I like how this plan involves a lot of dictating what to do by "us" to the Turks, Syrians and other people. Why don't you just mind your own goddamn business?
--- boddi satva <lbo.boddi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > >
> > > Let's end this absurdity. The American-Israeli
> Neo-Conservative,
> > > Neo-religious Strategy of Chaos is horrifying.
> Of course we want
> > > people to oppose it. But a lot of the people who
> DO oppose it are
> > > barbarians, unworthy of support. Stop the
> knee-jerk craziness.
> > ========================
> >
> > To which Marvin replies:
> > Are you in favour of the withdrawal of US forces
> from Iraq, understanding
> > that this means the likelihood of an Islamist
> government - yes or no?
>
> And it's a fair question. I can see from my remarks
> how you might
> mistake me for one of those who thinks keeping
> forces in Iraq is a
> good idea. I don't. For the past three years, I have
> swallowed my
> disgust, kept my Commie mouth shut and worked for
> Democratic Party
> campaigns starting with Howard Dean in order to try
> and keep us out of
> Iraq and then get us out of Iraq (although I never
> did become a
> Democrat myself). Washington state sent more Dean
> delegates to the
> Convention than any other and so I am pretty happy
> with my efforts.
>
> I just couldn't stand working for the Dems any more
> and here in
> Washington I have been a vitriolic and tireless
> critic of our junior
> Senator Maria Cantwell and encouraged people not to
> waste time on her
> useless campaign because of her support for the Iraq
> war.
>
> I was fooled into thinking that Saddam Hussein had
> WMD, but I always
> knew the Bush Administration approach would be a
> nightmare. In my
> view, we should, despite the threat of WMD, have
> pushed the Iraqi Army
> South and North of the Northern and Southern
> no-fly-zones,
> respectively, and attempted to decapitate the regime
> in Baghdad with
> air strikes AGAINST MILITARY TARGETS ONLY - no power
> stations or
> communications infrastructure.
>
> I think we should have helped create alternative
> states in Kurdistan
> and the Shiite South, asking Iran to give up some
> Kurdish territory in
> the North of their country in exchange for
> destroying Iraq's ability
> to project force into their territory again and
> allowing there to be a
> unified clerical administration of the 12 holy sites
> of Shia Islam
> (which Iran would inevitably dominate). I think we
> should have made
> the same deal with Syria, and should have forced the
> Turks to give up
> at least one Kurdish province as a price for joining
> the EU.
>
> I recognize that Southern Iraq would inevitably
> become a
> semi-theocracy, but so long as it was formally
> secular, I think that
> would have been fine. Obviously Muslims - like many
> Christians in this
> country - don't see a problem with religion's
> informing their
> governing philosophy. We should then have gotten
> together with Muslims
> (particularly in Britain and the Gulf Emirates) and
> helped develop
> Islamic finance so that there would be a real,
> financial and economic
> reason to develop a reformed Islam.
>
> Saddam Hussein was our guard dog and I think we had
> a responsibility
> to put him back on the leash. We gave him a military
> to play with and
> we had to take it away from him. Iraq was hardly
> free of colonialism
> before the invasion. I see Saddam Hussein as a
> colonial master,
> locally hired.
>
> So I guess I was a proponent of partition, mainly to
> protect the
> vulnerable populations in Iran, Kurdistan and the
> Shiite South from
> the rabid animal Saddam.
>
> I think the US should withdraw its positions to
> lines of partition and
> create safe havens for internally displaced refugees
> ON THE WAY OUT.
> But the reality is that we are almost certain simply
> to leave in
> disgrace, Fall-Of-Saigon-style, and the main thing
> we have to do is
> leave.
>
> > [WS:] So here we are, between the Scylla of the
> Western capitalism cum US
> > interventionism (I do not think it is imperialism
> in the traditional sense
> > of the word) and the Charybdis of anti-Western
> Islamic nationalism (which
> > has all the telltale signs of fascism). I know it
> is dandy to verbally
> > support the latter while living in the US or
> Europe, because it is a risk
> > free way of acquiring radical credentials while
> being effectively shielded
> > from the horrors of the Islamist nationalism,
> which are many. But let's for
> > a while think in pro-active rather than reactive
> terms i.e. consider what
> > has a better prospect for the future instead of
> what has been bad in the
> > past.
> >
> > If the ultimate goal is some form of socialism
> i.e. a system that is
> > universalistic, rational, egalitarian, democratic,
> and secular, the question
> > then is which of the two offers a better chance of
> achieving such a system:
> > Western capitalism or Islamic nationalism? AFIK,
> Western capitalism cum US
> > interventionism (this includes Israeli
> expansionism too!) offers a much
> > better chance of achieving socialism in the future
> than Islamism does. This
> > is precisely the way Marx approached the issue in
> his take on the British
> > rule in India - and this is also the way I am
> inclined to think.
> >
> > In sum, being against US policies is not enough,
> Marvin. You (and that
> > applies to Yoshie, Jean-Christophe and others)
> need to show that Islamic
> > nationalism is a *better* alternative to the
> unholy triumvirate of Western
> > capitalism, US interventionism and Israeli
> expansionism. Arguing that it is
> > just an alternative does not quite cut it. I do
> not think that many
> > rational people would give up the latter for the
> former.
> >
> >
> > Wojtek
>
> I also reject the idea that there was some moral
> superiority in
> leaving the Iraqis to the predations of the Western
> puppet Saddam.
> America simply fucked up the right and necessary
> removal of Saddam to
> an almost unimaginable extent. Bush adopted an
> insane Israeli-based
> foreign policy that was completely removed from
> reality.
>
> To be completely frank, people in Iraq are probably
> too backwards to
> be expected to create a government that's not
> largely dominated by
> Islam. There's just too much tradition there. Hell,
> America is just
> barely throwing off the yoke of the God Delusion.
> But Turkey and
> Morocco suggest that there is great value in
> rejecting theocracy even
> though it's probably more popular than
> liberal-democracy and easier to
> institute.
>
> A note to Yoshie:
>
> Hang on! You mean religious people actually
> sometimes MEAN what they
> say???? You mean sometimes that "charity" and
> "compassion" business
> they teach, they actually take seriously???? Oh My
> God, I never
> realized that! Wow, imagine a religious state being
> so...you
> know....religious!
>
> Seriously, have you actually read history? Are you
> unfamiliar with the
> role of religion as a mollifying force on government
> for...oh,
> say...the past couple THOUSAND years? Doesn't mean
> we should put
> Europe back under the control of the Vatican,
> though, does it?
>
> And the Vatican is a left-wing think tank compared
> to the Muslims you
> are talking about.
>
> Make some sense.
>
>
> boddi
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index