Flouting International Laws-What is Dubyas Rationale?

hamidm: I think the problem with muslim countries is not one of human savages (although no doubt there are savages among them, as in all societies, e.g. the beheaders of hostages), since there are many highly educated and sophisticated people among them - and also they rightly proud of their rich civilizations in the past. The problem is that of savage systems. By that I mean the system of autocrats (particularly syria, libya, egypt, saudi arabia - and sad to say, pakistan). For bush to deliver on his ``liberty speech``, he would need to tackle these ``strongmen`` head on.

Note that it is not as difficult for Bush to deliver as it may seem: Much progress has already been made towards democracy in muslim countries - indonesia and malaysia have replaced dictators with elected governments, and in the process voters in those countries have also rejected the islamist parties as well. turkey, seeking to join the EU, has already made strong headway towards a democratic system. afghanistan had elections with excellent participation - and iraq is headed towards elections despite the murderous attempts by the sunnis (who, at 20 percent, are bound to lose their traditional power in that country) to block it. In pakistan, musharaff is trying to stay one step ahead of the mainstream parties - but it is a question of time before he too is forced to share power given the vast undercurrent for introducing democratic processes in pakistan.

But, despite all this, the big question is whether bush will be able to take on the ``strongmen`` of the muslim world and force them to democratize. I remain skeptical that he will undergo this change - but remain ready to be pleasantly surprised.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN IRAQ


Grateful Iraqis Thanking Americans and Britons ``Yippy - Two Thumbs up Mr. Bush





Iraqi voters being transported to the polling booths



Iraqi voters being served with cold/hot drinks




Iraqi voters being massaged by British soldiers for their tiring efforst while voting. What a pampering

Amrita #18: That is an interesting quote. Here is one that even tops that, from the key neo-con:

``And a year from now, I`ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.``

Richard Perle, one year ago.........

This was too priceless to leave out -

``Cheerleaders all over America make pyramids. It`s not torture.`` Guy Womack, defense attorney for U.S. Army Reserve Spc. Charles Graner, the ringleader of Abu Ghraib detainee abuse, during opening remarks at Graner`s trial.

--from Newsweek.

``Saddam may have been the most secular leader in the history of the Arab world. He certainly was the most secular leader of present day Arabia.``

agree 100% --

with crazy Islamists insurgency spreading like wild fire -- more and more of Saddam is looking good everyday.....the only bulwark in Iraq against extremist Islamists fundamentalism....

it is interesting how the one thing -- the moronic born-again -- Ayatollah lover -- Ugly White American specializes is -- going after the secular Islam -- a rarity by itself -- wherever it emerges....

.....now deservingly the Born-again BuShiites themselves are getting a taste of the Islamist Insurgency deadly brew -- that the Bible-Belt Christian Chefs personally concocted -- for the average Iraqi citizen...

...that bloody dysentric religious potion -- is going to bite their behind everyday -- in the morning after -- for coming four more -- murderous years -- and therafter.....

the myriads of Islamist Insurgency-- in its most wildest fiercest and cruelest forms....totally out of control.......is Saddam`s revenge....

......as 9/11 was Najeebullah`s revenge.....

amit #14: This reply of yours has a much better assessment of the situation than the previous one. There are two parts that I disagree with, though.

``The neo-con calculation was that Iraq was a secuar place under Saddam, except that it was a brutal dictatorship....... by establishing a secular democracy and hoping that other countries would follow its example.``

I don`t think neo-cons have much concern for how brutal Saddam was. Why would they be concerned? Had he recognised Israel, they would have been happy. I don`t think the neo-cons had any concern about democracy either. They wanted a pro-USA govt. in Iraq, which is why they are not targeting Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt or Kuwait. If you get some time, do read their bio-data. Most of the main ones are Jewish some actually worked for Israel, and their tactics and plans are well documented in papers they have written.

And why in the world would the USA want democracy in the Middle East? The predecessors of Bush weren`t stupid people. They, ``loved`` democracy just as much as the next guy. But why didn`t they export it to the Middle East? Because they knew that the USA and Israel was hated in the Middle East. And any democracy there would be very anti-USA.

Nothing has changed since then. Why would a secular democracy be less anti-USA than a religious govt.? Arabs do not hate the USA because they are Muslims and the USA is secular. They hate it due to political reasons.

``The US has to realize that some people in the world, especially in the Islamic world, just do not like either secularism or democracy.``

What the USA has to realize is that most people in the world do not like to be occupied. And that the Arabs do not like the USA due to its support for Israel`s occuaptional tendencies. If India were occupied by the USA, what would the reaction there be? Wouldn`t the Indians fight back? Occupation does not differentiate between religion and secularism. I assume the BJP would not want to be occupied as much as Congress. Or would BJP be OK with occupation?

The linchpin in this whole game is Israel. It has gotten the USA into an unwinnable war. That is where the solution lies.

Re:Romair#10

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. You are quite right that Iraq is headed towards a theocracy. However, you are seriously underestimating the neo-cons by thinking that the entire mission was an irrational exercise of power or it was only about the oil.

The neo-con calculation was that Iraq was a secuar place under Saddam, except that it was a brutal dictatorship. If they could get rid of him and institute a secular democracy, it would kill many birds with one stone. It would remove a major opponent to Israel. At the same time, it would establish a beachhead in the middle-east by establishing a secular democracy and hoping that other countries would follow its example. Their next target was Syria, which is also secular but a dictatorship. A secular, democratic Iraq would also be an automatic US ally in the fight against terrorism of OBL. Finally it would be a stable, reliable supplier of oil if Saudi Arabia or other countries went against the US. This was the neo-con wet dream.

The reality is of course, 180 degrees opposite from this dream. Far from becoming a secular democracy, Iraq is headed towards chaos, civil war, theocracy and a haven for terrorism. The reason is that the neo-cons made a huge miscalculation that the occupied Iraqis will share their vision of Iraq. The Iraqis have no apetite for this vision because their immediate reaction is hatred of being occupied by an external power. In addition, the Iraqi people just do care about democracy. They have been a dictatorship for so long that a Jeffersonian democracy does not come naturally to them. In addition, their ethnic and sectrian divisions are strong which means that they do not want to share power with each other. Also the entire exercise has inflamed passions across the middle-east to the point that OBL and is cohorts will win any elections held anywhere in that region. So, yes, on the whole this was a huge miscalculation and a serious policy blunder.

The US has to realize that some people in the world, especially in the Islamic world, just do not like either secularism or democracy. You cannot force people to change en masse, even though you are convinced of the superiority of your ideology. You need to see that your own national interests are taken care of, that terrorism is put out etc. Beyond that dont try to build new systems, especially in the middle-east. You can hope that the middle-east eventually evolves and catches up with the rest of the world, but you cannot force it to change.

tahmed,

...... no, i am not kidding ............ i honestly beleve that george bush is the best thing that happened to the mid-east since moses led his people out of egypt ....... the logjam has been broken but there will be a lot of broken trees before the river flows smooth again........ america must be prepared to stay in for the long haul - it took seventy years to defeat communism, it will probably take another fifty to civilize the savages that inhabit the deserts .......... the elections in afgahanistan and iraq are one small step in the right direction ........ the process can be accelerated by occupying saudi arabia and setting up an independent vatican like state in mecca/medina run by a hand-picked council of ulema ....... but i seriously doubt that will happen, so we have to muddle through it one step at a time - iran, syria, egypt, .......... maybe the dominoes will collapse sooner once the people get a whiff of freedom ................

``There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom``

Romair (10) [``...not quite sure which kind of secular democracy you are refering to. Iraq is about to go from being a secular country to being a theocracy. ...``]

Baby Bush is not just the instrument of Lord Jesus. He is also the instrument of Allah`s will. Verily, Allah works in mysterious ways....

...SR

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I don`t think the world has too much to worry about now, from the USA. The Iraqi resistance has kicked some serious butt. The USA has lost in Iraq and is looking for an exit strategy. None of its political goals were achieved. Hats off to the Iraqis. I didn`t think they had it in them. This is the first time any Arab country has successfully stood up to an attack of some sort by USA or Israel. I will have raise my rating on Iraqis from sell to hold.........

Let`s see if Bush goes after Iran now. There maulvis are even more battle-hardened than the Iraqi maulvis. And if democracy is ever introduced in Saudi Arabia, maulvis of the OBL variety will win there. At that point, more than 40% of the world`s oil will under the control of mauvlis in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That should be interesting.

Bush should realize, if he hasn`t that there was a reason all his predecessors went out of their way to suppress democracy in the Middle East. Any democracy there will be very very anti-USA.

Perhaps it is time that the USA stopped letting the Likud party run its foreign policy, through the Jewish neo-con think tanks. And started running its own foreign policy. None of the Arabs have any issues with the USA, itself. All their issues are with Israel. However, Israel has gotten the USA stuck smack in the middle of its battles.............

Amit #7: ``The real reason was to transform the middle-east into secular, democracies by force and crush any kind of Islamic involvement in politics.``

Saddam may have been the most secular leader in the history of the Arab world. He certainly was the most secular leader of present day Arabia.

Unless the USA carries out massive rigging of polls, the next govt. that comes into power will be a Shia theocracy, led by an Ayatollah who was born in Iran and went into exile in Iran, when Saddam went after him. His opposition will more than likely be another Shia leader, Al-Sadr, whose father was killed by Saddam.

So I am not quite sure which kind of secular democracy you are refering to. Iraq is about to go from being a secular country to being a theocracy.

There is and was no intention of turning the Middle East into anything. It was simply a play to take out an anti-USA govt., an anti-Israel govt. and take control of oil in one go.

If the intention was to convert the Middle East into a democracy, then why not start from Kuwait and Jordan and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If the Middle East ever turns into a democracy, it will be the most anti-USA area in the world. A democratic Jordan will destroy all treaties with Israel. As will a demcratic Egypt. A democratic Saudi Arabia will ask for US troops leaving the country and oil embargos against the USA, etc. etc. Arabs on the street hate the USA. According to the Economist, USA is the second most unpopular country in Arab countries, after Israel. While France is one of the three most popular.

If OBL were to compete in an election against George Bush in Arabistan, who do you think would win...........

In the end, it is the maulvis who fight. In Afghanistan, against the USSR, it was the maulvis who fought. And in Iraq, it is the same. All the secularists in Afghanistan and Iraq ran off to California or joined the invading forces as puppet rulers.........Thanks to George Bush, the stock of the maulvis has never been higher in the Middle East. They will win big in any democratic elections........Bush has a huge problem on his hands....He has ended up empowering maulvis in the one state where they were originally on the run, i.e. Iraq.....

hamidm: you are kidding, right??

utter nonsense !........... the world will never be a safe place as long as there are people who live under tyranny ..........

``We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world``.............

........... and george bush, as the leader of the free world, has an obligation to make sure that freedom is brought to all the people of the world, even those who have no idea what it means ........... he will go down in history as the man who empancipated a billion people in a part of the world that had been in darkness for centuries ..........

Mr. Waraich,

The Iraq war is an ideological war between the US led West and the Islamic world. The US wants to transform the entire middle-east into secular democracies, so that there is no threat from political Islam. Iraq was just chosen to be the starting point for this war. Everyone, including the US, knows that the reasons to invade Iraq were just some dumb excuses. The real reason was to transform the middle-east into secular, democracies by force and crush any kind of Islamic involvement in politics.