Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Re: # 33

Well said.

Re#29 MirMir

[``And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!``
Say what???? Where do you get this stuff, Mr. (Bee)J. McCarthy?]

Dear sir, why don’t you go ahead and tell me your actual positions on those issues. I base my statements on reading of your stuff and I don’t see you denying what I say above – you seem to be just asking me how I got it.

(And just for information, I always LIKED Speedy Gonzales, so don’t take that as an affront!)

(Also, the word “adrak” has a special meaning according to certain interactors, which appears consistent with the frame of mind in which this article appears to have been written.)

(Also, it is utterly ludicrous that a criticism of illegal immigration should be taken either as a criticism of Spanish speakers generally or as a personal attack.)


Re#30 Ana

Ana, you are NOT being stalked – so stop flattering yourself!

And may I know which interact of mine on the Gandhi board got you so ticked off – since I see NO record of any interact from me to you on that board!

#16 and more by SR, Ferozk, mirmir,

I am afraid your historian friend is no political science expert so his conclusions are devoid of any reasonable argument about the current situation in Iraq. There is a difference in the perception and reality. Reality is that there was a legitimate concern in two successive US administrations and in Europe that Iraq under Saddam was a likely candidate to fall under the terrorist influence. I had tried to explain that in my post #9 but either I have not done a job of it or you are deliberately sidestepping the issue.

Let me try it again.
The world learns from experience. The fascist in the last century were just local goons until they were able to control two states in Europe and what happened afterwards is now history. The communists were a nuisance in Europe and only a handful of Bolshevik were not worth the second look by any country in world until they controlled a state, Russia. The first wave of Bolsheviks was a little closer to the ideology but the next was not any different than the emerging fascist states in Germany and Italy.

Those two ideological extremists consumed whopping resources of the world and eliminating them needed a large number of human as well as material sacrifices not to talk of wasted years that could have helped human development.

Islamic terrorism though has not reached that level but it sure is not due to lack of effort on their part. The terrorist groups were strengthened after they got hold of a state in Afghanistan. Check the number of terrorist attacks by Bin Laden group before and after they became a part of the Taliban regime.

The concern that Iraq may fall to terrorist was genuine and the impact of that would have been terrifying to the world.

There is no doubt that a preemptive action was required before Iraq was lost to the terrorists. We can argue that the Bush admin was inept in making its case and was grossly incompetent in managing the war in Iraq. We can also say that Bush is not the smartest pea in the pod and we can also say that Rummy is borderline crazy but we need to face the reality that Iraq in terrorist hand would have been something the world would have regretted for a long long time.

Remember the old saying: If you throw rocks into a pack of dogs, the dogs yelping the loudest are the ones that got hit.

Who is making more noises about Iraq? The Islamist fundamentalists!
It is strange that the liberals hiding behind their criticism of the conduct of war are tacitly supporting the Islamic fundamentalists’ argument against the US.

Let’s talk about the newly emerging pet leftist theory that the US Empire is about to implode out of its own contradictions.

The US Empire, and if it is an Empire at all, is only 60-70 years old. It is the most advanced, sophisticated, high tech and is built on some ideas that have been honed in years of knowledge and education. The level of sophistication the US state brings to the table is much larger than any Empire seen in the history of mankind. There is no way that the hollowed leftists theories and quotes from some ancient philosophers are to going to bring this modern Empire down from within, not in the next 300 years.

Haroon on Saddam and Bush

As Iraq becomes Vietnam, he blames the seemingly unstoppable insurgency on Al Qaeda and other Islamic militants, whom he has just compared to Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot. But his own analysts peg their number at only a few hundred out of an estimated 10,000 insurgents.

He blames Iran and Syria and won`t rule out waging war on either or both. Yet suspected foreign militants caught in Iraq since April add up to a grand total of 312. Of them, the highest number, 78, hail from Egypt, about which he remains silent, as also about the other American ally, Saudi Arabia, whose apprehended citizens outnumber Iran`s, 32 to 13.

He crows about bringing democracy to Iraq but plans to veto a U.S. Senate vote ordering him to bring Guantanamo Bay and similar other holding pens under the rule of law.

Re: # 30
Ana...
Yes, people who use personal attacks rather than reason seem to pop up everywhere, but I honestly thought that McCarthyism was dead - apparently not. I finally figured out how to use the ``filter`` option (thanks to the Chowk staff for making this option available) that lets us block folks like the Beej out. The ``bee`` has flown from here as well. mirmir

mirmir:

do forgive beej. for a person who patronizes others in regards to their emotionalism, he certainly lets his own blind fervor get in the way of ``logic and common sense``.

--he tends to assume that activists are either communists or communist sympathizers indeed as you say in the vein of a mccarthy. he ignores the fact that martin luther king jR. was an activist AND a vociferous critic of communism. i am always amazed at the incredibly narrow definitions some folks have of being an ``act-iv-ist``

--his words would suggest a ``my country right or wrong`` attitude, and again he assumes that being critical of a country`s policies or president is indicative of a) a communist/communist sympathizer, or b) an anti-national. last i heard the united states had not made a full slide into fascism. last i heard, it was okay to raise questions in a democracy. and last i heard, it was okay to question policies of a neighboring country especially if those policies impacted them.

--judging from his thinly veiled stereotypical remarks here and on your board, he appears to be ignorant and have a low tolerance for mexicans/latinos/chicanos. i mean what are these ``hot-blooded`` mexican, and speedy gonzales allusions about?!

whatcha gonna do?!

oh, and one more thing, once the beej is disgusted with one`s stance on something, he tends to do something very closely approximating ``stalking`` that one on other boards with personal attacks. he`s already done that with certain writers and interactors. but so have other interactors as well. if all we can do is capitalize on personal attacks rather than arguing issues, then at some point one learns to ignore such attacks, kinda like a distant buzzing of a bee, or one doesn`t.

*this bee has flown*

Ref # 18...

``And then of course there are the communist sympathizers like mirmirs who are fine with illegals breaking all rules of border crossings, who want the US to pump and pump money into the UN, who could NEVER run a democracy and a clean judiciary in their own countries themselves – but have the audacity to turn around and start bad-mouthing the US – simply because they can get away with it. It is not the first time I have seen such an utter lack of logic and common sense!``

Say what???? Where do you get this stuff, Mr. (Bee)J. McCarthy? mirmir

Ferozk:

My comments were in regards to your post #5 in which you said:

``There is a legal prionciple called `sovereign immunity,` which will prevent Vice President Dick Cheney and anyone associated with the Bush administration from being prosecuted.``

In my last post (#17) I reproduced a news story from Yahoo!News in which one of the observations was, ``And what if the unthinkable happens and Cheney is indicted?`` So indictment of Dick Cheney is not off the books and is a possibility.

Thanks for your long post (#26) but I was not really concerned with the niceties and fine points of law. I was a government (local government) official (apolitical) myself and knew I would be protected for my actions within the law and taken according to the departmental guidelines. On one occasion, I did very politely refuse to carry out a direct verbal order from my Deputy Director giving her my reasons for it. She understood and didn`t force me. She got the thing done some other way.

The intent of the article was not to raise a political discussion between pro and contra Muslims and their interests. Those who are writing on these issues have completely mis-read the article. The basic issue was if Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other officials had crossed the legal boundaries by outing Valerie Plame. In our boundless passion for our religious affiliations, we seem to have lost sight of objectivity. Every issue is not about ``us`` versus ``them.`` Particularly the issue highlighted in the article was not about it. It is about what a powerful administarator can and cannot legally do in the discharge of his/her duties.

For God`s sake, aren`t you guys tired of this meaningless debate pitting one religion against the other. Why don`t you grow up?

Mohammad Gill

#18 Beej

``The true answer is that no matter what the US does, it will be blamed by tons of Muslims all over the world – and the farther those Muslims are located from that scene of action – the more vociferously they would object – and the more jihadis they would dispatch!``

You are so right Beej. Not too much, if any, has been written on this site about:

- How did Syria manage to kill major Lebenese political figure? What were they afraid of? Is the UN report credible? And then, why was that prominant syrian minister eliminated by Assad? Why did he call a Lebenese radio station 2 hours befor he committed ``suicide``?

- What does the new Iraqi constitution mean for Kurds and Shias? Why are Sunnis killing tons of Shias every day? Why should Shias and Kurds continue to live under Iraq of Sunnis, for Sunnis and by Sunnis? Can 70% of non-Sunnis ask for their homeland?

These are non-kosher thoughts for this crowd. They are just having collective wet dreams that Bush will leave in disgrace because some one said this to that at a certain time. They love this lawful society as long as it helps getting rid of Bush and preserves their own well being here.

They have no use for this mumbo jumbo if it impacts Kurds, Lebenese, Shias or other minorities of their dream lands.

Re: # 8

The purpose of any government probe is never to punish any wrong doing, but to create the impression of a government`s resolve to be seen as upholding the law. The basic function of an investigating commission or an inquiry is to share credit equally by absolving everyone involved of any blame. The purpose of a government`s criminal investigation is never to punish the guilty, but to defend the principle of justice itself. In principle, the guilty should be punished, but in reality, the guilty are a part of the administration/government and to punish erring officals, in the actuality of the act, would be implying that governmental actions themselves are open to question. The purpose of an investigation is to deflect outside criticism and questions, by conducting the investigation ``in house`` so that its conclusions and findings can be contolled and tailored to the government`s own interest in escaping accountibility. Even before an investigation gets underway, its conclusions are already decided and the whole process is to convince the people that a given government/administration is responsive to their criticism and in principle, but though not in reality, holds itself accountible for its actions.

In principle, no US offical is above the law, but in reality US officals are answerable to their individual superiors and are supposed to implement the institutional policies of their respective departments. Therefore, if they make a mistake or break a law, there is a high probability that they will be dealt by, and with, the administrative laws, which govern each department and will not be judged in a open public court. The decision of the inter-departmental administrative courts is alway to make sure that the case is dismissed from the public knowledge and the public`s and the press` intrusions into the matter are ended through the mechanism of a probe, which in the principle is supposed to uphold accountibility to the people, but in reality is supposed to prevent accountibility to the people, by keeping them out of the process. Hence, though in theory, the US officals are not above the law and in principle, such might be the case; in reality, they have an offical immunity, which prevents them from being held accountable under the law.

The functions of the government are not supposed to make sense to the average person. The laws of the government, are not supposed to make sense, because if they made sense, the people would realize just how much the government lies to them. The function of the government, in principle is to serve the people, but in reality it is to complicate the goverance to such an extent that the people leave its implementation to the officals and do not judge the officals` expertise to govern them, because the complicated nature of government makes its functionings unfathomable to average citizen.

A president can pardon anyone in United States, but what is important in the United States` political architecture is not the personality of the president, but the institution of the presidency. It is the creditibility of the institution, which has to be protected and not of the president, which is the cause of concern in any investigating probe in the United States. A president, and in this case, President Bush, will never in principle undertake such an action for personal reasons and he will invoke such a right to prevent the presidency from being tarnished. He will undertake such an action to protect the powers of the presidency from being made accountable to the other two branches of the government; legislative or the judicary.

The president of the United States is also the head of the government and the bureaucracy of the United States, though in principle answers to the Congress, in reality works under the direction of the president of the United States. It is the job of the Congress, under the US constitution to make the law, and it is the job of the bureaucracy to implement such laws after the White House and the president approve of it. Being under the authority of the president, the American bureaucracy in principle is supposed to a apolitical, but given the political nature of the White House and the presidency itself and the fact that the president appoints his political suppoters or politically like minded people to head the various departments in the United States, the bureaucracy in the United States follows the political aims of the party, which occupies the White House and this makes the United States bureaucracy highly political in its outwards orientations towards policy objectives as defined by a political White House and a political president.

Another factor in this is the permanence of the bureaucracy itself vis-a-vis the political leadership in the White House. The politics of the White House and the presidency is such, that it will be in a constant mode of change, with administrations coming and going periodically. On the other hand, the bureaucrats, who serve the White House will stay and not change with new administrations and since their primary job is to implement the directives of their political masters, they will only do so if they are not made accountible for their actions. If the bureaucrats are made accountable and punished, then the whole system breaks down, because than the political policies of the presidency will never be carried out by bureaucrats, who will worried about their own security from prosecution.

Thus, in order to make the political directives of the White House and its political appointees are carried out, the bureaucracy has to be made immune from the consequences of such policies and has to be protected from prosecution in case the policies malfunction. A policy malfunction is does not mean that the policy does not work; it only means that the public has an awareness of such a policy in being existence, which makes the execution of such said policy problematic. Therefore, in order to avoid public oversight of such a policy, the governments create investigating commissions, whose sole purpose is prevent the truth from coming out, but it is never, under any consideration, to punish those officals, who might have broken the law.

Besides, even if a law was fractured, it can always be attributed to the ``Rhodesian solution`` and the crisis averted. :)

Ciao

re: SR (various posts)

I agree, with your`s friend`s historic observations on the nature of the empires. Most empires, historically speaking, have collapsed from internal problems and not from external reasons. From Rome to Britain to now United States, this pattern will be the same.

As to the ``Big Z``, he is in my opinion, one of the most farsighted political analysts of US foreign policy. What makes his analysis and opinions carry so much weight is that they are always devoid of ideological blinkers. ``Big Z`` being the protege of Kissenger is a Realpolitiker and not a wishful personality as the cabal, which is influencing Bush foreign policy.

Ciao

Re: # 18 {``...Can you describe to me what scenario would be a “fair” trial for this type of character? (Chopping the head off is not an option.) ...``}

When American forces took Naples in 1943, General Mark Clark appointed New York Mafioso Lucky Luciano as his senior civilian advisor. While Clark dined on fish looted from the city aquarium, Luciano knew what to do with anyone who got out of line. But Paul Bremer and the rest of the bumblers appointed by the Bush administration were only good at pleasing their masters in Washington, not ruling their subjects. They quickly made a mess of it. And now, by putting Saddam on the stand, they offer the old man a chance to make his case. Yes, the nation was a hellhole when he ran the place, but at least it was a hellhole for the Iraqi people, by the Iraqi people, and of the Iraqi people.

The noose is too good for Saddam. As I wrote in my earlier response: ``U.S. soldiers might have done better to treat him as Genghis Khan treated one of his enemies: pouring molten silver in his ear.`` Okay, I concede, maybe molten silver in the ears is going a bit too far. How about a lead slug an inch above the right ear? Is that allowed? It should be. After all that is how his sons were disposed off. The why not him? But no... no sir, the Anglo-Saxons have to appear to be civilized. What rubbish. Killing thousands of innocent bystanders in the process and shrugging it off as ``collateral damage`` is okay but one bullet in Saddam`s brain is not. This is absurd in the extreme.

The real problem for America is the problem of empire itself. It turns the imperial people into a race of “hollow dummies,” to use George Orwell’s phrase. They eventually come to believe what isn’t true and try to do what can’t be done. “Nation building” in Baghdad by an occupying army? You might as well try to get rich by borrowing money and increasing your spending.

The Anglo-Saxon Empire is, and always was, based on commerce. It succeeded by taking raw materials from the colonies, adding value by manufacturing, and reselling the products to the world. But the Aanglo-Saxons no longer make what the world wants to buy. Turn over any object at home or at the office and you are likely to find a “made in China,” or “made in Malaysia,” or “assembled in India,” notice. Increasingly, America’s old industries - such as G.M. and Kodak are going bust, unable to compete with Asian labor rates. America now has to borrow from foreigners to pay interest on the debt it owe`s.

The best way to win a war, said Sun Tzu, is to let your enemy defeat himself. That is roughly what U.S. forces are doing in Iraq. They are helping to destroy the great Anglo-Saxon commercial empire. And they are doing it in the predictable way. U.S. military power is now stretched out all over the globe. The flower of America’s high-tech puissance - the finest attack machine ever created - is now put to work guarding gas stations and ballot boxes. Meanwhile, the expense of maintaining global hegemony has risen so high the only way America can afford it is by borrowing money from the communists in China.

Re: # 21

romair:

``When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise. ``

you are stating as if the republicans are going to be wiped off for good.

at the most because of these inquiries, some heads would roll, may be democracts would win the presidential election (because of GOP policies).

would all that mean republican party will be gone for good?

i don`t think so.

---

``The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. ``

Don`t you think that Bush`s policy regarding gay marriage, abortion and ``operation iraqi freedom`` propaganda had any influence in winning the House, senate majority?

---

regarding the conservative revolution, when bush won in 2004, the country was almost divided 50-50 hence i don`t think conservatives had an overwheming advantage. but with the iraq situation going nowhere more people are having doubts about his leadership.

Re: # 9
HP

``The first and the biggest mistake was dismantling of the Iraqi army. The jobless army men provided the first wave of anti-US resistance and now it has been picked by several groups. ``


I really wonder how great of a job the originally iraqi army would have done. it was still Bathists/sunni dominated. what their attitude towards shiahs and kurds would been.

mistrust and sabotage would still be a part of daily operations.

When the history of the Republican party is written, by Republican authors themselves, George Bush will be the person they will blame for their demise.

The USA, over the past four decades has gone through a social revolution. It is the only influential country in the Western world that has gone from Liberalism to Conservatism, socially. It is the only influential country in the Western world, which has gone from being less religious to more religious. It is, infact, going against the trend of where the Western world is going. As an example, according to Pew, 45% of Americans now want religion in the State, i.e. they are against Secularism. While 35% of Britishers feel that David Beckham has more influence on their lives than God!

The conservative movement in the USA took a lot of effort, and reached its zenith during the Regan days, and took control of the Republican party. After which it was only matter of time, till it took over the USA. Five out of the last seven US Presidents have been Republican. And only a President of Clinton`s calibre was able to make a dent for the Demcrats.

23% of the voting population of the USA are Christian Evangelists. And 42% of the population consists of Christian Conservatives. Hence any Republican candidate only has to compete for approximately 66% of the vote, While the Democrats have to compete for nearly 100%.........

The Republicans reached a point, through the social conservative revolution, where they controlled the House, the Senate, the Executive, and are about to control the Judiciary. Something unprecedented in the last century of the USA.

All they now needed was a President who did not mess anything up. He just had to be average. Even slightly below average would have worked. Not make any stupid decisions, and just work 9-5. Like the Quarterback whose team is so powerful that it will win, even if he doesn`t do anything, other than not fumbling.......

That is when George W. Bush arrived......

In six quick years, he has undone forty long years of the conservative revolution, for the Republicans. He has fumbled at every step, even when it was impossible to fumble. This is despite the fact that he had the 9/11 tragedy, to give him a huge boost. He had to do nothing after that, and Republicans would still continue to win, forever........

There is an interesting anological comparison to Canada. In Canada, conservatives can never win. The Liberals always win. In the last election, the two conservative parties joined into one. The Liberal party had an internal coup, and broke up into two. The Finance minister kicked out his own Prime Minister, and two Deputy Prime Ministers. On top of that the USA put up sanctions on beef and lumber against Canada. If that wasn`t bad enough the Liberal party got caught in a huge financial corruption scandal. On top of that the separatist Quebec party won large gains in Quebec.

Yet the Liberals still won!! And will probably win again. Whatever seats they lost, were to the even more Liberal NDP.......

This is what the situation would and should have been in the USA for the Conservatives and Republicans. In a USA, where 2 out of every 3 citizens claims to be conservative, the Republican party should be undefeatable. However, Bush seems to have ruined it for them, in a quick 6 years.........

And indeed there will be time
To wonder, ``Do I dare?`` and, ``Do I dare?``
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
[They will say: ``How his hair is growing thin!``]
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
[They will say: ``But how his arms and legs are thin!``]
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse.

t. s. eliot. ``the love song of j. alfred prufrock``