Is Invading Iraq "Sharon's War"?

[Chris 62]

I think Sharon only attacks people who mess with Ozzie.

[Sava]

Jimmycrackscorn shut up... I was laughing because Zylka said something funny... geeezz...

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Carver


Exactly, you don't understand sh_t, Zylka. You're nothing but an ignorant, racist moron who is too much of a p_ssy to say in person what he types on a computer. Sooner or later someone is going to teach you a lesson and I can't wait until they do.

YOU R NOT THE RACIST LIKE ME BUT ENLIGTHENDE JUST LOOK AT U R AVATAR IT PROOFS IT IN THE PUDDIN CUZ SHE'S BLACK - THAT IS A STIRRING POLITICAL STAITMENT!!!

Regarding real life, I make a LOT of enemies in my lectures - although the profs seem to love it. I imagine you would be one of the usual pothead, guitar strumming res-rats I kicked in the knees after he screamed I was a Nazi?

Unbelievable people around here.

[Jaakko]

Zylka certainly has a talent for odd hyperbole.

[Sava]

haha that first part looks like one of my pot-alcohol induced all-caps troll fest.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I was thinking more of the title, "Sharon's War."

And in what dream world have you been in where Titles to columns aren't simply meant to draw you in (and in plenty of cases have little to do with the substantive material of the article) .

So why is Novak opposed if this is the end result of war?

Because he thinks all it will do (and he's probably right) is piss off the Arab world even more. And secondly, Iraq as a democracy will not survive, because the political will to stay there and 'nation-build' isn't there. Thirdly, all this will simply lead to more terrorism.

I think he's absolutely right. Oh, and he also thinks we've been too pro-Israel as well, and that doesn't help the peace process when we try to meddle, because we are just seen as an agent of Israel (which I also agree with ).

[GePap]

Imran:

"Bush wants to set up a shining democracy"

Bush wants to set up a pro-American secular Arab regime, whether that regime is democratic or not won't really matter one wit in washington. And I fail to see how an Arab democracy would be evry nice to Israel as long as the occupation continues. That notion that democraies like each other: Idiotic!

As for Israel and Iraq. If you read the Israeli press, its all about Iran. Much earlier there seemd to be a hope among Israeli circles that the US would go on invading all the ME regimes unfriendly to israel, but that notion has been dropped. Still, the Israeli government does heartilly approve of the Iraq war, and the fact that the BUshies have postponned any moves towards peace in the ME till aftre elections, and aren't very likely to push Sharon very hard ever means that Israel no longer worries about Bush trying to force peace to "pease" Arabs.

The intersting part, of course, is that in Any Iraqi dmeocracy, Iranian influence might grow, sicne aftre all, the biggest opposition groups is a groups of Ayatollahs from the Shi'a south.

As for the article's title: it does have a vague hint of ani-semitism, but the article itself makes no significant anit-Israel claims, unless you believe that saying the US doe a lot for Israel is somehow anti-Israel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush wants to set up a pro-American secular Arab regime, whether that regime is democratic or not won't really matter one wit in washington.

Actually he really wants a democratic election. It's one of his main goals for after the war. And it isn't a 'ploy'. It is something he actually believes in.

That notion that democraies like each other: Idiotic!

Democracies do not have to like each other, but history has proven they do not fight wars against each other.

[GePap]

Imran:

Do you have evidence, beyond Bush's own statements, that he cares for democracy? If statements are enough, then Saddam has no WMD either. I go by his trac record, which as far as democracy goes, beyond words, is piss poor. May I add that the Bushies hav not decided on a post Saddam political plan yet: perhaps they still toy with the occupation regime under Franks.

As for dem. not fighting wars: what about the 1812 war? The two most democratic states in the world at that time had a pretty violent war at that time. And wasn't the confederacy a democracy? I think so. Given the number of democracies and their time on this earth true history, that statment may only be true due to a lack of time and experience, specially since I have seen no worthwhile IR arguments for why it would be true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what about the 1812 war?

A democracy versus a state in transition between monarchy and democracy, but where the monarch had still too much power for it to be a democracy.

And wasn't the confederacy a democracy?

Why would it have been? Was there ever more than one election? Democracies require more than one vote.

Its the closest thing to a law in IR, democratic dyads do not fight in wars against each other. There is no example in history which fits.

---

And it isn't Bush's statements but other people writing about it. And not just Republicans, but Democrats like Michael Kinsley and neutrals like Bob Woodward (read his new book). Every journalist that gets close to him says he has this very Wilsonian pro-spreading democracy view in his mind, which is tempered by Cheney's realpolitik view of the world (which is why they are a pretty decent partnership).

[Paradox]

Off the topic but definitely related to this thread is that certain ppl always seem to post the same threads with "the same" or what could be construed as anti-israeli,anti-semitic or anti-US based. At the very least questions most certainly aimed to illicit highly emotive responses more than a decent discussion.

IMO many posts are not trying to ask valid questions or ellicit responses, but seemingly subtley trying to "have a go" or "prodding" as supposed/alleged israeli/US prejudice/alliances against the "East".

Now once in a while this would be fine, but if one looks at the posters they always seem to be the same ( in general), always on the arab-israeli-US-ME question and almost 100% stated in such a way that israel-US are the defendents/oppressors and the East-muslim regimes the accusers/oppressed!

I personally question the "real" desire to discuss as opposed to "have a go"....

Perhaps its time someone posted something like "IF Saddam apologised to the US and its peoples on national TV would we forgive him?" Comeon! Get real thats hardly a question which could be discussed...its just pure lunacy!

Just my views and observations

[monkspider]

Imran - I am in full agreement with Gegap here. The United States has never been concerned with spreading Democracy throughout the world before, why should they start now? In fact, i doubt there is a country that has done more to stunt the spread of democracy. Of course Bush would publically say that he wants to see a democratic regime in Iraq, do you think the public is going to support the war if he was honest and said that he wanted a regime friendly to american economic interests, whether it was democractic or not is irrelevent? The war already has a very slim support, do you really think that Bush could say anything else? You're a pretty bright guy Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly. If you're serious that is, I have a bit of a hunch that you're actually just yanking our chain on this one.

[Az]

I'd like to make a point why the future regime in Iraq could be friendlier to Israel:

a) for once, no matter how hostile it is , it won't throw ballistic missiles at us ala 91'.
b) Israel had in the past had GREAT relationships with the curds up north. real great ones. Israeli consultants helped create the first informal kurdish autonomous regions back in the 60s-70s, by training and often commanding kurdish troops.
c) however, due to growing relations with Turkey, there is a cooling in the relations with the Kurds, esp. since the accusations that Israel has participated in the capture of Otchelan, the leader of the KPP, back in the late 90s. the funny thing is that kurds demnstrated later in front of an Israeli embassy, and tried to break in, yet noone tried to break into the turkish embassy.

Personally , I believe that the kurds deserve a state of their own. nuff said.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, but believing that this country has a legitimate interest in spreading democracy to Iraq is just unbelieveably silly.

Why? I think this country has a GREAT interest in spreading democracy to Iraq. It wouldn't matter if it was Bush or Gore in the WH right now, that would be a top priority. Making Iraq democratic would have the effect of showing the rest of the ME that democracy and Islam can work. This would, perhaps, lead to more democratic reforms in neighboring countries. And ANY democratic Arab state would probably be friendlier to Israel (a democratic PLA would try harder for peace since a majority of Palestinians are not liking their kids dying).

[Az]

since a majority of Palestinians are not liking their kids dying).

weird, I thought that most approved of suicide bombers.