Some excellent insight on how the war is affecting the ME

[Sloth]

From Adrian Hamilton of the Indipendent:
"Democracy in the Middle East should not be understood to presuppose pro-Americanism. Just the opposite".

link to the article: http://argument.independent.co.uk/re...p?story=391430

The phrase summarize, IMO, very well the real political dilemma of this war.
A comment from the pro-war camp would be welcome.

[Urban Ranger]

Mr Hamilton is right. There is nothing that the US has showed to any ME person that would garner endearment. Propping up pro-US corrupt regimes certainly is less than helpful.

[CyberGnu]

Well, I think it is time to ask ourselves: Can the administration really be so clueless as to not understand this?

And if not, what are their ulterior motives? Are they actually trying to encourage anti-american feelings in the mideast, in order to provoke more hostility and consequently the "right to pre-empt or retaliate"? Is this part of a grander scheme for US domination?

Sitting in this beautiful handbasket, it is not exactly comforting to see the fires in the distance getting closer...

[Wernazuma III]

Promising democracy in the whole region while pumping billions of dollars to the Jordanian regime for continued support is also a good sign towards critics. And the fact that one of the world's most repressive regimes(much more than Saddam's) , Saudi Arabia, is still an official friend - (though not liked much) shows that the "old" politics still work: "It's a pitty that they're brutal dictators as long as we need them strategically."

But sure, democracy and stability will reign the ME...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
And if not, what are their ulterior motives? Are they actually trying to encourage anti-american feelings in the mideast, in order to provoke more hostility and consequently the "right to pre-empt or retaliate"? Is this part of a grander scheme for US domination?

Sharon should sue for copyright infriction!

[CyberGnu]

Hehehehehehe

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Your knowledge of reality needs some help, then. The US sponsored the Ba'ath party against the former strongman of Iraq, who had allied with the Iraqi Communist Party. It was only after the Ba'athists came to power the 2nd time that they turned towards the USSR (probably because of the US's support of Israel in 1967).

Hussein was on the CIA's payroll in the 1950s and 60s. When the Ba'athists came to power the first time in 1963, the CIA gave Hussein a list of communists, communist-sympathizers, and suspected commies and commie-symps. Eight-hundred of them died or disappeared.

Could you provide me with sources I'm likely to trust?

Please note that my information comes from arabist (non-israeli) sources (an arabic site about the middle east).

Sharon should sue for copyright infriction!

oh please

you're not even knowledgable enough to know that Sharon wasn't in any government role during 1967.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Could you provide me with sources I'm likely to trust?

Could you please -PLEASE, PLEASE!!!- list ALL historical studies not in Hebrew YOU are likely to trust, if any?

please....

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Sharon should sue for copyright infriction!

oh please

you're not even knowledgable enough to know that Sharon wasn't in any government role during 1967.

NOTE: This side remark was from me, not chegitz.
And I was refering to Sharon's actions since the electoral campaign and during his government, which I clearly interpret this way. Unleashing the Intifada with utter provocation and then do everything possible to make the situation escalate. He behaved in such a way that the extremists on both sides could toast and congratulate each other.

[GeneralTacticus]

Could you provide me with sources I'm likely to trust?

Try this article from that bastion of anti-American sentiment, the New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0F1EFA3B5A0C778DDDAA0894DB404482

The actual article is here:

http://www.midwestacademy.com/Comment/change.htm

[Chris 62]

HA HA HA HA

I guy posted to your pre-convieved perceptions, and it's gospel.

Including Che, still trying to pitch Saddam as a CIA guy!

Nope, try again.

[Jaakko]

Is that aimed at me for posting the thread or some other poster?

Edit: because categorical denial, without any counterargument, of an obviously hands-on assessment of the situation in the ME isn't going to cut it.

[Chris 62]

No, I'm sure you wanted to show someone who is posting first hand accounts.

I'm laughing at the usual suspects, they whip out the conspiracy theorys at the drop of a hat.

Che is always fun for that, if Saddam was the CIA's bought man, why was he first Pro-Soviet and then Pro-French?
Guess the CIA wasn't getting their money's worth!

Some of the usual arab/israel guys posting in the usual way also.

I still look at things objectivly jaako, the war obviously didn't go as Rumsfeld wanted, but Bush and Franks seemed to be ready for that.

The only thing Saddam is winning is a piece of ground, 6x6 three feet across.

Does anyone here truly believe that Bush will accept a ceasefire after going to war without a second resolution?

It's Saddam feet first or nothing, people can protest accross the globe, it will change nothing.

[Jaakko]

Ok. In all the hijacking that's been going on, I'm a bit lost myself.

Militarily this is all but finished (even though there's still a lot the Iraqis can do to make things look bad), but politically I'm afraid the Bush admin is about to park the whole show in the middle of a gigantic minefield.

[Chris 62]

He (Bush) either does it right or we will vote his ass out and get somebody in charge who can.

Americans have a rather short fuse with nonsense these days.