you've undergone some sort of midlife re-conversion, my holier-than-thou friend?

I explicitly acknowledged the exploitative self-interest motivating Anglo-American policy. Not sure how you missed that.

But believe it or not, Anglo-American policy is a transient factor in the Middle East's problems...and its problems are only just starting if it doesn't start following the Egyptians and the Turks in their modernization process (including the enlightened secularization of their public sphere and the cultivation of full-spectrum manufacturing, service and information economies). The problems of Arab society have been brewing for the past 1500 years...Sorry to break it to you, but it ain't awl Georgie's and Tony's fault.

I correctly held up the periphal European nations, the perennial "losers" of the 19th and 20th century imperial combustions, as examples of successful and rapid re-bound & adaptation. These peripheries were devastated by famine, war, mass relocations and genocides. Eastern Europe has experience a level of barbarity over the past three generations that is unprecedented in all of human history. This is the historical record.

The world has left the Middle East behind. All that remains is for Arab society and culture to come to terms with that fact. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now will to nothing to advance that goal. We have to deal with the situation as it now is.

The current insurgency in Iraq has nothing to do with national self-determination as we've come to understand the term from our own cultural "memory" of the emergence of our nation-states and our wars for national liberation. The insurgency is about preserving a violent, backward and unaccountable power-structure that keeps Arabs in social, ideological, economic and spiritual bondage by leveraging the one natural resource in the region to finance its despotism. That fact that European, American and Canadian-raised young people from this cultural background are buying into and regressing into this same atavism only reinforces my point. Oil (the 20 years or so that are left under those sands) is the catalyst, but this is about Modernity.

In other words, George Bush (or rather those doing his thinking for him) may have f***ked up, but they didn't cause the problem. Nor will they be able to solve it - But our society is nevertheless engaged with the problem now in a way that it hasn't been since Alexander set up his court in Babylon.

We've entered a new and uncharted era, the blinkered calls for unilateral withdrawal at this point in the nasty game or recipes for further disaster and inhumanity.

...are recipes for further disaster and inhumanity.

This thread runs parallel to the recent Talking to Lost Boys of Bountiful story, again it points out the evil hold that religions have over people.

As I stated in the Bountiful story, no child up to the age of 18 should have a religion imposed upon them they are being brain washed.

Maybe its just me but I'm not posting to clap Rafe Mair on the back. His first few paragraphs where he explosively reveals that the war is about oil is about as fresh as a 3 month old's diaper.

Now I'm sure for some, progressive conservative-types or whatnot this may come as mind-blowing. And maybe if they're really genuine it'll come with some guilt for harranguing those "commie pinkos" who dared point out what is now truly obvious to everyone.

Unfortuntaely not such comments for Rafe, so no "well said" here.

As for the other words of wisdom from a seasoned journalist... pretty weak. If his oil comments were emphasizing the "progressive" part of P.C. then his muslim ones must do the reverse. Not that I disagree the world has plenty of religious nuts, jewish, christian and especially muslim - political correctness be damned, but what is Rafe's point? From a realistic point of view the soft "small l" liberal perspective is more accurate. Not to mention that its strategically superior. Backing a minority group into a corner isn't smart, especially when there are obvious routes to take out of that corner (like blowing up buildings and killing people). Not to mention the shaky moral foundation which he stands on, defending Judaism and Christianity as beacons of peace.

Would Rafe Mair approve instead of nightly lambasting of the muslim populations of the world? Maybe we can print some Mohammed cartoons in prominent places to remind them of their inherent violent nature which will only be confirmed by their reactions....

The truth is simple, winning a war is about winning "hearts and minds" a dictum that preceeds Colin Powell by at least a couple millenia. Let's not give our potential friends an excuse to be our enemies.

Isn't this what we're supposed to be in Afghanistan for?

During the Taliban's rule of Afg. in the 1990s it significantly reduced drug trade and tribal wars - then the U.S. declared war on the Taliban. Was that action taken only to find bin Ladin?

That is terrific! Firstly, I am not sure that the latter is true. However, even if it were - does that give them the right to harbour and provide funding to terrorists - who in turn fly planes into New York City?

The Taliban evoked fear into its citizens and enforced some of the most archiac and oppresive laws in the modern world. The number of murders increased dramatically.

The Taliban declared war on America.

Jack's - lets not be foolish here. If you don't believe in war and you believe that we shouldn't interfere in the problems of other countries - fine.

If you believe that this war had everything to do with oil - you wouldn't be the only one.

I only ask two things - (1) stop pretending you care about humanity and (2) don't defend the acts of the Taliban and other terrorist groups.

Another dictum is when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds follow.

Which pretty well sums up what the U.S. is doing to us in NAFTA

Woody - I find your outlook on the nature of religion to be naive and misguided. If you haven't read your Kant, your Hegel or your Jung, then Golding delivers a novelized encapsulation of the sample principle.

It's in us.

It's a reflection of human nature - the devilishly evil and the sublimely good. Your policy - totally impossible to implement without absolute state Totalitarianism - would only create a dangerous vaccuum in society and within the individual child's mind. Your policy would force every child to relive an internalized Lord of the Flies experience as part of their personal development, a harmful and unnecessary diversion that could end up hijacking their lives.

Yes, nightbloom we can agree that human nature is convoluted! OK?
That woody (and i) try to make a simple argument about manipulation of people, does not make us naive, sorry!
Certainly you can fill columns about the complexity, if that is your kick!
I for one try to boil things down to the bare essentials. Get to the point of it,instead of weaving a long story about history, that we all know.
And just like the Bountiful crazies, these other religons are not far behind.
it takes indoctrination to manipulate a young kid to strap a suicide bomb on his back.
That indoctrination comes from religion!
If you go back in history you will see practically every country engaging in religious wars (to convert the heathens).
By now, most people in Europe have had enough of bloodshed whatever the cause, and at least try to allow others their opinions.
Maybe given a few centuries even the middle east will get to that point?
Sorry to imply that they are backward, you draw your own conclusions on that one!

"Corporations, ... and the government are all cheapping in." would certainly be far and away more accurate. Take you figures, even assuming they are true, which I do not, and compare them to the cost of US Empire corproate and government contributions to foreign invasion, death and destruction in, ohhh, pick a country, say Iraq. (Though there are many other choices one could make re this gang of thieves.)

Which will put a new perspective, if nothing else, on your bs claims re corporate and US State contributions to Katrina. It will pale them.

You have about the depth of a saucer of water, mindfuk Capitalism.

..

Maybe those who are wondering might want to check this site out.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html

Or this one might even be better.

http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

The entire conflict in fact has a history that way precedes 9/11, and goes back to the artificial creation of the Zionist Israeli State. It has been given a new impetus and raison d'etre however with the arrival of "peak oil" and the evolution of oil withdrawals, as well as a price and supply threat induced state of panic within the US Empire.

9/11 was but the pretext, whether it had a certain limited legitimacy or not (justifying perhaps an invasion of Saudi Arabia from which all the 9/11 Jihadis actually came-, not Iraq or Afghanistan)-, and it is not even then a certainty that 9/11 was all it appears to be either. It's going to take future history to look back and judge this more accurately and objectively, I suspect.

It is still too difficult right now to get the "objective" and unvarnished truth about it, from here within the eye of thestll raging War Storm-, given that truth tends to be the first victim of it, swept up and taken out to the garbage with all the bodies of the innocents.

About all we can say with certainty about these events, starting with Afghanistan at least, is that it has more to do with oil and "US Empire control ambitions" than any nicities about "democracy" or even a US response to 9/11. Like I said, this latter being more a "convenient pretext" which lent itself to already pre-existing US imperial ambition in the Middle East.

And that begins with the collapsing British Empire hold on Palestine at the end of WW2, the rise of the US Empire already out of those ashes, and this latters encouragement and use, again of convenience, of the European Jewish diaspora traumatized by the Nazi Holocaust. Using European Jewry to displace the Palestinian people from their homeland-, and thus driving a divisive and weakening wedge into the heartland of the Arab world- upon which territory The European War had itself been much fought as well.

The rest is history, much of it come down to us in the form of Yankee/Euro bullshit to justify the interventions of US imperialism and the developing war on the Arab peoples. The latter being quite naturally emotional, and in their own particular way, fundamentalist about it. As America and "maybe" we would be, were the circumstances reversed, and our nations under threat and the bootheel of invasion and foreign occupation. (But then maybe, we just might not give a shit, and choose to submit, as is our way. Ya think?)

And from Colin, Capitalism and the rest of the Neocon crew dahlings, little else but reams and reams of apologetics for the US Empire, but acting to wipe The Empire's ass like the toilet paper they are.

Rafe was at least more skillful in his effort to achieve, basically I think, the same end; disarming anybody from actually drawing any value judgement conclusion about what is going on in the Middle East, which serves only whom, of course?

Why only the US Empire. Surprise, surprise!

Nice try, Rafe. You can be a quite skilled, and I'm sure a useful "propagandist", with that affected aire of ingenuous objectivity.

Excellent posts by nightbloom

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars need to be separated as they are about 2 completely different things with a common thread, religion.

The first gulf war was more about protecting the Saudi’s oil supply from a possible invasion by Saddam. Since the Saudi’s did not have a functional military and could not protect themselves, they brought in the American’s to save their ass. The Saudi’s reportedly paid the Americans $50 billion to do so.

Removing Saddam was more about removing a possible problem to American interests in Saudi Arabia. The Iraq wars had little to do with Iraq and more to do with Saudi Arabia and revenge. Removing Saddam allowed the Americans to remove troops that were set up in Saudi Arabia since the first gulf war. Muslims don’t take to kindly to having westerns occupying the Holy lands and the Americans sure weren’t going to let the Saudi oil fields sit there unprotected with Saddam next door.

It's hilarious that some of you think Bush or the recent shift to conservatism in the West has anything to do with terrorism. The root causes are much deeper than that.

The whole idea of the west and what the west stands for is the problem to fundamental Muslims, not any particular political ideology. The ideology of democracy is enough for them. Terrorists hate Jack Layton as much as they hate Stephen Harper.

I hate to use these terms due to over abuse, but fundamental Muslims really do hate freedom. So either we can stand back and watch Muslims brainwash another generation of kids (Like what was going on in Saudi Arabia in the 60's and 70's. Those kids are now the leaders of the fundamental terrorist movement) Or we educate the children of these countries, giving them the power to make their own decisions and choose their own way in life. Educating and empowering the people is the only way to stop terrorism, something I doubt will happen in any of our lifetimes.

The ironic part of it all is Saudi Arabia gets a free pass when they are the ones most responsible for terrorism and the wars in the middle east. Iraq is about oil, Afghanistan is not. That should be obvious by now as the Americans gave up on Afghanistan.

To Murdock ... I did support the invasion of Iraq but not as a knee jerk reaction which is what most opposed did ... I tried to find someone whom I had confidence in. I thought Colin Powell was one and that Tony Blair, with so much to lose politically if he was wrong, was another. I was wrong. Neither of these men were telling the whole truth. When that became apparent, instead of simply changing tack and talking about regime change and what a wonderful thing it was that we were rid of Saddam Hussein, or other after the fact reassons, I admitted that I was wrong.
Isn't that what you're supposed to do if you're wrong? The easy way is to simply oppose everything the US ever does. That way if they turn out to be wrong you win; if they turn out to be right you also win because all the automatic anti Americans will support you. I try very hard to look at all sides of the issue and give an opinion. Quite often I'm wrong. When I am I admit it.

R

Maybe check this out.

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Or this one.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171438

There is a need for real beef on your declaratory claims, mein Fuhrer Kapitalism, otherwise they mean nothing. They are just ever bigger and bigger Goebbelesque fascist lies.

Yea. That was my own personal observation as well.

Though you are right as well-, once in awhile. :-)

Another unsubstantiated "declaratory" statement. Let's see the evidence for your claim, and I will present at least, I'm damned sure, as much contrary Muslim opinion regarding so-called "democracy" and generally "liberal" values.

Nightbloom is just so much "convoluted" and "religious fantasy" Catholic thinking on virtually every subject raised here. He is an apparently "sinful" homosexual Roman Catholic, condemned by Rome, but nonetheless who seeks to secures his salvation from said "mortal sin" affliction by spending all his time on his knees here, lighting the candle of his convoluted Catholicism.

Hell Jimbo, the Middle East and all it stands for, even much transparent here from such as yourself and the Neocon braushirts, is as much a problem for the presumably "enlightened" Capitalist West, as your claim of them for us. If you can't see that, then you have your Peter Newman head,:-) and your ideology someplace where the sun never shines, as well does Nightbloom.

Do all Middle Easteners look the same to you as well?

Yes Rafe,

I just wanted to turn the 'knife blade' a little from your earlier position.

I was incredulous that you should have taken such a position, given the total lack of detail in the 'intelligence' and the lacklustre way the other ministers in Blair's government were 'supporting' him.

I said to you on the air before you left brand-x that the US would be looking for the 'exit strategy' and having to use both hands, a map, and a lot of friends before this was over...it is still not over.

The multi-faceted and lethal society that exists in the middle-east took many generations to come to the point that it is at now, I say that it will take many generations to come away from the situation that it is in. I opposed the US unilateral military action as the correct course must include many others from the region. Daddy Bush did it right in 1992 (which surprised the world as many thought the 'Coalition' tanks would roll right into Baghdad), he restrained the military option and allowed the people who lived there to resolve their situation themselves.

Did we really think that riding into the city on a tank and waving a flag was going to change the attitude of the average Iraqi overnight?

A social revolution is in the offering for the Muslim faith, the only ones whom can do it are those within that religion. By attacking them physically we can only drive them together for consolation and comfort, those among them that are ready to 'take action' will do so - this is something not completely unique to the Muslim faith, as martyrs are important to all faiths (Christ? is he not a martyr?). The difference here is in the minds of the faithful they can all be martyrs (even if no-one ever remembers their names after they are gone).

This conflict cannot be resolved by further infusion of blood, a warrior-king , or war-monkey president, will not lead the way out. The solution maker will be more along the lines of a merchant, someone whom can find common ground and have a future flourish from that ground. Continued waving of a sword in the collective face of the Musilms will only drive them to seek their own sword to wave back...

Since I think that a merchant will solve this better than a soldier, then I cannot choose either side, for now. Since both have had good merchants in the past, but are now pushing a military agenda.

Yeah, I luv you too Coyote.

Now you’re fantasizing about me down on my knees…in an earlier thread you speculated graphically about the relative tightness of my anal sphincter and the tight cut of my underwear briefs....What's a boy to make of it all--?

I mean really, Coyote, the last daddy to speak to nightbloom in such colourful language, it was 1996 and nightbloom was snorkeling on all fours in a dark basement off Ste-Catherine Street in Montreal.

Question: does Mrs. Coyote know anything about these recurring thoughts of yours…? Do you wear the leather chaps or does she…?

Capitalism I think you watch to much CNN. I was against war from the start. I am vary happy Canada had no part of it. To think i am anti American because i am against the war is stupid, most Americans are against it too. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/11848

Methinks you are the one fanticizing here, nightbloomers. 8-D LOL.

Sorry to disappoint you, but though I be "bent" in many wise, I am actually very "straight" in my sexual choices. You will just have to accept that at face value, as I accept your predilection. :-)

You really do need to come back to and stay on subject though. Which is your convoluted Catholic thinking, that survives all other manner of intellectual, developmental and moral contradictions, even those dictated on the "moral authority" of Rome, and Holy Mother the Church-, and thence destroys your credibility.

Were I actually a Roman Catholic and a homo-sexual, and I was convinced of the Church's authority on matters of faith and morality, it would certainly lead me nonetheless to question whether "The Church", wrong in this very important area of human being, really is irrevocably right on "ALL" other matters of "faith" and choice "diktats" as well.

You spend much time attacking the "convoluted" thinking of humanity in general, without really too much explanation of what you mean. It merely raises questions of how you rationalize your own obviously "convoluted" aspects.

And, from my own early days in the Catholic Church, it is one of my memories of the importance it placed upon "humility" for the "faithful". And yet, along with Jim, what stands out singularly about yourself here, especially regarding "lesser cultures" such as those of the Middle East, is your manifest arrogance and sense of superiority over all non-Catholic humanity and ideas systems.

It is just interesting is all. And I'm sure none here can escape it.

And your attempts to shift the focus, only makes more obvious your dilemma.

Well, what is Rafe right about? He's right about the U.S. being there for oil$$$$$. Any other reasons that have merit, are nothing more than convienient. Democracy, family values... from Bush and Co, its all getting very old.

Is Rafe right to say that the Muslim religion in general is violent? India is worried with nearly 300 million Muslims and growing. A lot of people are worried because the Muslim faith is quite complex and as such, like Christianity and Judaism, fall prey to cult leaders who use their doctrine to insight control of the masses and a bid for war. The death rites of passage that any Christian/Jew/Muslim/Zorastian/Hindu/Shaman/Taoist/Druid/Viking etc. knows is one that can be cunningly manipulated to incite violence in hands of what Rafe cites as "Holy men".

In truth, its not just the Muslim faith that is victim to such cult leaders, but any religion that uses analogies of weaponry and war that could be interpreted to be natural instead of spiritual in meaning and intent. Its about as transparent as the Jews stoning someone who sins as opposed to throwing the two stones Moses asks them to throw... you know, the two tablets containing the ten commandments.

Coyote, your points are excellent. Rafe good have gone much farther into the real reasons behind Bush's war. The FACT that Chaney had 14 million Haliburton shares issued to him in his stint as CEO and was worth 9 dollars a share in 2002 to a whopping 85 plus dollars a Haliburton share today should tell anyone that Chaney became a BILLIONAIRE on their own hand picked war! And BUSH DID EVEN BETTER!
Hey, dummies!!!! Wake up!!! ITs about the money$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!! All else is mere excuse or convenience.

Two more dead Canadian soldiers today. Thanks, shrub (Harper), for sending our troops into harms way over $$$$$$$.

.

ahhh..the self-serving charm of the confessional...to cleanse, to absolve, and to bless...and to conveniently allow one to continue on your merry, ruthless way despite the naughty revelations...(Sunday's sinner is thus enabled to start the whole murderous charade again on Monday).

This is about oil and much more...the real fear of these imperialist bullies is of a truly level playing field, that could oppose them both economically and militarily as they set about re-making the East in the image of the PNAC West...and yeah, this is also about the terrorism that blooms from that...both in the East and in the West...and just because some people are just now getting "it", the oil and power connection, that is...it doesn't make the crime less so...nor does it make the way they once applauded the war, any more redeemable...nor their sudden epiphany anything more than an oh-so-convenient absolution.

Basically, I'm tired of this old line, this speaking out after the fact....after all the damage has been done. Within this province, within this world.

Arundhati Roy on Iraq:

"I'm no military historian, but when was the last time a war was fought like this?

After using the "good offices" of UN diplomacy (economic sanctions and weapons inspections) to ensure that Iraq was brought to its knees, its people starved, half a million children dead, its infrastructure severely damaged, after making sure that most of its weapons had been destroyed, in an act of cowardice that must surely be unrivalled in history, the "Coalition of the Willing" (better known as the Coalition of the Bullied and Bought) - sent in an invading army!

Operation Iraqi Freedom? I don't think so. It was more like Operation Let's Run a Race, but First Let Me Break Your Knees."

From Wounded Knee to Break your Knees...

I don't know what you're on about, Coyote.

I simply provided a sample of anti-war journalism from the progressive Christian Left, which The Tyee and the rest of the liberal-Left secular nihilist bunch still refuse to acknowledge.

And I've already been pretty explicit in articulating the fact that I am neither a practicing Roman Catholic (haven't been for years) nor a "true believer". Dunno why you're still confused on that point. But whatevah.

Your comments still betray a peculiar and consistent preoccupation with my anatomy and undergarments, tho. I think you're sweet on nightbloom & just don"t wanna say :-PPP

Teasing! Geez!

Rafe: I liked it (in terms of what was there, not the acutal message itself as this kind of truth is a pure turnoff). I thought that you went much farther than most journalists in terms of what you had to say. But rarely are there perfect pieces out there.

And... the ones that have it all in terms of connecting the dots with actual names of major shareholders of which corps and banks that are behind this war... risk getting snuffed or censored, one of the two. We can only go so far at times, but this whitehouse is by far and away, the most corrupt whitehouse I believe we've seen yet and its puppets are more of the same.

Lynn:
I was just thinking of you. Just thinking of the one in few from the many thats in the know. :-) Hope your day is going well otherwise. :-)

Colin said: [Right to bear

Ah yes the “gentle people” you mean like the Haida or the Cowichen? You need to pay more attention to Native history, they had wars, slavery, trade, the whole gambit of human interactions, this myth promotion is as bad for them as the crap about them not being smart enough.
QUOTE]

Good point Colin. They are a tough people, and I never meant to suggest otherwise. I guess what I meant by "gentle" is gentle to the Earth and one another. I would suggest it would have been better to have stated the latter more clearly.

"...wars, slavery, trade..." as you say, I think summed up the obvious of most societies in the world, of which the FN's is not exempt, but they still, imo, have always had a uniquely harmonious relationship with the land.

Anyways, the point to my commenting was Euoropeans, of which many of us are decendents of, claimed to attempt to "tame the savages" and set their paths straight. Possibly, due to their own indoctrinations, they may very well have been earnest in these attempts, but as it still is today, land ownership was their main objective. Not so different in some respects to the "fixing" up of other countries and the promotion of democracy "for" them. Oh yeah while we are at it, and because we deserve it, lets take control of their Oil resourses. We will just consider this, how shall I say... "payment".

You know Colin, when I buy a street person a meal, I do not expect to be reimbursed. I do it without consideration, as it is simply the right thing to do. To consider any payment, would be an insult to this act in the highest order. Why do the "have" countries need anything at all from the "have not" countries. Helping these people be safe perhaps might be the only legit motive to be in their country at all.

I think too we need to address Democracy or lack there of in our own country perhaps even first. I think we may then come from a stronger base to help others that way...

Anyways, thanks for your comments...RTB

Alcibiades said:

"The oil for food project was meant to provide food for Iraqi families who would otherwise have been seriously malnourished or perhaps starved without it".

I appeciate and agree with you on this post. I also feel that simply because "they" ("have" countries) could feed the Iraqi families,...would be enough to suggest to me that "they" should feed these people. I suggest that NO payment(oil) is required from these desperate people ever...

Idealistic perhaps...RTB

Perhaps they are prepared to commit such desparate acts because their masters don't have nuclear weapons to defend their countries.

I think 72 virgins would sound better to a kid going through puberty than starving to death or an extended stay in the American version of Abu Graib.

When I was a teenager I know what I would have picked.

nightbloom says
(would only create a dangerous vaccuum in society)
My blessed nightbloom , and vacuum is exactly what you zealot types have between your ears, how can you possibly see the light when its obvious the blinders of religion have been placed over your misguided eyes, you’re a classic example of the religious brain dead.

The brain says
(Two more dead Canadian soldiers today. Thanks, shrub (Harper), for sending our troops into harms way over $$$$$$$.)
Get it right will you brainless, it was Crapchen and his Liberals who put our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Good point Brain-2 more Canadians

Interesting article Rafe. In general I agree with you but I think you miss some very important points, and given that I live in a country that is apparently extremely liberal, going to hell in a handcart and is breeding terrorists around every mosque (at least that seem to be what I get from the print media and TV, I feel that I must raise them.

1. I believe that Iraq is about power, controling a central place in a vital-oil rich region before someone else does. From the American perspective, who cares how the Americans do it as long as they look good internally. The issue is China, Russia and anyone else who might get in their minds to exert influence.

2. Terrorists??? Terrorism is not new, Ireland, Palestine/Isreal etc. have all seen it for decades and the terrorists are either evil misfits or freedom fighting heros depending on the situation (not on what they do-hey I'm not defending terrorism). The third type of course are your garden variety thugs that take over in a situation of chaos. In Iraq, even though it was an advanced secular nation, even under a totalitarian despot hated and feared by many of his people, I wonder who is left that is capable of running a government in any different fashion as capable intelligent people would have left long ago?

3. Afganistan. I believe that we were there as a misunderstood peacekeeping mission. I believe we are there now for nation building as our current leaders viewed the world in the same way as "capitalism" (ie. if the US does it, it must be good). We are in a war between groups, none of which would qualify as being in any way humane and all of whom want Canadians there for target practice and maybe to pick off some members of the other side. In this situation, Canadian should clearly get out or else be willing to take over (I know, incredible idea but there is no peace to keep, no natrion to build so get out).

4. Religion. back to my preamble and point #1. I see no difference in talking to fundamentalist Muslem arabs in the middle east and fundamentalist christians in the US and the rhetoric of the leaders (especially Bush) is the same. You can justify anything if you and your followers believe that you have God on your side, that you have absolute right in your pocket and your views (and the views of your followers) are being threated by someone or the world (listen to how Americans describe Canada today-terrorists hiding out all over the place!).

Cut through the Crap!!, Listen to all you can be it CBC, ABC, Al Jaseira or even the Straits Times from Singapore.
Freedom and Democracy? It is very valuable and rare, we are losing it here in Canada and the US- this is what we should really be worrying about as these wars are definitely not about it anywhere else.

To tell the truth, nightbloom, I was more shocked by the fact you actually seemed to be agreeing with Capitalism/Maybelle about the role of the US as a non-critical and consistent supporter of international governance and general goodness - thus my remarks tended to look at the period since 1989 during which time, if it had actually wanted to, the US could have taken the lead in furthering constructive international relations and spending the so-called Peace Bonus on such projects. It didn't; to everyone's loss, in my opinion. My remarks about the narrow-mindedness of the West's program for dealing with affairs in the middle east since the beginning of the 20th century stand.

Colin:
So What! Saddam was what he was. He could have been dealt with as was Libya and Gaddafi – and the world would not be in as big a mess as it is today. Under such a program even Afghanistan arguably would not be – had the US commitments to its reconstruction and rebuilding been kept – the killing ground it is becoming today.

Venal and evil though Saddam was, what is happening there now – and what has happened to the moral stature of the United States (and is quickly now happening to Canada as well) and its discredited men of arms – is far worse.

Alcibiades- eloquently stated

and sadly true

Capitalism:

I don't know where you got that. The Guardian had a long series of how the US was working WITH the Taliban even after the destruction of the Bamiyan statues, trying to get an oil pipeline from the Caspian to the Gulf for Unocal. It was only when OBL became so bold as to market himself to the world from the heartland of Afghanistan and attracted some 12,000 foreign fighters (whom the Taliban bitterly resented) that the US finally called off its negotiations, right about the time that some Christian aid workers were imprisoned.

The NY Times also reports how the Taliban were looked on with favour by the Secretary of State for stopping the flow of drugs. As an Afghan friend of mine did say about the Taliban, if you were a peace-loving, Koranic-law-abiding man, you could walk down any street in Afghanistan in perfect safety under the Taliban. Of course, if you were a woman...

Life somehow becomes so much more real when you don't view it through the cheap twisted plastic of the Canwest Global lens.

Well put Rafe,
You have simply said what I believe many think but are to busy being PC to come out and say.
I seriously doubt the dumbest kid in grade 3 believes that Bush and Blair are anwhere to push a democracy agenda. Clearly this is much much more. As for the plight of women in Muslim countries again I dont think the Brits and Yanks have any conceren in this regard.
I get tired hearing commentators repeat the standard PC line that of course most Muslims do not support terrorism. Let the Muslim leaders tell us what they think. They can then be assesed by the words they speak and the ones they remain silent on. NO religion is without its fanatics to be fair. IN times gone by Catholics supported Nazis and fascists. Particularly when it came to the anhilation of the Jews. Prior to that Eurpeans commited a genocide here in NOrth American unparaleeled in history on the Heathen savages. Much of it in the name or at least under the guise of religion. European countries meddled in the Middle east creating much of the discord that exists to this very day. The state of Isreal was forced on this area. Monarchist governments were created in the region. NOw Isreal exists as a thug in the area murdering and killing untold thousands. Supported by Christian based regimes and leaders. A long ways from these same people who once hated the Jews as killers of Christ. And today we play clean up.

Capitalism..

I apologise for my Katrina example post which was a knee-jerk from reading your statement about American's being the most generous in time of disaster.
This is utter BS. Many/most (definitely Canada) nations are very generous in time of disaster and no less generous than the U.S. It boils down to capacity - meaning the U.S. has the capacity to give more!!

Woody, you're a nutbar. Read my last post to Coyote, or any one of my many discussions on the subject.

This has been a recurring problem here - any moderate secularist who breathes even a word of balanced argument about organized religion is immediately and rabidly identified by the Nihilist Fundamentalists on the thread as a "zealot". This has been the consistent, unthinking pattern here ever since I was equated with the murderous al Quaeda fanatics last year while trying to defend Santa Claus.

Good grief.

....and give more, they do.

I spend a fair bit of time in America and I think you underestimate their compassion and generosity. You may not agree with their vision, bias, or overwhelming sense of pride - however, these guys give, give and give more.

Mr. Capitalism, you are wrong - as a percentage of GDP, the USA is at the bottom of how much they give to the rest of the world. As a percentage of their GDP that they supply arms to kill fellow humans to the rest of the world, they are at the top of the list.

The problems with "picking sides" are rife and so easily demonstrated to anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge I will not bother to go into.

And the idea expounded by Rafe Mair that one religion is better than the other is pure balderdash if you just look at the history through the centuries of almost all religions.

Now-a-days good evangelicals can still teach thier children how to kill with video games beside the Bible or Koran et al:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/06/07/notes060706.DTL

bowenmark
Thanks for that. Capitalism/Maybelle is a bit of a joke. Much of the time he's crowing about spending in the US - from which he gains his 'deep insight' into their culture and economy - well, he spends much of that time (by his own prideful admission) at the gambling houses of Las Vegas in a (again by his own admission) state of advanced inebriation he refers to as being 'shit-faced'.

I can point you to the quotes, if you should be fascinated by such arcane material.

Coyote..
Read your reference..

My post..

Quote:
During the Taliban's rule of Afg. in the 1990s it significantly reduced drug trade and tribal wars

Capitalism..

I got that information from a (U.S.) Encarta encyclopia

I read that Afghanistan has been a training ground for mercenary organizations from a number of countries and, I'm only guessing, probably from the U.S. as well.

The Timothy McVies are always going to be here but in the muslim world the bomber doesn't give a damn about his/her life as a result.

nightbloom,

Well, that helps clear up that glaring contradiction from yourself. Now, all you have to do to more fully redeem yourself, being as you are no longer a Catholic walking contradicition, is actually stop defending it and The Vatican view of the world.

Now, you just need to spend some time breaking away from your dependancy on the Universal Mother Church ideologically-, and which will give you an entire new lens through which to look at the world and its peoples. Been there. I guarantee it. :-)

That would actually go a much further ways towards clearing up certainly my misconceptions/misunderstanding of yourself, and possibly that of others as well.

Might even wash all that starch of rightist/ status quo conventionality out of your shorts.:-)

Goddamn! Ain't that the bloody truth, Lynn. It's the problem with the world and our bloody, and I do mean bloody, society/socio-economic order. I've been around a long time now, as have numbers of others here, having witnessed the demise of two empires (British and Soviet)and the still lingering, thrashing about demise of a third (USA), which keeps us all going back and back over, then back over again the same old "stuff".

A Big Lie, an aggressive criminal social and economic order, once it gets its roots into the ground and people's consciousness, is like trying to clear a field of goddamn cooch grass. (And believe me, that is troublesome AND persistant defined.)

It does become wearisome, but it also has to be done. There will be no peace, other than for relatively brief respites, until this aggressive capitalism period and the imperialism to which it gives rise is finally consigned to ancient history.

And assuming we can do better of course, with the creation of a more egalitarian and democratic socio-economic order to replace it. Otherwise, there you will go again-, until humans do finally get it right-, and presuming extinction does not catch up with them first, of which there is no clear guarantee either, I suspect.

Now, I 've got a really sick woman here on my hands, to tend to. And they talk of men being "needy" when they are sick!

A good day to you all. Maybe later.

Jack's,

There is actually, in my read and understanding of the evidence, some considerable grounds indicating that this Taliban claim of having completely rooted out opium production under their regime, did not in fact "quite" occur. Even the US State Department and CIA do acknowledge, however, that the Taliban did succeed in quite serious "reducing it", but not entirely.

The best info in this regard that I have been able to come across is the following link. Scroll down to Opium Trade. Though the entire piece is a worthwhile read, with many links within it. (I would appreciate contrary indications being posted.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

Though no doubt, life, including for women, was in many regards "safer" under the Taliban and "relatively" free of open criminality, pre and post Taliban, but that they actually succeeded at entirely rooting out opium production is not entirely clear, at least to me. Though it is clear that they were working to do so, in the views and evidence I have of it.

What is crystal clear now however, following the US Empire intervention into Afghanistan, is that full blown opium production has resumed, likely even on a larger scale, under the re-established rule of the Northern Alliance Warlords, with whom the US led coalition has allied itself. And upon which while this imperialist intervention whines about their powerlessness to curtail opium production, they have generally turned a blind eye and overall allowed, certainly effectively tolerated it. They talk the talk, but avoid the walk.

For the best evidence in this regard, read this posted source from The Guardian, a generally "reliable" source, in my view.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,,1699244,00.html

In summary, I think it is clear that the Taliban, for all else one may say against them, were actually moving to curtail, control, and perhaps actually root out nearly all opium production. (And some production of opium is more than likely always going to be needed, certainly a fact of life in my view, even for the simple production of probably the most effective extreme pain relief, and related products known to man and his medical science.)

However, what is again absolutely certain is, under US puppet administration , full blown criminal control of Afghan opium production and trade is again back firmly in place.

Serious error above...

Which should read, "Though no doubt, life, including for women, was in many regards "safer" under the Taliban and "relatively" free of open criminality, than it was or has been pre and post Taliban...

Nightgloom says,

Moderate secularist in other words you’re a fence rider, that’s not enough to get you through the pearly gates nightgloom,your doomed to hell fire and damnation on that line, don’t take my word for it consult with some Jeezas freak from your list of organized religions, then you’ll discover the meaning of balanced argument.
I guess you have never tried to discuss a point of view regarding religion with a JW , just look into their eyes , they all have that glazed over look as if they had their brains sucked out of their heads, but then religions prefer those that do not think for them selves, and not question, THE WORD OF GOD, or who ever the hell they think this non existent thing is.

Coyote - I can't draw any connection between your comments about and my own argument that the secular Left needs to be a little more tolerant of alternative belief-systems.

The Oppression/Salvation Narratives of the Left are a cheap knock-off that meets the test neither of rational scrutiny nor emotional/spiritual integrity (since its end-result of toxic nihilism and runaway consumerism). Its ultimately a giant placebo designed to do nothing more than identify & consolidate constituencies while ripping open all areas of private man to commercial and ideological exploitation.

Secular Liberals are in not more possession of absolute truth than progressive Christians, so constantly deriding the latters' belief-system is counter-productive. At least they've upheld a bulwark that has proven to be remarkably resistant potentially destructive ideologies and faddish egoism, and which has lasted longer and in more diverse forms than anything yet conceived.

Liberalism has to adapt itself to changing realities if it wants to implement its programme. Liberal statesmen who succeed with the electorate in the future are going to be those who have made that leap and have tapped believers of all creeds who have been orphaned by the rise of fundamentalism.

I've said this before, so I don't know why you insist on continually mischaracterizing my argument, or pretend like its the first time I've presented it to you (like you just did above, as though I've finally clarified an outstanding point).

I mean really, Coyote.

nightbloom,

I think your constant allying yourself, in fact, with the neo-conservtive view of the world may have a great deal to do with how many of us see you here. That, and you seem to simply be blissfully unaware of all your ideological convolusions and contradictions.

However, while all this about yourself is stark to many of us, and provokes our bringing it to your attention from time to time, it is really quite unimportant I agree. I mean, you, no more than Kapitalism, certainly do not wield much of an influence here, such that there is really a need to dwell on it.

Besides, like I say, you remain blissfully unaware through it all anyway. :-) And overly enamoured of yourself.

Rafe,
Perchance you may have read this link:

http://www.dorrk.com/content/default.asp?ed=20041203133472

if not, then I ask that you at least give it a glance.

The authors point to the 'two-sides' as a bit different than you give in your article here...

Okay, whatever Coyote.

To translate what you just said: you are ideologically opposed to my viewpoint.

That's the only putative "contradiction" here, which is fine by me. But spare me the rest of your silly conclusions.

Raif,that was agreat common sence down to earth artical and I just wish we had some politicians at all levels who would have the courage to step up to the plate and tell it the way it is.
Yes there are a majority of moslems that are innocent hard working individuals,but unfortunately we cannot always tell who they are.In the mean time are we supposed to just pretend that they are a not there and wait to get blown up?I DON'T THINK SO.The whole lot need to be profiled and issued with clearance cards.
I am a landed immigrant myself and have no time for this soft mamby pamby aproach that all the "bleeding hearts"seem to have to this problem.I am going to be really interested to see what the Feds do with this group that they have just arrested in Toronto.I would like to see a very,very speedy trial infront of a right wing judge[no jury] for attempted treason against Canada.This should be punishable by death and all their properties confiscated by the state.If an Imum[spelling?]is found guilty the mosque and all its trappings,land etc should also be seized.
There must be a zero tollerance with very heavy repercussions for this kind of crime.The death penalty needs to be reintroduced and soon.
In the mean time what is this all about?Yes I think this is about oil,but its more that that.Its about the rape and pillage of other countries by the west.
Its also about the US trying to hold onto its grip as being the base currency for global oil sales.I firmly believe that the rising tention between Iran and the US is all about the fact that Iran recently expressed its desire to sell its oil for Euro's instead of US$'s.Germany and Russia would also like this to happen.Frankly why should'nt any oil producing country have the right to to sell its comodities for what ever it want's in return.That's free trade!The US"s position on free trade is a sham.They don't want free trade unless its on their terms and to their advantage.[our soft wood lumber debacle is a good example].
I think the smart thing for Canada to do would be to start looking at being self sufficient,close down its immigration department[its broken anyway and the laughing stock of the world],perge our population of all the crap,includiong biker gangs and keep its nose out of other peoples countries and their affairs.This would apply in spades to the US.
Of course we won't do any of this because we are all too civilised.HA,Ha

And this is just nutty:

As if anyone posting on an anonymous internet blog expects to wield any influence by doing so...especially when they're called "coyote" or "nightbloom"!

And this is a liberal-Left blog, anyways, so I wouldn't post here if I wasn't ready to kick around some ideas as an "outsider" in the ideological milieu. You seem to be offended at the presence of dissenters on your turf, where you apparently feel you "wield influence".

Generally, I think my posts are well-received even when they're poo-poo'd through argument (which I don't have a problem with).

I don't know that there is so much sides to be picked as there is truths to be told.

And for those truths to be told, we need journalists, not to mention leaders who pay attention and who risk speaking out when there is a lot to lose by doing so, before the fact, not after it. Harsh but I don't think coddling mediocrity has been working.

More than anything now we need people from all walks of life to pay attention because right now the world is like a little kid about to put his finger in an electrical outlet...environmentally, politically, economically, we are at the brink....we have lost the luxury to equivocate endlessly....time is of the essence both in ensuring our ability to still act... and to act effectively enough that rescue even still remains a possibility.

Coyote...

Totally agree with your post above.

That is the essence of all my arguments here.

Why aren't all those other "walks of life" being engaged?

nightbloom:
I believe you were talking about the "vacuum" that would happen if no religion was here?
Such vacuum would only inflict those who have become accustumed to having that crutch in their lives!
Intelligent life does not need some age-old tale to help them know right from wrong!
Large sectors of society simply ignore religion in any form, and are doing quite well, thank you

Which puts it quite well, and succinctly so Gloomy. I doubt the Nightbloom will still get it though. He assumes that because he needs the crutch to fill the vacuum in his life, that we all do so similarly.

Wrong, of course.

Et nom du spiritus. Amen. :-)

You're like a bucket missing its bottom, Coyote - I can re-iterate, re-capitulate, and re-clarify 'tll I'm blue in the face....You're still gonna repeat the same mischaracterizations over & over again.

Gloomy: you still haven't answered the salient question of how policy needs to contain and redirect the religious impulse away from fundamentalism.

You've taken the easy way out, Woody. I've presented you with a reality that is neither white nor black, but shades of grey. I'm sorry if you find that disturbing. As I've said so often to Coyote-daddy, Alcibiades, Gwest, et al. the challenge for today's policy maker is to find ways to deflate the appeal of literalist fundamentalism while tapping progressive constituencies within religious communities.

As lynn said: "people from all walks of life"....that may require a few compromises on the part of ideological purists who can't abide any rival to the supremacy of their own nihilist ideology. The salvation narrative of the Left has proven to be no more salvific than the Western faith tradition, so get off the soap box & rejoin the rest of humanity.

nightbloom:
Not much point talking to you kid!
Once you learn to face life without that crutch, you will understand that nothing needs changing!
Life simply goes on as if religion merely was a passing fad.
Only the fanatics and those who have been manipulated to doubt themselves, seem to have any problems realizing that society goes on merrily with or without clergy!
Perhaps even you can see the humour in watching all those black-clad, bearded men banging their heads agains a wall?
Well son, that is how we laugh at you!

Coyote wrote:

And from Colin, Capitalism and the rest of the Neocon crew dahlings, little else but reams and reams of apologetics for the US Empire, but acting to wipe The Empire's ass like the toilet paper they are. If I am a Neocon, I guess that makes you a neo-liberal.

As ever you are the Sh*thouse poet! (as your references are almost as scatology based) I will be sure to use recycled TP

Jim
Besides the outstanding grievances between Kuwait and Iraqi, there was the minor issue of them demanding that Saddam repay his loans that financed the Iran-Iraq war, money that Saddam could not afford to pay without losing his grip on power. Being in power was what it was about for him and god help anyone in his way. I have to admit I wouldn’t be to sad if someone gave the house of Saudi a good thumping, along with their nutbar Imans. I however don’t think the rest of the Islamic world would be to pleased with Saddam controlling the gates of Medina and Mecca.

Murdock
Had the US and allies finished the job in GW1, then we would not have the mess we do now, Saddam would not have had a chance to prepare a defense, the AQ was not ready, most of the Iraqi infrastructure was still semi-functional. Thousands of Kurds and Shiites would not have been murdered by his henchman. Sorry the ‘wait and see” approach people here seem to love created the current mess. If the invasion did not happen, the sanction would have collapsed in a year and Saddam would be filling his bank accounts with French, Russian and Chinese oil money. He would then rearm and we would be back to him being a threat to everyone once again.

So Lynn, lets hear how you would have dealt with Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait…

Alcibiades

You normally have more sense than to say that the US and Canada is more evil than Saddam, truly mind bogglingly foolish delusions. Saddam’s hero was Stalin, just imagine how much more havoc he would have wrought if he had greater means.

Coyote
You are correct that the Taliban’s claims regarding the poppies were not very truthful, in fact I suspect they wiped any poppies they did not control or receive money from as they had no other form of hard currency generator to work with. I also agree that the Coalition should and can do more about controlling the poppies. But to keep things in perspective, there are 7,000 cops in Toronto alone, that’s twice as many soldiers as we have in Afghanistan, the real problem is everyone is trying to do the nation building on the cheap, remember all the money that was pledged? Most of it never arrived. The west needs to get serious about winning over there.

Colin
Where did I ever write that:

?

You normally have more sense than to say such a thing.

Coyote, I don't know why I bother, but re the following:

"There will be no peace, other than for relatively brief respites, until this aggressive capitalism period and the imperialism to which it gives rise is finally consigned to ancient history.

And assuming we can do better of course, with the creation of a more egalitarian and democratic socio-economic order to replace it. Otherwise, there you will go again-, until humans do finally get it right-, and presuming extinction does not catch up with them first, of which there is no clear guarantee either, I suspect."

Have I got some bad news for you. There wasn't peace before it existed, and there won't be after it disappears, but don't worry, the last line is probably closer to the truth... No other species has survived forever... why should we be different?

I recall Ardrey's "The Hunting Hypothesis" without being able to quote it, because it's been a while since I read it, but it was somewhere along the lines of us being the descendents of killer apes, so it should not surprise anyone that we have our mountains of skulls... it is from our songs that we are numbered among the stars...

Colin: it's hard to know just what happened in Afghanistan, because even in the best of times people do what they have to to survive. All the reports, including those of Robert Kaplan, indicate that poppy production was much lower under the Taliban than it is now... or was before.

I wouldn't want to speculate how this was accomplished... but I suspect that not a few eggs were broken to make that omlete.

I'm disapointed that no one disapprouve's Raif's stand on Islam as a religion on hatred.
Yes some Imams preach hatred but some Priests also preach hatred towards homosexuals for example. The KKK sometimes uses religion to justify racism. Just because some people have different interpretations of a religion it doesnt mean that their twisted interpretation should be representative of the religion itself.
The arab language can be very ambiguous and equivoqual. There's even a passage in the coran that states that equivoqual passages should not be taken literally. Some passages also contradict themselves. For example, one about "our brothers of the book" ie. our brothers the jews and christians. This is not a passage of hatred. On the contrary these populations were protected under the dhimmni and were not always prosecuted. When these populations did suffer it was a result of political interest of certain leaders at certain times. The hatred or violence towards jews and christians is not intrinsically part of the Coran or the Islamic faith. If some imams preach hatred it is due to their personal interpretation.
On the other hand another passage does call for jihad or "struggle" against the infidels. But most of this jihad is meant to be a defensive action not necessarily a offensive action.
Ever since the end of the ottoman empire, the muslims and the arabs had to defend their rights and territories against the west. It was england and france during the treaty of versaille that decided the borders of the middle east according to their interests. Before Oil.
England lied to the arabs by breaking the MacMahon-Hussein agreement in 1916 that promised an arabe nation in exchange for assistance in defeating the ottomans.
The Middle east is not doomed to war because of their faith, but because of their strategic postion. They have a lot of oil which is important to the west,and very little water with often corrupt political leaders who use the equivoqual coran to justify their actions.
I'm disapointed by Raif's ignorant and simplistic comments on the Islamic faith and most of your blind acceptance of his statements. A religion is not represented by its terrorists as Catholics are not represented by the extreme right of the USA. Besides, if you look carefully most terrorists are not from the middle east, but from the west, France, England, all over europe and north america too. They are a result of a social inacceptance. They did not ggrow up in a muslim society but in a western democratic society that led them to acts of violence.

What crutch is that, Gloomy?

Gloomy, I find this comment to be anti-Semitic. It is clear you are referring to Jewish Hassidim praying at the Western Wall.

It's unfortunate that anti-Semitism has once again become an acceptable form of expression on the liberal-Left in recent years. Of course, anti-Semitism on the Left has just a long a heritage as it does on the extreme Right....the only difference is that a Rightist anti-Semite is immediately pilloried, whereas a Leftist anti-Semite is praised and celebrated by his ideological compatriots.

You might find it humorous, but I find the undercurrent of the sentiments you've expressed to be quite ugly.

Colin:

nope, I totally dispute this assertion.
For the 3 years before the American GW2 The Clone of the Attack there were groups operating outside Iraq that were taking their cues from others that did the same thing within Serbia. They used their isolated position to work on the hearts and minds of their fellows still stuck inside that brutal regieme.

When the time was right there was a popular uprising in Belgrade, pushing out the nasty men.

What will happen here, in Iraq, is the 'dissidents' will fall back to other places and work on the supports within Iraq (likely there are many that have fled to Iran). From those places they will operate until the US is either completely weary and looking to retreat (then they will swarm them on the way out - can you recall the 'Tet Offensive'?) or the US declares a 'victory' and then bugs out in less than 6 hours. Once they are gone the functions of a muslim immam-led government will simply appear the next morning, at prayers.

Defense? What defence could anyone prepare for the US war machine once the 'Commander in Chief' decides to use it?

True, but then 10's of thousands more are now dead due to the unilateral US actions.

No way. Again this is impossible to prove and just as same impossible to say would not happen. See my earlier point above, action by ex-patriots from without Iraq could have pushed Saddam out (or more likely his sons, as there were none who wanted to see them in any positions of power). As for the crap about WMD, just imagine yourself as someone whom has been presented to the great Saddam as a scientist whom could learn to produce a nuke. For a few years you try, but then come to realize that the project is beyond your ability, but now it is too late - because the trap is shut. You have seen what happened to the guys who said they could do nerve gas, the ones who tried to build a better scud, the others whom said the wrong things to Uguday; not wanting to die in a nasty way you do what everyone else who is alive dies = you lie to Saddam, and cover-up your failures. This is where the 'intel' about WMD's was coming from - all the crazy lies flying around to protect the incapable scientists.

ya so what? now it is Rumsfeld and Haliburton that are taking those self-same profits. If balance sheet is what you are concerned about then the US has more blood on its hands for the oil in its pockets than Saddam ever would or could.

Again non-sequitur, there is no way to prove this either way. Sure he would have brutalized some more of his own 'citizens', I will agree with that. Threat to 'everyone'? No.

Saddam's Iraq could not even scare Iran, the only nation nearby that they were likely to attack with conventional land forces (that the US would not punish them for). Should Saddam have even looked like he was really re-arming or really trying to put together a nuke the Mossad would be more than capable of learning about it and Israel has already proved that they are ready, willing and able to do something about it. Their last actions to stop heavy water experiments were the correct level of response, the US unilateral actions since 9/11 have been insane.

nightbloomer:
what crutch he asks?
if you fail to follow the sub thread you caused, then there is no hope for you!
anti-semetic you say?
if you find it sensible that grown men spend their lives banging their heads against a wall, then maybe your head has been banged too often as well?
here we are talking about how society might evolve, surely that would include that people somehow make a contribution that pays for their upkeep.
and yes i include clergy in that group, in my eyes they are all parasites who manipulate people

Yeah, Okay Gloomy - thanx for showing your colours.

I doubt it even occurred to you that you are the one who has failed to follow the thread. No crutches here, my friend.

As for mass manipulation, the liberal-Left's profoundly untruthful, misleading and seductive Oppression/Salvation narratives take the cake on that score. Left ideologues have nothing over organized religions when it comes to manipulating populations or conducting inquisitions, purges and genocides. Setting aside Germany for a moment, the overwhelming sum of brutality inflicted en masse upon human populations was committed by the leaders and henchmen of the Left. This historical record in Eastern Europe, Russia, China and South East Asia doesn't lie.

Your condemnation of traditional organized religions in the West (which now tend overwhelmingly to be progressive, cosmopolitan, enlightened, self-retrained, and pro-democracy) is profoundly hypocritical....And that liberal-Left hypocrisy is one of the main reasons why the U.S. is in the grip of a well-orchestrated minority fundamentalist literalist backlash.

nightbloom
Oh come on nightbloom, that's nonsense and you know it. Stalin was a dictator, as was Mao. Neither of them is very different from Hitler and not very different from the arguably illegitimate government currently in power to the south of us with the complicity of a morally challenged military superstructure.

You're the one who’s so hung up on right/left distinctions that every single issue falls back into what you see as the only available explanatory dichotomy. It just ain't so. What were talking about - and almost always are - is the hold the powerful have over the powerless; exactly what the capitalist over-group in our current culture holds over the heads of the 80% of the population who are forced to do their bidding while being convinced they love it – and all the while pretending that it has something to do with real liberal democracy.

The strange thing is how you, an obviously intelligent being, can buy this story time and again so uncritically.

Rightbloom:
just for the record, i have stated repeatedly the ANY kind of manipulation is evil!
about organized religion: underwhelming is more like it! the only real effort these people make is to build more and more monuments/churches to impress their fading flock of followers!
Now, remember to ask forgiveness for all the bs you post here.

Gloomy, you are clearly an original and ground-breaking thinker.

Gwest -

You still haven't addressed the fundamental reality that this "over-group" (our elected leaders, you mean...?) do these things at our behest. We elect & re-elect them. I pose the dilemma to you again: why are liberal progressives and the moderate Left drowning in their inability to tap and mobilize an electorate that is clearly sympathetic with the bulk of their platform...? Why are they so incompetent? Why have they failed to take the initiative domestically and globally to forge a new political base for itself for a new era?

And "capitalist over-group"? I'm clearly hardly unique in induging in dichotomies here. I've aways consistently promoted the foundation of a new centrist middle-ground that sets aside the divisive red herrings that are now the unproductive and largely irrelevant (in terms of today's policies) remnants of the Culture Wars. You consistently overlook this fact - Alcibiades too has refused to engage me on this point. The Left needs to set aside its undermining and divisive Oppression Narratives and start engaging real people "from all walks of life".

nightbloom
Pardon me.

The over group is populated by those who hold capital and manipulate it; the fact that they use the media to keep power and that they also buy the politicians who run the party structure is no secret either. I can cite numerous examples if you’re suffering some form of memory loss. I have nothing against real capitalism and a modified market economy but that’s sure not what we have going today. How many corporate takeovers in the past 15 years can you name which actually involved a new product and an infusion of real capital and real risk-takers doing something productive in this country?

In fact, you're the one who constantly excoriates the left even though that's the only voice most ordinary citizens every hear making any critical noises about the way things have trended here in Canada since at least the beginning of the 80s. Furthermore, you and the other critics who constantly dump on progressives for a wide range of apparent evils always forget to note that the left has never had power in this country.

If things in Canada are screwed up, and I know you think they are as sincerely as I do, it is certainly not because the 'left' has screwed them up. Were in this mess because of the phony pipedream of consumer happiness that's been promoted by the Establishment. As for your 'oppression narrative'; a little less academic nonsense and a little more practical knowledge about the lives of real people wouldn't be out of place from professional critics like you too.

I don’t engage in your culture war dialogue because I think it is nonsense. The kind of stuff for academic common rooms and doctoral dissertations – interesting in retrospect as an artifact for future historians to write and talk about but about as useful as cold spit for those who want to create a better, fairer society, in my view.

At the risk of someone else having said this - which could apply to the U.S.'s (and now our) problems in the middle east....

The ordinary Afghan or Iraqi doesn't give a tinker's damn about democracy. All they want is peace in their own country - without occupying forces.

If you wish the Taliban eradicated then nations have to agree not to sell weapons to them.

I'll bet we would all be astonished at the "Allies" who are reaping profits from those sales!

You clearly need out of that ideological echo-chamber you've allowed yourself to become entrapped in.

There's a cacophony of dissent out there, Gwest. Open your ears.

The problem is that only a small sliver of it is "acceptable" to ideological purists. That's why the dissent remains largely unfocused and untapped. The Left has failed to adapt to the variety of ways in which people "from all walks of life" have become disenfranchised since its hey-day. Society and the world have moved on. It is the Left that is still stuck waging the Culture Wars to its own detriment, while the Right exploits the pickings (and very effectively).

Your sop response on the culture wars is meaningless and tangential to this discussion. Your dismissal of the post-war watershed we sum up as "the culture wars" is the reason why you can't grasp what I'm saying. Its not academic nonsense. It's an integral part of the social context in which we breathe and act as political creatures. But that's not where I said you & Alcibiades refuse to engage me. Read me again. Where you refuse to engage me is where I've pointed out that the Left has failed to mobilize the people "from all walks of life" because of its own internal ideological calcification.

Read me again. The levers of power and the media are firmly in the hands of a minority that is not at all interested in your facile discourse and is equally disinterested in reflecting the views of the majority either.

I think the left is the only party actually engaging in a debate about real fundamental change. The only thing calcified is the academic atmosphere you are so frustrated with and which, notwithstanding the facts, you still seem to feel has something meaningful to say about real radicalism and the real needs of real people.

Once again you blame the left for problems it neither created nor acquiesced in. The ivory tower has always been that way – sadly. I think you’re the one drinking the stale bathwater and refusing to engage in the real battles over what kind of a society our children will live in. Even your critical attitudes the other day toward the people of the Middle East – whom you seem prepared to relegate to the same dust-bin as everything else you cannot understand - in favour of what is and has been western colonial hegemony is difficult to understand, in my view.

The one thing we agree on - the need for reawakened values within modern culture -you’d be more than happy to leave in the hands of a religious hierarchy for which even a mildly supportive critic like me can find much positive to say. Certainly, I can’t agree with your statement above about religions which you say
"now tend overwhelmingly to be progressive, cosmopolitan, enlightened, self-retrained, and pro-democracy".

But then, lip service has always been disproportionately important in religious and military circles.

Nonsense. Open your ears. Is that why the Left has been so effective at the polls? Is that why the Left holds the White House? Is that why the Left occupies 24 Sussex and can soon reasonably expect to pack a majority into the House of Commons?

You're the one casting blame - blame on the military, blame on duly elected political leaders, and blame on a phantasmal capitalist "over-group" that somehow hatched it all while we weren't looking, and ultimately blame on the electorate which won't vote your way even when they're anti-war because the Left's whole approach to constituency-building, outreach and communication is totally inappropriate to new realities, and has failed to appeal.

Wrong. Your twisting an argument that I've made often enough, so you should know better.

You're simply wrong. Look at the surveys that have been produced regularly since the late '70s/earch 80s. They're progressive in massive numbers, and have been growing progressively moreso as the generation has turned over. Now you've got me doing the Left's homework...

Ah, and there's the rub - a fundamental and visceral hostility to traditional bulwarks within Western society. This is the latent patina inherent in Western liberalism in its current decadent phase: self-loathing.

I won't reiterate at length, but I've provided ample proof in these discussions that the real cutting-edge of effective dissent on the war and other major policy issue fo the day is to be found in precisely those sectors (bulwarks) you impugn: religious activism and military scholarship. These are the people who keep poll-conscious politicians and liability-conscious risk-averse generals up at night.

"From all walks of Life" indeed.

Yes Gloomy your correct,manipulate that is exactly what religions strive to attain.
Nightgloom, mull this over,1500-2000 years back, many people suffered from various foprms of psychosis be it , Bipolar, Manic depression, etc,etc, but unlike today there were no psychiatrist, psychologist available to diagnose those persons so afflicted, as were all well aware persons of intelligence,are not immune to these disorders.
Lets go back 2000-1500 years, a pillar of the community in the old world has one of the previous mention disorders , seeks isolation from his demons , goes off alone into the hills, mountains, looking for peace and solitude, while there, suffers from bouts of delusions and hallucinations, possibly documents his visions and conversations, goes back to his village tells the villagers he was visited and given instructions by God ,nobody is going to question him , how dare they, he’s now a prophet of God, his words became scripture.
These types of occurrence( visions of God) were not uncommon and accepted up until modern medicine arrived.
In all occurrences(visions) involved , only the one person seen or heard these visions, never were there witnesses. I noticed the comment from G West.

Take note that earlier in this thread my mention of intelligent people possibly having mind disorders.

Jack's

I'll bet we would all be astonished at the "Allies" who are reaping profits from those sales!

Too late.

The small arms proliferation of the past 60 years has flooded the market with cheap weapons. No new arms merchants are needed.

The US warned their pilots about the old 2nd and 3rd generation anti-aircraft missiles that they sold to afghanis during the cold war - the pilots did not want to die at the hands of a shoulder-launched AA missile, so this fear is what drove the pilot to fire at our troops in training at night in Afghanistan.

Moreover, places like North Korea, Syria, Iran, South Africa and others are more than happy to expand their arms sales for more attractive items (like tanks, anti-tank weapons, and middle strength aircraft) for the small nation. Since the 'international' arena has never been one that can be controlled, speaking about some way to do it now is foolish.

Woody - Is there an argument in there somewhere?

Manipulation is a human evil - and a political one common to any party or group that is active within the system. Let's not be naive.

So why is the Left so reluctant to change its ways and tap into some of the broadband mass dissent, disenfranchisement and discontent out there? Why has the Left's response to Globalisation just sputtered & died? Nobody's answered that question yet...

Nightgloom says,

No, I was just stating a simple fact.

Now there is an explanation I can agree with Woody!

on this one , may i add: if that person was a female,she would be declared a witch and burned at the stake!
The world would have been a better place if they had burned the "prophets " as well!

Oh. It sounded more like you were just passing gas.

Both of you seem to want to debate the content of a particular founding myth upon which a given faith tradition is built. That's not the point here (or at least not my point when I discuss the merits of tolerating moderate religion at the expense of its more extreme varieties).

But whatever. I think most people get my point - they just don't want to acknowledge the truth of it.

Is there anybody out there that can decipher what Nightgloom is saying?

methinks that bloomer wants to sit on the fence and approve of the religions he fancies, and disapprove of those he finds "too extreme".

Of course each and every religion will tell you that they are peaceloving and only have the best intent on their agenda, while they will simulatenously indoctrinate the kids to only believe in their particular of worship.

Then of course with rightbloom, you never know, next post he will bray about something altogether different!

Colin,

Sadam Hussein gave the Americans an excuse to stay in the Gulf and watch over their oil interests. We're not talking war, we're talking "orchestration". The Americans used the Kuwait situation as a means to intervene and control events. In fact, in 1991 the British Government imprisoned many Iraqi opposition leaders... well, those with more socialist and democratic leanings... who might have finally given a voice to Iraqis and thus eventually also have presented a threat to the West and its obsessive desire to control oil interests there.

Hussein was in fact, a great facilitator for the Amerikans and the Amerikans, in turn, were a great facilitator for Hussein. The hatred stirred towards the imposed sanctions and the US... empowered Hussein's all the more.

The sanctions also facilitated the US need to protect the Saudi economy, Saudi oil, and american interests there... from stumbling up against Iraq's eventual competitive ability to abundantly supply oil...causing oil prices to slide and fall ....so the sanctions stayed.

"If Iraq were allowed to resume oil exports," wrote Phyllis Bennis, one of the most astute American commentators, "analysts expect it would soon be producing three million barrels a day and within a decade, perhaps as many as six million. Oil prices would soon drop...And Washington is determined to defend the kingdom's economy, largely to safeguard the West's unfettered access to the Saudis' 25 per cent of known oil reserves."

Okay, Humpty & Dumpty (a.k.a. woody & gloomy) - Since neither of you have actually presented a cohesive argument, but only sat back and inserted opportunistic slapshots throughout the length of this thread, I don't feel particularly obliged to engage you any further.

But this, Dumpty, is just silly:

Even the people who strongly disagree with me are very familiar with the consistency of my arguments on these threads for (my goodness) nearly a year now. So drop the infantile bullshyte.

Gwest: do you really have to wonder...?

Lynn:

And to borrow a line from one in the know, "you've gotten to the heart of it". The price of oil is artificially high, and who benefits? CHANEY AND BUSH!! They've made billion(s) between them on high oil prices, and so have their friends. Exxons CEO walked away with a 400 million severance in passing... It shouldn't be too hard for guys like Colin to connect the dots, but...

RE: correction, its two more seriously shot due to shrub, not two more dead Canadians. And has Harper had the time to get them out? Of course! So this blame game with the Libs putting them there has little to do with it now. Our PM can at any time he wants, pull troops out of Afganistan. Shrub doesn't need to even bring it up in the commons. No spending, no nothing, just bring 'em home.

Instead, shrub's ready to spend some 20 billion over the next two years, with 11,000 more troops and 5,000 following once a 11,000 more have been trained... to die in a country so that a very few from the many can benefit off of their own greed cause its all about the $$$$.

Nightgloom let me simplify and summerize this discussion , as its very obvious that your struggling with your conscience here.
It’s stated very clearly in the heading of this posting.
PICK YOUR MIDDLE EAST MYTH
Western, Israeli or Muslim leaders: no one is innocent.

Its simple language to understand, it states all religions are Bullsh!t.

Candice,

While I might quibble about this or that fine point with you, a really excellent and astute set of observations. You make a number of really outstanding points, I think. I only hope that others here, amidstthe petty quarrelling that the neurotic nightbloom tends to trigger, have not failed to see it and appreciate it.

I enjoyed your piece, and got much out of it. I encourage others to read it.

And Lynn, with her comments about the US Empire orchestrations in the leadup to Iraq, always on the ball is that woman. Many really excellent women here that I have much admiration for, but none more than her.

The brain writes:

Yes spending, as Canada has no heavy airlift capability. I should like to repeat that, Canada has no heavy airlift capability.

This was 'gotten around' in the past by pointing out that in time of war, the commercial airlines would be grounded and their aircraft could be cheaply 'leased' for the needed airlift. Now this is not the case since no airline has the needed EW equipments to survive more than 20 seconds after takeoff in the mountainous countryside in Afghanistan, especially when the locals know that you are leaving and they will get a 'free shot' at you as you go. Every AA weapon they could lay their hands on would be aimed at passing aircraft.

This was exactly the price that the Soviets paid in getting out.

Since Canada cannot get out themselves the troops will need help in leaving.

Who got them there? The US Air Force.
Will the US Air Force help them to leave? Not very likely as the 'Commander in Chief' likes having the light infantry there on his flank.

Who will get the Canadian troops out?

This is a vital question, since neither Germany nor France are very interested in helping anymore.
The Russians are laughing their a**es off at our stupidity, they are not likely to ever want to send their young men into harms way in that part of the world for a very long time.
Anyone else capable of providing the airlift and escort will want to be paid a lot of $$$ for the privelege of helping Canada and doing something that the US does not want done.

So CONformer, or LIEberal the PM is stuck, like brier rabbit to the tar baby, in Afghanistan for the forseeable future.

nightbloom - in response to what you posted above here:
My point, quite clearly, was that most of the responsibility for the current state of affairs has to rest on upon the two parties, which have been in power forever in this country. You continually snipe away at the left for its critiques rather than aiming your fire at the folks who are actually in power - very strange behavior in my view and certainly not a valid riposte to what I wrote. In those countries, for example in Scandinavia, your carping might have a point - here it's just odd. Blame the NDP and the left all you want – but there is no way you can blame them for the way they’ve handled power.

On top of which you go one to criticize the left because it hasn't been elected, without taking any notice of the valid points raised with respect to the reasons why the establishment (Mr. Harper famously called the NDP the work of the devil) is so dead set against it ever gaining power.

It is inconsistent to expect anyone to let you ride both sides of the fence in this way – it’s just plain schizophrenic.

As to accusing me of casting blame on the church and the military. Surely, you have more integrity than that. I’m not going to rush around collecting nightbloom quotes that excoriate the academic left – there are just too many of them around. I assume you’re joking and I’ll ignore that point.

I think your visceral hostility to the left and your unwillingness to credit the many critics from the left who are leading the charge (often not that effectively I will admit) against the greed and dishonesty of the narrow power elites that run this country is far more evident in your posts than it ever has been in any of mine, by the way.

I still think, as I’ve said before at length, that the evidence just isn’t there to support your claims about the self-critical military. Claiming that debates and scholarly articles delivered to rapt audiences at military colleges has any real effect on the evident degradation of the US military since the start of the Iraq debacle isn’t worth taking the time to refute. Just one idiotic statement from the General in charge at Gitmo puts the lie to your claim without ever mentioning the other evidence I know you’re aware of.

In fact, judging by the latest news from Iraq, I’d say the US military is going from bad to worse in a hurry.

Your other point about religious moderation and responsibility is only true if you define the focus of the question extremely narrowly. I’d suggest you pay a little more attention to James Dobson and a little less to the Pope before you advance any more claims about the religious right and what it’s all about.

Cheers, none the less. Despite the fact that I disagree with a great deal of what you write I do tend to admire your commitment and dedication – even if I think it is largely wasted on your current destructive project.

Gwest, thank you for the considered & civil critique. You’ve made some good points. I appreciate your posts.

I want to establish some distinctions here. Most of what I post concerns itself with the spin contained in The Tyee articles themselves, and my posts are my modest attempt to counter-balance that spin by highlighting the universality of the problems identified in the articles. So I often seem to be “bashing” the Left (or secularists, or union leadership, etc.) when I’m really only demonstrating that they are just as susceptible as the Right (or fundamentalists, or clerical leadership, etc.) to the flaws & abuses under discussion. I’m seen as a “spoiler” here because I recognize that the intent of such articles is not critical inquiry but rather constituency consolidation (i.e. “preaching to the choir”). So I often find myself pointing out that we’re dealing with human organizations that embody the same basic set of human flaws and virtues which have been evident throughout our history, irrespective of political alignment. So I don’t think of my critique of Leftist spin is particularly “visceral” (as you say), and certainly not as visceral as some of the irrational anti-conservative diatribes that appear on these threads. I am actually a Centrist who seeks some kind of equilibrium. That’s not “schizophrenia” (as you suggest); rather the problem is that no one can be Centrist anymore without being disowned by either organized camp. Centrist are left in the middle of the boat, shifting their weight side-to-side as they gauge the list of the vessel. They are no longer seen as a cohesive constituency.

Moreover, my critique of the Left has not simply been of the academic Left intelligentsia, as you suggest. My critique is preoccupied with the manner with which the organized Left engages ‘society’ and targets rival motes of social power. The Right rarely does this (it has other flaws). The "intellectual wing" of the Left in the university social science departments is only one component of that. One of my non-academic critiques of the Left has concerned itself with the divisive and socially corrosive way the Left identifies, creates and consolidates new constituencies for itself using ever more convoluted structuralist Oppression Narratives in order to enable it to tap into pockets of latent disaffection that exist out there. They identify a need, and then point out the enemy. I’ve lived that process, and I see the strings clearly (my perennial example: the post-Stonewall gay/lesbian identity and the complimentary ideology that has been erected around it by the Left. Al of which is totally independent, superfluous and tangential to the historic and present-day basic reality of humans who love other humans of the same gender).

(cont'd...)

(...cont'd)

This ideological calcification is why the Left cannot hold power, why their critique of globalization (the number one issue of our day) is so flat, stale and undynamic, and why they can’t galvinize the electorate in spite of the generally widespread appeal of progressive politics. It’s a political sin, really. Even with a hugely unpopular foreign military adventure underway, the progressive liberal-Left can’t mobilize mass support, even though that support is sitting inert out there everywhere you look. You bring up the example of the American Religious Right, but ignore the fact that the well-organized Christian fundamentalist literalists driving unprogressive policies under the current U.S. administration are a very, very recent development (since the late 60’s and early 70’s, but really coming into their own in the 1980’s, incurring the deep distrust of secular liberal capitalists like Reagan and Bush Sr. then leading American conservatism), and were largely formed in reaction to Left excesses. They are analogous forces of Reaction to the Left ideologues. I actually see very little difference here. Like clerical hierarchies, Left ideologues would now rather maintain their ideological purity in opposition, and when they they find their pews empty they blame the sinfulness and corruption of the masses. They've allowed their who critique to become irrelevant to the real problems of the day.

As for the role of militaries, we need to get realistic. Militaries exist for one - and sometimes two - purposes. Nothing more. They’re giving the electorate and the elected civilian leadership exactly what they've ordered. Militaries are not democracies – they are a professionalized arm of the state operating within a strictly defined constitutional framework. When it comes to questioning policy there’s really only so much they can do. Resignations clearly don’t accomplish anything in terms of hobbling determined civilian policy makers.

The problem is ultimately the civilian electorate. This is why the excuse of Machiavellian or Straussian elites only goes so far with me. If progessives can't pack a majority into legislative bodies anywhere in the developed world north of the equator anymore, they've got only themselves to blame.

They've misread the signs of the times.

nightbloom
In so far as the right wing, in the States at least, made a concerted effort to identify and mobilize the 'communities' from which it could draw uncritical support in a way the left in North America has never (or at least seldom) done I certainly would concur that the 'left' could have done far more. However, you still fail to assign to the establishment sufficient credit or blame for the role it continues to play in the essentially undemocratic character of politics as it is currently done in both the US and Canada. So, however critical you might be of the liberal-left for failing to mobilize its constituency I think you fail to understand the fundamental nature of the problem it faces.

Even, for example, in respect of something as nominally simplistic as the kind of thing that goes on regularly in these threads. While you may decry what you see as the excesses of the left, I'd tend to be more upset by the amount of time one continually has to spend contending with the idiocy of right-wingers who post here regularly. As a matter of fact it's one of the reasons why I seldom bother to post anything in response to most of the nonsense any longer and why I'm simply not interested in a dialogue with someone who is not really serious about change. As to ideological purity, I agree that both extremes on such questions are largely irrelevant and reactionary. But, all the same, and without wanting to sound too much of the utilitarian here, I’ll generally opt for that mode which does the most good for the greatest number – with several very firm codicils concerning human rights, and the important distinction that ends will almost never justify any means.

As for your remarks about both Machiavelli and Strauss - they are merely dumb implements in the hands of folks who use them to make a point or advance a cause they support for entirely other reasons.

I still strongly disagree with your point about the military in a real democracy (which I’d say we are a hell of a long way from having in practice, by the way) and I am still overjoyed every time some formerly acquiescent general or colonel finds the moral strength to say in public what he may have been whispering in private.

In the US, without the unquestioning support of the military, the Bush program in Iraq would never have gone forward. In a society as strong and aggressive as America's the military cannot just be a tool - it must also have a brain and a mouth with the courage to speak out – strongly and publicly – as well as the willingness to sacrifice a career for a greater good. As I think I’ve said before, military people who constantly remind us how they are willing to sacrifice their lives for our (I think they often say or at least think, lazy and unworthy and undisciplined) hides ought at the least to be willing to sacrifice their careers for the principle of truth.

I know you’ll think that naïve. So be it. I see that merely as a consequence, even at this late stage, of the indoctrination and discipline the military so prides itself on being able to instill in its charges. Not very different, nor less harmful at times, than the exercises of St. Ignatius Loyola.

Gwest, Thanks again for another thoughtful & civil post. What an interesting concluding line. The military influences on the organization and ethos of the early Jesuits is rarely commented on, let alone the military background of St. Ignatius himself (the first and founding General of the order).

I don't assign total blame to "the establishment" because I don't perceive it to be a monolithic entity. Peraps I am the one being naive, but I believe the term "establishment" is only useful in our new context when speaking very generally, perhaps even metaphorically. Its component parts are just as vulnerable to electoral upsets and revolutionary legislative agendas as anyone else. The dilemma for radical ideologues is that there are no policy upheavals on the horizon because there's no critical mass of public support for them. That's democracy.

Canada is a democracy. But it is not a utopia. This is politics, not religion. Public policy, not Salvation. The Left simply can't deliver what it ultimately promises. The Right promises much less, yet delivers more by default as a virtue of having attained power.

The electorate might be apathetic, but I see a lot of energy out there that none of the political parties are touching with a ten foot pole. The NDP, for example, are every bit the Machiavellian opportunists as the Conservatives. They're desperate for the maintream vote while letting out just enough watered-down "radical" noises in the ghetto to keep their marginal satellite constituencies at heel.

As for the military, it's civilians that take liberal democracies to war, not soldiers. Ultimately that's where the solutions you seek must be found. I've proposed a few ways to do that (opening up to centrist constituencies, re-tapping its old traditional moderate religious base, etc., refocusing its efforts among youth away from identity politics indoctrination and the other unproductive forms of youth manipulation it indulges in, etc.).

nightbloom
How about we, in a country such as Canada at least, just get rid of the military altogether as it is presently constituted – surely we can agree that a hierarchical organization based upon the absolute authority of rank is an anachronism in the Canadian context.

As for the electorate, I’m nowhere nearly as sanguine as you are about the nature and ‘health’ of our ‘democratic’ institutions or the character of many of our ‘citizens’.

Under a real threat, just as was the case in the examples of both the first and second world wars, we'd mobilize a citizen army to meet the needs of real (as opposed to imaginary, perceived and manipulated) dangers. In the meantime, I'd much rather the idealistic young people who currently sign over their 'lives' to an ideologue like Harper (or a sloppy centrist like Martin) would rather find positive and truly humanitarian outlets for their hopefulness without - in the main - risking their lives for compromised efforts like Afghanistan and Iraq.

As to the NDP, I don’t fundamentally disagree about your assessment of its current efforts, although, looking at the way the current rump of the Liberal Party is managing to lash itself into nothingness right now the future of the left is certainly in flux.

Still, until it actually achieves power – which may in fact never happen in this country because it is such a middle of the road sort of place (at least it was until Harper’s accession to power) – I’d have to say that it has at least prevented the ‘establishment’ from consolidating its power even more firmly.

Had I more time, I’d get into your assessment of the nature of that very establishment more thoroughly because I think you do not give its power and scope nowhere nearly enough ‘credit’. Still, always another day.

Gwest, c'mon - you're ignoring basic realities. Do you really believe that's feasible?

This isn't the 16th century. Nations can't just hire a few hundred swiss pikemen or scottish highlanders every spring to fight their engagements for a few weeks and then pay them off before midsummer's heat.

Canada without an engaged military would be a Canada with no international voice, a Canada that was have to bend over and spread'em wide for each interloper that pushed the envelope with us...from Spanish fishing trawlers to the upcoming international challenge for control of our ever-thawing Northwest Passage. We'd have no national sovereignty, no coin to buy our way, and nothing to protect our resources, population and civil order with.

You really are a closet anarchist, aren't you Gwest... ;-)

Nope to the anarchist label; on the other score, read what I actually said. The qualifier 'as it is presently constituted' is the key. Those current needs and requirements - as you rightly pointed out - are not things to be ignored. They are, however, matters that can be more than adequately addressed without resorting to either Swiss Guards or hoary Highlanders. And we could have a more effective international voice without resorting to traditional military methodology - if you want to think creatively about the matter.

How much real substantive international aid could we deliver to folks in dire need with the money we now 'waste' on exotic weapons and armaments - to cite just one example.

Anyway, I've a meeting to attend in the real world. The civil order thing is an obvious red herring unless you're thinking of mobilizing to confront the snow in Toronto again.

All of the needs you cite could be met far more cheaply and effectively even though the traditional military were sent packing until such time as they are actually needed to defend us from our aggressive neighbours.

Well, we're not that well armed!

We'd be hard pressed to hold it together if two national emergencies went off at once.....say, a natural disaster on the West Coast and civil unrest in T.O. or Montreal. That's how close the Canadian State is to falling through. Most people don't know this, but the real reason Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act was to demonstrate unequivocally that Canada can clean up its own messes, after the U.S. re-deployed large numbers of troops to Augdensburg and other depots just across the St. Laurence.

Think about it. Once they're here under any pretext, we'll never get them out. And where will Canadian progressivism be then--?

A credible professional volunteer militaries are an absolute necessity for the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty.

nightbloom
That sounds apocryphal to me and I can't swallow that claim, re your explanation for the War Measures Act, without some kind of supporting evidence. I'm skeptical; the reason may have been advanced ex post facto as another justification for a bad decision – certainly not unknown in the revisionism business – and exactly the kind of thing you might have picked up in a lecture at military college from some idiot trying to justify the pointlessness of the Canadian military. Pardon me if you think I go too far!

Besides, I think the mobilization actually caused great damage to peace order and good government - not to mention becoming an important causative factor behind the subsequent electoral victory of the PQ over Robert Bourassa's Liberals on Nov.15, 1976. I moved to Quebec shortly there after and there was no doubt about the way young Quebecers, intellectuals and artists felt about Trudeau and the rest of Canada after the October crisis.

In any case, the use of the armed forces was Trudeau's biggest mistake, in my view, and one of Tommy Douglas's greatest moments because he had the jam to oppose Trudeau's action - almost alone.

In any case, it's no refutation of the need for the kind of domestic force I'd like to see replace our current pointless and laughable and very dangerous ( to our young volunteers) armed forces.

Gwest,
Yes, I'm inclined to agree that the War Measures Act was a mistake. The actual purpose behind Trudeau's invoking the act is still debated. It was likely a combined sum of factors, tipped by Trudeau's natural bellicosity. I don't defend use of the War Measures Act, but I do understand some of the rationales that have been debated.

As for American troop movements during that time, these are not debated. Similar troop movements have occurred during other Canadian crises (the referenda, for example, and the Oka standoff) and seem to take place independently of the top-tier of the American civilian administration (although this latter point is open to question). What is debated is what the the troop movements actually mean. Not surprisingly, they have all been justified as scheduled peacetime exercises. I don't buy it. I think there are occasional unspoken messages sent by our American neighbour to Canadian decision-makers that are never written down, but which are conveyed by gestalt, symbol, and action, the meaning of which are self-evident to those sensitive to such signals.

nightbloom

And this is the American military you’ve been trying to tell me is a moral beacon, an outspoken critic of US foreign policy?

So my assessment is pretty much spot on, isn't it? You made some after the fact academic speculation in an attempt to attach 'meaning' where there may be little or none available in support of an institution you, from my point of view, still seem to have unjustified affection for.

The Americans, as usual, were (and are) pretty much ignorant of the dynamics in the Great White North. What else is new? On that I do agree.

So, since we've dealt with your objection, to my satisfaction at least, what about the actual point I made? Why do we need the kind of military we currently have? As a fighting entity, we are largely irrelevant and have been since we auctioned off our navy for pennies on the dollar after the last war. We don’t even possess the aircraft to move our troops and equipment into place in a crisis.

We can't seem to make the right equipment purchases (you know the many examples I could cite and can probably add dozens of your own) and, as you pointed out, northern sovereignty and fishing enforcement ought to be our primary emphasis anyway.

Why the hell should we continue to sacrifice souls and equipment in the service of an ally (America) whom you've said above can't be trusted (and on this I also agree) especially when it comes to the military? [Shades of Curtiss LeMay and Bill Westmoreland, among others]

Aside from the fact that this also plays strongly to a point I've made elsewhere in our various discussions about the questionable honesty, moral integrity and willingness to put truth before career, rank and advancement of the military in the US; it also supports my conviction that we ought to get out of the compromised traditional military rut we're in by disbanding the forces entirely and replacing them with something better, less hierarchical, and more practical. Use those intelligent thoughtful people you’re always telling us the military is full of for something more useful and productive than Hillier’s current mission of ‘hunting scumbags’ in Afghanistan.

I don’t mean we shouldn’t be involved in international peacekeeping efforts of one kind or another and I suppose I could be convinced that we should keep a small group of trained killers like JTF 2 around in case of an emergency, but, apart from that – unless somebody declares war on us – get rid of the rest. I’d far rather we use our young idealists in better ways than having them bleed out into the earth of the middle east – or having them shed others’ blood in aid of an American program in which we (as you’ve pointed out) are not even on the table.

Pension off the timeservers and engage the idealists. Courage in the service of a lie is no virtue.

Gwest, you're losing me.

I never said the U.S. military is a "moral beacon". You're projecting peculiar moral and emotional values onto my statements. I said that some of the most effective criticism has emerged from military scholars in and out of uniform, rather than from (for example) adolescent social anarchists "playing dead" on the campus sidewalk, and who are easily dismissed by decision makers.

But if I understand you correctly, let me try to get to the rub of the matter:

We operate within several unalterable frameworks which you seem willing to blithely discount.

Domestically, we have a legal/constitutional framework which assigns legitimate power and authority (and legitimate use of force/coercion) internally within the context of the Nation-State. This order is upheld in the final analysis by the the legitimate use of force/coercion by militaries "in aid of civil power" acting at the direction of and responsible to the duly consitituted civil authority.

Internationally, we have an anarchic system peppered with contingent bilateral and multilateral agreements based on self-interest of the component Nation-States. Those international contingencies (treaties, agreements) are ad hoc and "unnatural" (not intrinsic to the nature of the international system) projections of nation-state legal/constitutional norms/values into the anarchic field of international relations. In reality, multinational/bilateral agreements do not actually exist independently of the participating nation-states.

No amount of idealism is going to change these fundamental realities. We have to operate within these frameworks, and deal with the prevailing realities using the tools with the Nation-State has evolved. The modern military is one of the evolved means of navigating these realities.

Arguments of specific policies or engagement aside (i.e. whether we should/not be in Afghanistan, etc.) are one thing (our political leaders are giving the electorate exactly the policy it wants, however misguided you personally seem to believe it is)....But jettisoning a national military altogether is tantamount to a nation-state slicing its own throat.

As for military reform, that has been ongoing for years. I question your ideologically motivated emphasis on somehow flattening out the hierarchy at the expense of operational effectiveness. These are time-tested structures meant to operate under the very worst conditions human perversity can concoct. They exist for one (sometimes two) reasons only, and in the final analysis their effectivness is gauged by their ability to fulfill that one criteria only.

Oh Baloney!
1) I've constantly maintained that the military in a modern democracy - short of being attacked by another state - has as much of an obligation to tell the truth as any other public body and not just to parrot back to the civil order what it wants to hear. I've said quite clearly that the US military has lost its moral compass again (as it did in Vietnam) over Iraq (if not the initial exercise in Afghanistan) and I have plenty of evidence (not just Haditha and Abu Ghraib and Gitmo) to support my view – including the latest revision of the Army manual as it applies to torture. I've clearly stated that I think the officer class in the States moves in and out of civil government and industry with an ease and alacrity that brings their judgment into question at the best of times and, I've clearly stated that the military folks who 'know' what they are really on about is both tactically and morally wrong and compromised - in relation to their duty to the Constitution - if they don't resign and instead simply continue to send their troops (2,500 of them to this point - not to mention the poor bloody Iraqis) to their deaths in service of a corrupt lie. If the stupid Bush Government fell over the catharsis so created, so be it. Something has to happen or America as a force for good (if that ever was the case) is surely done for.

2) You know as well as I do that I think most youth is deracinated and feckless. That doesn't mean I'd support hazing them into the Army to teach them to be blind puppets in the service of lies and half-truths - but it also doesn't mean that we couldn't have valuable means of addressing their ennui and tapping their energy and nascent idealism. I just don't want a bunch of militarists getting hold of them and teaching the crap you sometimes seem to have had drilled into your thick head. (I mean that in the least offensive possible way - but I'm in a hurry). I think it’s possible to integrate some kind of compulsory national service into higher education and skills training that would benefit this whole country and start to bring us together as a nation of 3 founding peoples again.

3) Because I think the military is a post-modern anachronism - especially as far as Canada is concerned - I'd say get rid of it and replace it with something better and I stated that very point clearly - you've just chosen to ignore it.

4) I haven't undertaken a study of what other small and relatively powerless countries have done in this respect - but I do know that the hierarchical model is not the only one available.

5) You conveniently ignore virtually everything else I've posted with respect to the need to ensure our sovereignty in both fishing and northern sectors; and

6) If you seriously think that the existence of our current military has anything to do with keeping the only external power that - in the foreseeable future - has any designs on our territory then you're smoking something other than tobacco.

7) Since we can't defend ourselves from the Americans, who are the only ones who have already stated their willingness to step in if "they" adjudge we need 'assistance' then I'd suggest the moral case is the only effective argument we have anyway.

(conclusion follows)

(here's the rest, sorry for having gone on like this)

8) Adapt the Coast Guard to northern patrols and fisheries enforcement; continue on with the technical crap the Americans think is vital in Cheyenne mountain and let the technocrats play more expensive silly buggers with star wars if you like - but for God's sake give up on the rest of your naiveté.

We are what we are - let's admit it and quit throwing good money and blood after bad business. The minute we're actually attacked by another country - including the good old U S of A - I'll suit up and start taking target practice in aid of the brave but futile effort of defending the old turf.

I'm sorry you wasted part of your life in the service of a lie, but there it is, sorry. I don't want you or anyone else continuing to believe that they are morally superior because you say you're willing to take a bullet for me and for a strange barrack hall tradition held over from Victorian times that the military are the only realists who protect the lazy soft underbelly of the undisciplined hoi polloi.

I‘ve stated many more than one criteria - in my view. You are, though, typical of many military folks, stubbornly convinced of your own rectitude - St Ignatius work is never done as long as there's one Sgt Major left in the barracks to trot out the crown jewels of military history I guess.

Anyway - I think you're the one who needs to check his idealism.
Busy, I'm off for now. Maybe Sweden, (they have compulsory national service -which I'm not against - don't they?) would be a good example. Till later.

Rippenfalls
Agreed, I think it will be awhile before the real history of the Taliban rule is available for us to read

Murdock

We will have to agree to disagree. Saddam was a master at staying power and his opponents were to fractured to topple him. He played the various factions against themselves.

I not clear on your Tet offensive analogue, the Vietnamese used to create a political advantage, it was a military disaster for them, but a very astute bluff.

It is quite clear that Saddam used the year leading up to the invasion to prepare an insurgency as they knew they could not defeat the US in open warfare, I used the term “defence” incorrectly, so insert “prepare insurgency” instead. In GW1 Saddam would have not have been able to lay the ground work for such an insurgency as they would not have expected to be invaded in response.

My comments on the AQ and infrastructure stand.

Some of the human rights groups are putting the increased death toll under Saddam since GW1 as high as 100,000 a year.

As for the intelligence on WMD. I agree that fear of Saddam and his sons drove the scientist to fake data on the nuke stuff, the only reason the UN found out and shut down his nuke program was due to the defection of his brother inlaw. As far as chemical and biological, Iraq had used Chemical weapons many times, so any intelligence gathered on that would have seemed genuine and it was known that they had purchased dual use biological material. Iraq had been caught hiding components previously and Hans Blix expressed concern in his report to the UN security council that large quantities had not been accounted for.
Add to the fact that the Iraqis were caught building long range rockets that would only be useful for launching WMD’s, there was cause for concern.

While control of the oil reserves in Iraq play an important role. With support from Russia, China and France, how long do think it would take before Saddam was a military threat to the region again? Since Iraq has directly attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel under Saddam, what more proof do you need?

The Iran-Iraq war cost both counties heavily both financially and in human costs, It was impossible for Iraq to totally defeat Iran, and was more interested in gain significant ground. Iran purpose was to bring down the Iraqi government and to create another Shiite state to allow control over the holy sites and act as a buffer from the US and Sunni’s

Lynn
You babbled on about the US, but I would like to hear how you as the either the SG of the UN or the President of the US would have handled the invasion of Kuwait.

Alcibiades wrote:
Venal and evil though Saddam was, what is happening there now – and what has happened to the moral stature of the United States (and is quickly now happening to Canada as well) and its discredited men of arms – is far worse.

Here

Gwest, all interesting comments. Thanks for taking the time to hammer them out.

Some ruminations on the same subject matter by a former classmate of mine, of possible interest:

http://www.irpp.org/events/archive/jun05NGO/leslie.pdf

Colin
You have to read the whole thing together. Saddam, we agree, was a monster but at least before the current debacle the Americans and the Canadians and others still had some moral authority - even if Saddam had none. I'm not saying we're worse than Saddam, obviously, I'm suggesting that the moral atmosphere of foreign affairs and our role international relations has been discredited and especially with respect to our and the Americans men of arms'.

I would have thought you'd see the 'far worse' in the context it was clearly meant to apply - not to the general comparative case as between 'us' and an Iraqi dictator.

Glad, as always to walk you though it. As I've said several times, and I think Scott Ritter and numerous others would agree with me, Saddam could have been 'handled' in a far better fashion without the cost we are now paying in the unbelievable toll in lives and economic resources.

G West
I could have handled Colin's usual state of confusion myself you know.

Still, you've explained my words - which were very clear - adequately enough, I guess.

nightbloom
Just a quick note as I finish my lunch. No doubt Leslie is a fine fellow - too bad he's chosen to waste his talents serving a Victorian model of rectitude and rank.

His grandfather, who was rightly lauded for his role in developing modern artillery practice during the first world war, always seemed a fish out of water in the second.

I still think you're far too committed to outworn and largely worthless traditions. Any service which purports to care about defending the nation and still applies the kinds of offensive labels to characterize the actual people it is supposed to be serving - and you know exactly the kind of thing I mean (it's also endemic in the police) needs a severe shaking up. If Leslie does it - especially if he has anything to do with bouncing Hillier - I'll be happy to toast his appointment.

G west
I found it funny how people like Scott Ritter and Han’s Blix had a sudden change in heart on the Saddam WMD programs. Putting aside any possible darker reasons that have been kicked around, I would suggest that they saw the US administration gearing up for an invasion, disagreed with it on personal grounds and then toned down their criticisms of Saddam in hope of preventing the invasion.

Having read several of Han’s Blix’s report to the UNSC I noted the remarkable change of tone in the last report. I also suspect that Han’s Blix knew of the extent of the corruption involving the UN programs and was hoping to protect his organization from the fallout if Iraq was invaded.

As I said before, despite some good ground work by UN Inspectors, the real finds came after defectors gave them information to follow up on. No matter how diligent they worked the UN does not have the intelligence gathering resource to correct verify hidden activities.

If you wish to be critical of the Bush administrations handling of the affair be my guest. However neo-Liberals have a tendency to make grand and sweeping statements that belittle the pain and suffering endured by people living under Saddam rule.

Alcibiades

Trying to follow your logic is enough to confuse anyone. Cheers

Trying to follow your logic is enough to confuse anyone

That is why people give up reading post from certain individuals!

What don't you understand, Colin?

The point is simply that Saddam is and always was a bad guy… and, by going after him in the way they have the Americans have become bad guys too and we're now well on the way to this same end ourselves.

Therefore things are worse now than they were prior to the war - the Americans and, sadly, Canada too, are now morally flawed in ways now that they weren't prior to the war - as Alcibiades stated.

Here's some more detail:

So, in the beginning Saddam is a bad guy who can be dealt with through sanctions and carrot/stick policies - just the route followed with equally bad guy Gadaffi in Libya or, for example North Korean bad guy Kim or Iranian bad guy Ahmadinejad.

But no, in order to create a neo con example of enforced democracy the US compromises its morality by: (1)deciding to invade; (2) doing it in such a morally bankrupt way - including torture, imprisonment without trial, corruption of its armed forces etc., etc at the same time reducing Iraq to a shambles where tens of thousands of civilians are killed every year; (3) along with a lot of American wounded and 2500 dead - no end in sight; but in addition (4) a civil insurgency is now in place; (5) oil deliveries which were meant to pay for the war are still not up to pre-invasion levels; (6) Billions of $US have been wasted; and (7) the US economy is on the verge of tipping into the toilet. (7) all of which our pee wee Rambo seems to think is just fine as he leads us into our own 'war on terror'. I could go on, but surely you get the point. If you don’t think international relations are more screwed up now than they were before operation ‘Enduring Freedom’ started then I can’t help you.

If you don't think it is a worse pickle than the situation before the war started, well, what can I say?

If that's not clear then I can't help you and neither can anyone else, including, apparently, Gloomy.

Oh, and if you think with some neoconmen that the Iraq war was decisive in turning Gadaffi around, there’s an interesting essay on the subject available from the Brookings Institution to disabuse you of that idea. You can find it here:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

disabuse ?

Colin,

Interesting that you still seem so concerned about how many people Saddam was killing on his own, yet express no further concern about lives lost all over the place, for any number of reasons.

I am also interested to see the questions of US 'morality'.

I cannot recall whom said this, but I do recall seeing a black and white film of someone speaking to a McCarthy hearing about the cold war. The quote went something like,

"This cold war will only have one result, bankruptcy. Both financial and moral. It will be for later generations to decide which of the two we here in the US have suffered."

I say that the financial bankruptcy hit the USSR in the late 1980's, the moral rot in the US was probably around the same time, it has only taken till now for more of us to smell it.

As I pointed out before the Mossad would have dealt with any credible threat, the external sabre-rattling of Saddam could have been dealt with from the US with a very large cheque, no blood and far less cash than it has cost to date.

As for any real response to 9/11, which has its conspiracy theories, those would also have been better dealt with quietly, a hot-lead moment in a dark room, but then that will not scare enough of a populace - to vote this way or that - so we are left with what has taken place.

Smart are the parents whom advise their children not to volunteer for military service, wise are the grandparents whom repudiate the nation state of today.

Gloomy:
disabuse - v. to rid of illusion, of a mistaken conception, etc.; to undeceive, disillusion.

rafe mair's critique of Israel is ok with one exception: his reference to gaza, as he neglects to mention the sole reason the israelis have resorted to bombing etc., namely the hundreds of kassem rockets that Palestinians have launched inside israel since it evacuated gaza.

I don't know why the Palestinians decided to start this bombing campaign, but can anybody seriously believe that Israel or any sovereign state would allow it to continue without retaliating. I dont.

about: disabuse - v. to rid of illusion, of a mistaken conception, etc.; to undeceive, disillusion.

It is not that some words are impossible to guess what they mean, rather that you and others remind me of a proff at UBC who simply could not say anything in plain language!
He also had his own weird pronounciation of words, just to make sure we stayed awake?
So the question here is: are you showing off, or are you incapable of writing anything in a plain language?
One thing is to elaborate on an issue that most figure is exhausted, another is to write just for the sake of writing!

Gloomy
It is plain language.

You asked a question, I answered it. End of story.

Is that construction monosyllabic enough for you?

The problem that both you, Gwest and Mudock miss is that there was no other stick. The sanctions were collapsing, Saddam had oil and customers he would be back on his feet in a few years, the only reason that he even complied with the UN is the fact that the US and UK stacked a bloody great army on his doorstep and enforced the no-fly zones to keep him from bombing his own people. That was the status quo that you hold dear, it is a total disillusion to think otherwise. Would you pay extra taxes to keep an army there to enforce the UN resolutions?

Thanks to Clinton who turned tail and ran in Somalia, leaders felt they could pull the paper tiger’s tail, now they know the tiger has fangs. You can also bet your boots that the PRC has quietly shelved plans to invade Taiwan for at least a decade.

Just imagine a nuke armed Iraq and Iran, how long before they fired one off at each other?

The present may be bad, but no where as bad if they didn’t deal with this issue. If you asked me if I would have preferred one bomb killing Saddam and his sons, you betcha! It wasn’t going to happen Saddam was to protected and smart for that. Don’t let the Hollywood fairy tales make you think they know everything, most of the time you can only guess what the other side is doing.

Colin, okay let's put it this way...about your question...as SG of the UN, Ahem, (clears throat) :-)....the first thing I would do is suspend the US from the UN... they do not pay their dues until it serves their purpose and they bribe smaller nations with millions in debt-forgiveness.... also when it serves their purpose. Very bad behavior. Naughty and willful. They're out of the club.

The odds were... as all the experts predicted (including Colin Powell at the time).... that Saddam would eventually have withdrawn from Kuwait...if he pushed further he knew the Saudi military awaited him. Since Western influence and occupation has only served to muddy the waters further, I would suggest that the West stay out...let them work out the balance of power for themselves.( I would help them to paint a very big Thanks but No Thanks sign for all to see ).

The slick TV version of Desert Storm may have painted the allied coalition as saviors of democracy but the facts speak for themselves:

The allied bombing of Iraq was described as “near apocalyptic” and that it threatened to reduce “a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society ... to a preindustrial age.”

Iraq probably suffered 145,000 dead—40,000 military and 5,000 civilian deaths during the war and 100,000 postwar deaths because of violence and health conditions. The war also produced more than 5 million refugees. Subsequent sanctions were estimated to have killed more than half a million Iraqi children.

57 American soldiers were killed.

As I said before we are talking orchestration...and an extremely tragic one at that...where the invasion of Kuwait was seen as an opportunity that all the main suspects could capitalize on... think of this as a big game of International Clue...where Bush as Professor Plum and Saddam as Colonel Mustard, and the others... Cheney, the Saudis, (take your pick of nom de plumes....Miss Peacock, Rev. Green etc.) are ALL in on the crime... all out to murder poor Miss Scarlett for their own benefit.

Really...this is just about opportunity and profit..wars waged in defence of that...not wars waged in defence of freedom, in defence of human rights... no, quite the opposite....peaceful solutions would just undercut the grand ambitions of PNAC....it has to be a war on terrorism, Colin, it can't be anything else... because peace comes with no complimentary airmiles for Amerika.

And the militaries of the West (Canada now included)largely function in defence of the greedy interests of the soulless few...at an utterly tragic cost to themselves and to the many who become caught in the crossfire....and who literally become collateral damage for an insane dream.

Colin, the invasion of Kuwait was allowed to proceed by the US...just as dictators are allowed to bloom with Amerikan consent....when it conveniently serves their self-interest. Just as the invasion of Iraq and the war on terrorism are a means to a PNAC end... based on a relentless policy of war....that is backed by the biggest advertising agency in history.

"The White House torpedoed diplomatic initiatives to end the crisis, including a compromise, crafted by Arab leaders, to let Iraq annex a small slice of Kuwait and withdraw. To justify war with Hussein, the Bush administration condoned a propaganda campaign on Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Americans were riveted by a 15-year-old Kuwaiti so-called refugee’s eyewitness accounts of Iraqi soldiers yanking newborn babies out of hospital incubators in Kuwait, leaving them on a cold floor to die.

The public didn’t know that the eyewitness was the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States, and that her congressional testimony was reportedly arranged by public relations firm Hill & Knowlton and paid for by Kuwait as part of its campaign to bring the United States into war."

Thanks Lynn, a nice piece of writing. I've been tied up with an important project all day.

Not that it will have convinced Colin, of course, he's not really interested in exploring any other view of the world. There simply is no doubt that the US lives by the fact that:
a) it can flaunt any international rules and conventions whenever it does not feel like abiding by them; and
b) its government operates according to a rationale that it is not out of place to use whatever means (lies, obfuscation, torture, arm-twisting, under-the-table deals) it thinks appropriate in order to further its self interest; and
c) it cares not a chit for the welfare and well-being of whatever group of foolish nations (including at this sad moment, Canada) it can use to its current benefit; and
d) citizens of this country who continue to lie and ignore the actual facts surrounding what caused the current Iraq war (without disagreeing with your remarks above) and fail to understand how it could have been avoided with better results for humanity and general and the Iraqi people in particular (people like our Prime Minister and his apologists) are practicing a dangerous and compromised game.

If we don't soon wake up and disassociate ourselves and our still-proud and honourable nation from this contagion we will all begin, sadly, to see the effects of such blindness.

Without disagreeing about Saddam's status as a terror to the Iraqi people, the simple fact that the US continues to sup (rather than bomb)a great many equally repellant dictators in parts of the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, one cannot even accuse the Americans of being consistent.

To be ignorant of the facts is one thing; to ignore what one does know and still accept the American point of view uncritically is something quite different. It requires real discipline. Much of what Colin writes is part of the necessary lie upon which the whole Ahmed Chalabi / Right wing agitprop trumped up case for the war. A case that is based upon lies.

The question is why anyone as seemingly intelligent should be afraid to admit the truth. I guess that military training is pretty effective after all, alas.

lynn said: "Really...this is just about opportunity and profit..wars waged in defence of that...not wars waged in defence of freedom, in defence of human rights... no, quite the opposite....peaceful solutions would just undercut the grand ambitions of PNAC....it has to be a war on terrorism, Colin, it can't be anything else... because peace comes with no complimentary airmiles for Amerika".

Bottem line lynn, and well said...!!

G West said: "The question is why anyone as seemingly intelligent should be afraid to admit the truth. I guess that military training is pretty effective after all, alas".

Yeah, is it ever... Sadly...no search for truth there. If people independently cannot be open to challenge "their" truths, what does that say about our future. As Jack Nicholson says so well, "...You want truth, YOU CAN"T HANDLE THE TRUTH...!"

I would hope that everyone starts learning to "handle the truth"...

Until people, at least on a Blog, can put their egos aside and entertain the possibility of a greater truth, discussions for the good of the Earth will be thworted, and problems unsolved...

...but we can't quit trying ever...

:-)

By the way G West, lynn, and others, thanks for the informative and enlightening posts on this thread... I really appreciate it...

Peace

RTB

My understanding is that original Iraqi invasion of Kuwait stemmed from a genuine miscommunication of intent between Hussein's people and American Abassador to Iraq Ms. April Glaspie. The U.S. State Department policy was to articulate official disinterest in the kind of tit-for-tat border skirmishes and localized de facto annexations that had been going on for some time. Glaspie defaulted to that policy position when Baghdad initially sounded her out, thinking that Hussein planned only a punitive foray in response to Kuwait's lateral drilling into Iraq's oilfields, and for Kuwait's hard line on Iraqi repayment of debts incurred during the war with Iran.

I think the U.S. Administration was genuinely caught with its pants down. It accords them too much intelligence (or lack thereof) to assume that the entire thing was pre-planned and choreographed by the U.S. from the start. Improvization and ad hoc ass-covering seems to be the predominant determinant of U.S. policy - everything else comes second.

Having said that, it is discouraging how public opinion was manipulated so blatantly. The same thing occurred during the "build up of consensus" prior to the intervention in the Balkans. A big casualty here is Western idealism. Since 1990 (the Cold War "victory") the U.S. has squandered the opportunity to demonstrate it's claim to be a beacon or "shining city on a hill" for other to follow. The pervasive global cynicism alone that has been spread by its actions is damaging enough in itself.

I still think it boils down to mediochre leadership elected by a placated, catatonic electorate that has been rendered placid and flacid by the bread-&-circuses of today (fast food, consumerism, the entertainment industry, and diversionary political scam from both sides of the spectrum that steal attention aware from the real issues).

well put nightbloom, 'bread and circuses' is definately the case.

Colin, though difficult to do, start your 'change of vision' by tuning out the cacaphony of media aimed at us every day. Shut off the TV, its just furniture anyway.

Start reading some biographies, of notable people that you admire, that you hate and that are topical. There are a number about the Saudi princes and their former wives, concubines, friends and enemies that are on the market. Especially about the women from the society, I have recently finished a couple about this subject and I think it is only from them, the women of these societies, that we can even get a glimpse of what is really going on inside these countries.

Colin, I have the sense that you are from a military background, is not it smart to 'know thine enemy as thyself?'

Since you are putting forward that these people are 'enemies' why not learn of them?

...

Or would that be too much like learning about yourself?

Sadly all of what has happened in the middle east, must now be accepted as 'water under the bridge'.

What is needed now, more than ever, is a Nixon-esque walk on the great wall and a statesman must travel to the region and start making peace, if not a few friends along the way. Without such a first step, no communication - other than lobbing shells - will ever take place. Without communication at least starting there will never be any end to the conflict (the silly dream of winning a war on terrorism is like winning a war on hate, or love, or thought, or dreams...the process will kill them all.

interesting discussion..good to read you G West, RTB... and murdock, I agree, there is no winning a war based on a policy of "elusive" terror. It will out run us all. And thanks , Coyote. :-)

If the Emperor's pants were down...it was just another means to distract. ;-)

While I would agree about according too much true intelligent behavior to the actions of the US Administration I would definitely say their actions are highly choreographed, dangerously so...their diplomacy based entirely on the most duplicitous of self-serving moves...ruthless and narcissistic:

Over the coming months, the principal aim of US diplomacy would be to diffuse the threat of the "outbreak of peace." US News and World Report described in a 1991 article how Secretary of State James Baker "cajoled, bullied, and horse-traded his way" to line up support and to get UN Resolution 678, authorizing a US-led attack on Iraq, passed on November 30, 1990. For its full cooperation, Turkey received over $8 billion worth of military gifts from Uncle Sam, as well as a 50% increase in its textile export quota to the United States; Baker offered to forgive $14 billion of Egypt’s massive debt in return for its compliance; the U.S. government gave Syrian president Assad permission to wipe out all opposition to Syrian control in Lebanon, also sending him a billion dollars’ worth of military aid.

For Iran’s support, Washington dropped its opposition to World Bank loans, and, indeed, the Bank soon approved a $250 million loan. Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev was among the easiest to buy off, accepting a $1 billion bribe from the Saudi foreign minister. China demonstrated no greater allegiance to "proletarian internationalism"—for its vote, President Bush welcomed Beijing back into the "international community" by holding a high-profile meeting with the Chinese foreign minister, the first such meeting since the Tianamen Square massacre a year-and-a-half earlier. $114 million dollars from the World Bank was deposited in a Beijing government account a few days later.

Cuba, holding a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, offered the only strong and consistent opposition to the plans for military action. In a major speech to the UN in October, Cuban representative Isadoro Malmierca spoke of the "chronicle of a war foretold," exposing and denouncing the US war plans and the complicity of the UN. Yemen also voted against the war resolution—a senior US diplomat said afterward to the Yemeni ambassador, "That was the most expensive ‘no’ vote you ever cast." Sure enough, within three days, a U.S. aid program to the desperately poor country was stopped. The IMF and the World Bank also took a dim view of Yemen’s disregard for Washington’s efforts to create a "new world order," and rescinded loans that had been approved. Elsewhere in the region, Sudan, in the midst of a severe famine, was denied a promised shipment of food aid by the U.S. after its leaders voiced their support for Iraq.

Meanwhile, any momentum toward a negotiated settlement was effectively scuttled by U.S. pressure. At the beginning of January, Bush dismissed out of hand an Iraqi offer to withdraw from Kuwait, tied to the removal of foreign troops from the region and the banning of all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Similarly, a French initiative on January 14 was rejected by the United States, and therefore by the UN. "The greatest moral crusade since World War II," as President Bush Sr. described it, was accompanied by bribery, coercion, and the most cynical and dishonest diplomacy; while the UN, whose supposed mission is to promote world peace, was used (not for the first or last time) as an agency of warfare.

What happened to the not-so-distant good ol' days when the biggest question preoccupying the nation's conscience was the appearance of a suspicious stain on some intern's blue dress. Bread & circuses indeed!

Clinton doesn't look so bad now, does he. Bubba didn't do too much, but in retrospect that was his virtue.

Something tells me the coming presidential election campaign is going to be a battle royal. The Dems had better come up with a better lineup than is currently being explored (Pelosi or Edwards will mean another Republican White House - they can't win it). I'm still fascinated by the Hillary Clinton candidature....I have no personal affinity for her, but she's one tough political animal, and I'm fascinated by what she's doing with her innovative constituency-building efforts. Her and John McCain between them are the future mold for political leadership, although they may be ahead of their time in their efforts to mobilize pockets of support that span the whole outdated political spectrum. Even if they go nowhere, someone soon is going to replicate their efforts with a vengeance. It's about time someone does an end-run around the political party system and flips it on its head.

Well Lynn all you have done is prove that you live in a fairy tale world.

You are going to kick the US out of the UN? And in 24hrs the US will ask the UN to kindly remove itself from their soil. The UN Security council will lose a veto block against the Russian and Chinese, it will just become even more irrelevant than it is currently.

Next you are going to suggest that the world stays out of the issue while the Kuwaiti’s and Iraqi’s sort it out. That’s awfully big of you, just ignore and hope it goes away. Or at best you will reward Saddam with a piece of another country in the hopes it will sate his hunger (good luck)

The Saudi military? Hah, except for a few officers it’s mostly a mercenary force for the defense of Saudi, they will not have much interest in defending the kingdom and most Saudi won’t sully their hands to defend their kingdom.

If you think this invasion of Iraq was “total war” then you have no idea what that term means. The invasion was minimalist in the amount of force applied and it never turned into the great quagmire predicted, mainly due to the ability and training of the US & UK forces.

With you in charge of the UN, every tinpot dictator knows that it will be open season, gee and I thought things couldn’t get worse.

G west you are right I won’t change my mind based on the sputtering I see here.

Nightbloom though is correct, the US has done a dismal job of handling this. Funny how people think that this same group can create all this subterfuge like the 911 conspiracies.

The US and the West was played by the Croats to get them on side. The problem of course is that pretty much everybody has dirty hands, some are dirtier than others. Sooner or later you got to take a stand somewhere, rather than saying we can’t stop everybody, therefore we won’t stop anybody.

Murdock
I would suggest that “thine enemy” is that part of the populace that will do nothing for anyone other than themselves.

You guys think that you are so righteous and only you are enlightened, it’s truly amazing.

Colin
There's nothing righteous about it.

Your posts on this subject indicate you are becoming something of an expert at 'sputtering' yourself.

There is neither, in my opinion, a legitimate military, strategic or 'moral' case for supporting the Anglo/American adventure in Iraq. If the imaginary WMD had actually been found, although I personally never believed they were extant, you might have a weak case. Without them you have NONE.

There may have been a case for supporting the initial war to unseat the Taliban in Afghanistan but when the US, at the nominal conclusion of that campaign, decided to renege on its promises to the Afghanis for reconstruction and rebuilding, that too went out the window.

It is one thing to say that Saddam deserved his fate, it is quite another to claim that: The Iraqi people and the whole middle east area 'deserved' what has happened because America is too strong and stupid to understand how it fails the international community and its self-styled role as the main force for good in the way it dealt with these issues. To say nothing of the other points raised above in respect of the damage Bush and his neocons have done to their own economy.

You tell Murdock that the definition of 'enemy' is anyone who refuses to do anything except for themselves.

Look at the power structures in the United States today; step down off that righteous military hobby horse you always seem to want to ride around on for a moment and I think you'll find that the current US administration and its corrupt and immoral military fits the definition of enemy you've fashioned pretty accurately. If it’s not good for the US, it’s no good should be the motto on American currency and you only have to look at John Bolton’s latest embarrassing diatribe in the United Nations to see how true it is.

I think you're the naive one my friend.

When you can no longer sustain the case for a particular point of view with better reasoning than you've provided above, I think it's time for you to reassess your premises and find another hobby horse. What’s truly amazing is that someone as intelligent as you could be so blind.

I think it is you that is firmly ensconced in the Land of Make Believe, Colin. Do you really believe the US is actually "in" the UN? "In" as in "committed?"

Read the list of manipulative machinations I quoted at the end of my post that the US pulled off to ensure a "yes" vote to its attack on Iraq.... how it did everything possible to "diffuse the threat of the outbreak of peace."

You don't find that disgusting.

It uses the United Nations now as "an agency of warfare". If you don't see the utter disgrace in that, well....

My tone in my reply to you was somewhat intentionally silly...because you still believe in the mythology of a benevolent Superman Amerika, making the world safe for democracy....you still believe there are heroes in the present policy of relentless war..."the war" on terrorism that engulfs us all...when clearly there are not.

There are only bullies who have taken the people of this world hostage to their insane dream....who have made us all victims of their insatiable greed for oil and power...for more, more.... and yes, more. Ad infinitum.

These are all valid criticisms (for the most part) but I find that the hard edge of anti-Americanism tends get a little bit neurotic in its myoptic fixation. I'm sure spelling 'America' with a 'kkk' makes some people feel better, but it's really quite silly. And believe it or not, George Bush isn't the real problem - he's just a talking head. I don't mean to be blasé while there's still blood being shed, but what we have here is a garden variety imperial venture that's gone sour. If they'd pulled it off without a hitch, nobody would be complaining and everyone would be saying "I knew it was the right thing all along..." Oh, and the UN probably would have passed an ex post facto resolution legitimizing the whole thing too. The Americans aren't behaving any differently than the British, French and Belgians when they had the big stick....somewhat better, in fact. I don't approve of what they're doing, but they are not insane. They're coldly rational and opportunistic, and have miscalculated what they could get away with and still work within established frameworks.

So the UN is a rubber stamp - Who's surprised--? Like the Concert of Europe long before it, the Security Council's real role was to ensure the Balance of Power (not ensure collective security) established at Yalta. And like the Concert of Europe, the UN Security Council has been overtaken by developments and rendered obsolete in the ongoing international power-brokering. Denial can't erase this fundamental reality. The true anarchic nature of international relations is reasserting itself, and ripping away our cherished illusions and liberal pretensions. I don't like it, but I'm afraid that's going to be our future for the remainder of our lifetimes and likely our children's as well (well, your children at any rate). I think we're only just starting to enter a period of radical re-adjustment, and I'm quite pessimistic: I think when the dust finally settles the liberal democracies (America, Canada, U.K. & Western Europe) are going to be on the bottom....and then we'll realize that American hegemony (or British before it) wasn't really all that bad.

nightbloom, interesting set of points.

You may find some interesting reading in 'The World is Flat' and 'Prosperity and Violence'; both of which address these 'international relations' and violence issues from different perspectives.

Sadly the prospect of a dark time of war and bloodshed was inevitable, the massive knee-jerk reactionary response from the US military will only make things worse.

nightbloom
Time will tell.

But Belgium, nightbloom, Belgium'! Isn't that setting the bar a little low. I mean, really. Britain and France are bad enough, surely you're not setting up King Leopold as an avatar are you? If the Americans couldn’t surpass the King of the Belgians, their moral state would be very bad indeed.

First of all, if the criticism is valid then it's valid to present it. I don't think it amounts to hard-edge anti-Americanism to render judgment - particularly upon an administration which has been pretty damn critical of others itself. Remember those 'if you're not with us, you're against us' speeches. After all, what goes around comes around.

As to the emasculation of the UN - you'd have to admit that the US has been at the centre of that project too from both an administrative and a financial point of view.

Second, if one restricts the ambit of this discussion to the post-Cold War period, I don't think it's possible not to be very critical with what the US has done and has failed to do. Given the power and promise it had as an agency for good since 1989 (with little or no fear of military rivalry).

It has broken a hell of a lot eggs in those 17 years - and I think those of us who expected a few completed omelettes during that period have every right to complain.

What seems to have been far more important than international stability and dealing with poverty and development at least to the US establishment, business, government and military - both Democrat and Republican - during these years has been the profitability of US corporations and the hegemony of US institutions around the world. The US Congress clearly cares more about domestic than international relations and it would be pretty difficult for Canadians - who have been brought up to believe in a very different set of ideals - not to be a little critical.

That this project turned out as badly as it seems to be turning out means, in my view, that individuals like Colin who fail or refuse to notice and criticize, have to be either blind or complicit themselves. I don't think that amounts to anti-Americanism any more than I think your constant sniping at the left is anti-progressive or illiberal of you.

Of course power has always wielded a big stick....doesn't excuse it. Problem is "the big stick" now carries with it the biggest threat to mankind ever.

I

nightbloom, in your concern for the well-being of the liberal democracies of the West, you have left out half of the world...("I'm all right, Jack"..."not really all that bad was it?")...and that is the point. What will Iraq think of American hegonomy after the dust that is now their cities ( and their children), finally settles?

This is not anti-Americanism...nothing against the people of the US...it is about the unrelenting corruption of power...one that is rapidly becoming a major threat to the security of this world...and that is not to say other powers are not threats as well.

While you easily see the human rights abuses in th East, (and their governments are certainly guilty of them), there is an unwillingness to see that the policies of the US and their neo-conservative allies via the war on terror are dangerously veering in that direction as well. A deadly metamorphosis is taking place. Human rights and freedom here in the West are in dire jeopardy as well.

The present US Administration, like a snake with his tail in his mouth, has recoiled perversely against itself and all it once valued ...and has now become itself the thing it once most feared and hated.

Hear, hear! G West.

More good points, Lynn & Gwest. Valid criticism, but a little historical context never hurts. To be clear, I wasn't exculpating them or making excuses for self-interested imperial adventures....Only pointing out that we've seen this pattern before, and that no precedents are being created. I would actually argue that the "neo-conservative" aspect is incidental and secondary to the massive historical gears that are turning over right now. I think the roots of what's happening now go much deeper than the artificial and transient political divide which separates neo-conservative from neo-liberal. They're basically the same species of political animal.

I’m busy again today nightbloom so I’ve no more time than this to respond to your ‘generally generous’ remarks - still one small point of order: neo-liberal and neo-conservative are the same thing. Neo-liberal is the British/ European construction; we tend to substitute neo-conservative here in North America. There are some small differences, but not much of any significance.

Your post just above may well turn out to be prescient - 50 years from now - and is a perfectly appropriate thing for a speculative historian to vouchsafe. I think both Lynn and I, among others, are far less concerned with what someone may conclude about our era 2 generations down the road than with what happens to the country and the culture we're living in right now.

I'd also suggest there are other, equally speculative, outcomes available if one wants to get into the prognostication business.

Cheers to you as well, Lynn.