Peace In The MIddle East

Ruthlessness does have its perks, no?

So Frum bad, Kissinger good?

This would bring us back to the "he may be a sonavabitch but he's our sonavabitch" school of real politic.

The whole "taming of the savages" idea of bringing civilization, freedom and democracy would go into the dust bin. (At this point the dimmer of the lefties will cry "the Muslims invested counting and were far more civilized than the Europeans were in the dark ages" and other nonsense from the distant past. It was the Assyrians, not the Muslims. The Assyrians were destroyed by the Muslims. That's why they haven't done much lately.)

I would hope that the ME would be reformable. Otherwise it would be less useful to oppress them then it would be to nuke them. I'm an optimist so I'm hoping for a Muslim Martin Luther rather than a Western Genghis Khan with nukes.

Of course, the left will have a hard time with the "I told you so" line as they're the ones who demand human rights all over the place (including democracy although they never really mean it) and it's the right who were trying to provide them with it while the left objected. If the left has now taken over the Kissinger position they're now the cold, cynical realists who have abandoned a better world, human rights, freedoms and democracy. The left can't square that round hole. It's interesting to think of what they'll object to this time.

The neocon philosophy: "We will bomb you until you accept our gift of freedom and democracy."

Sure why not? Let him do it from within his jail cell under proper supervision and guidance. Give him a lap top and a phone and let him use his connections. Many people run their office from home, how hard can it be to dictate?*

* a very small lol

Iberia,

Heard of Germany and Japan? It worked well there.

He writes:

"You can fight for democracy and freedom, in the slender hope that those seeds will grow in the infertile Middle Eastern soil. Or you can learn to love Saddam Hussein and his fellow perpetrators of crimes against humanity. Those are your only choices. Pick one."

The problem with the tactic of 'leave the ME to their dictators; at least it keeps them quiet' is that it hasn't worked.
The result of this tactic of th 1990's was to externalize the internal repression, move that rage against internal repression outside - to Europe, to the US. It's called Islamic fascism. It's a direct result of the repression of the ME peoples by their dictators.

They can't obtain economic or political power within their own realms, so, they move from the 'factual reality' of this lack of power to the 'fictional reality' of fascism. Islamic fascism is purely fictional; it's all about 'when we get power'; it's all about martyrs dying for freedom (power); it's all about heavenly rather than real life rewards. It's pure fantasy, pure fiction, pure emotion, and very powerful IF, IF and Only IF, the holders have no economic or political power.

The problem with Islamic fascism is that it is focused, not against their military dictators who are too repressive, brutal, non-humanitarian. It's focused against the West.

So, we have no choice but to move in, remove the dictators, and enable democracy to emerge. BUT, it can't and won't emerge overnight. You can't change a tribal mindset, focused around clans and tribes and families, focused around economies that function only within those clans, tribes and families, focused around hating every other clan, tribe, family....you can't change this primitive perspective overnight.
You can't move to a civic political system from a tribal political system overnight.

First, you have to remove the tribal power, those dictators whose families rule over the majority-without-power. Then, comes a period of chaos - of tribe fighting tribe. They aren't a civic society yet. But, their leaders and the world leaders have to promote a civic model. And, it takes time. It took the West FOUR HUNDRED years to move out of its own tribal model (medieval period) into a civic model.

So, it's going to take at least ten years for democracy to gain a reasonably stable foothold in the ME.

An important point, is to enable a Palestinian state. I'm NOT saying that Palestine-Israel is the basis of the current Lebanese War. It isn't. Iran is the 'root cause' of this war.

I've come to think that it's not simply Israel that hasn't wanted a Palestinian state, and not simply Arafat who didn't want a Palestinian state. Above all, it's the ME states that didn't want a Palestinian state. They didn't want an arab democracy in their midst, for that would rapidly spread to their own states, with their own people demanding democratic power. The Arab tribal bosses didn't want that -

Having a Palestinian state, a democracy, right in the middle of the ME will be a powerful catalyst to enable the peoples of the other ME countries to demand democracy. Up to now, the only democratic state was Israel, and you could cover the real hatred (of democracy) by defining it as hatred of Jews. I maintain the real issue is democracy.
So- insert another democracy into the area - which is what the US, UK, Australia etc are trying to do - and the other ME states get nervous. That's why Iran and Syria are trying to prevent democracy in Iraq.

But- set up Palestine as a democracy - and it will 'tip the scales'.

Watch what would happen if Israel would acknowledge a Palestinian state, if it would completely move its settlements out of the W. Bank (a serious, serious error in the first place)...You'd see the ME states trying to prevent a Palestinian state!!!

I don't see the Iranians just letting Saddam move back in and exterminate the Shiites again.

Iran's nuclear programme is much further along than Iraq's (ahem...) and Ahamdinejad probably would love an ecxuse to start a war with the Iraqi Sunnis to get his troops ready for the "big one".

I suspect that is exactly what will soon happen anyway. As soon as the last US troops pull out from Iraq, the Iranians will start building the Iraqi Hizb'allah, and try to turn what's left of Iraq into another Lebanon.

Try reading the link.

Installing Saddam as dictator emiritus of Iraq would only turn back the clock on the tiny amount of real progress that has been made.

ET is correct in that the tribal mindset has to fade while the democratic one has to germinate then grow...all takes time and lots of it. The ME cockroaches have to be exterminated before the moderates dare to speak out for democracy

I suspect Doug Kern is frustrated by all the steps backwards and is looking for a quick fix...buddy give your head a shake. Saddam is not the answer.

Good lord folks give your heads a shake - or read the actual article - it is sarcasm and satire not an actual suggestion.

While you're at it take the time to read other articles by Kern at TC. He is one of the best.

ward,

If he's one of the best then sarcasm should be evident fairly quickly not buried somewhere near the end of the article.

Sarcasm is one of those things that should almost always only be used face to face so that visual expressions aid in its effect.

Using it in writing should only be left up to the most experienced writers, Doug Kern is obviously not in that class.

You were unaware that was sarcasm until "near the end of the article"?

Holy crap. That explains a lot.

"I know he brings some baggage to the table, but come now: let bygones be bygones. Sure, he plundered Kuwait, fought against American soldiers twice, tried to kill President George H.W. Bush, and gassed the Kurds. In fairness, we invaded twice, slapped him in jail, killed his sons, and took all his stuff. I say we call it even. "

The real irony is that Merica' WAS his buddy once already, trading arms for oil and all that good stuff. Please don't make me link to that infamous picture of the devil Rumsfield shaking hands with good ol'Saddam.....

Chances are he'd do the same thing after a while, bite the hand that feeds and then george the 3rd would have to spend a whole bunch more money hunting him down on television.

How old is Kern?

Everything, including satire, is derivative. Ask Job. ...-

Name: The_Buddha
Subject: If Kern was being satirical...
Date/Time: 04 Aug 2006, 4:57 PM

...it backfired. The bring-back-the-originally-CIA-installed-Saddam solution makes as much sense to me as anything I've read on TCS. Call me callous, but I don't really care if Iraq is free and prosperous. I certainly don't see how we benefit if they are...I don't buy the "democracy equals stability argument."

Actually, the War Nerd came up with this idea a couple of years back: http://www.exile.ru/2004-November-13/war_nerd.html. This might be where Kern got the idea for this piece, especially since "Gary Brecher" (a pseudonym) espouses so-called Jacksonian conservatism. ...-
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8396&fldIdMsg=34188

Sarcasm or not-sarcasm isn't the point.

The idea of 'Obliterate Them Completely' using the forces of either the past/current military dictators in the ME region, or the oft-heard 'Let the West just go in an nuke them all'...is a strategy that is frequently heard on the web.

People in our modern electronic age want rapid solutions to everything, from their static-ridden cell-phone, to a hiatus in their online hookup, to solutions for political and social issues and etc. This 'a rapid-solution' or 'it's not a solution' mentality wants the same in the ME.

The left is a population that is, in the majority, an electronic population. It wants rapid, effortless solutions - solutions that involve no effort on one's own part - other than simply phoning for Service or getting a New Model sent over by Purolator.

The suggestion that solutions will take time, will involve years, will involve death and sacrifice on our part is untenable to the Electronic Left.

Their solution to the phenomenon of the global dispersion of previously isolate populations, was to establish multiculturalism. This isolated all newcomers, rejected the long years required for collaborative assimilation, and locked people into ghettoed tribes. We've seen the disastrous results in Europe - and are now seeing it in Canada, which has developed a unique Canadian global presence as a country permitting 'Citizens of Convenience'.

Their solution to problems in other countries is to 'quiet them down'.

Tactics used to 'keep them quiet' are military dictatorships. We've all read the left posts who insist that the Iraqi people ought to be left with the 'right to dictatorship'; that the Iraqi people should have been left to 'take out' Hussein on their own - and the fact that they didn't, showed that they wanted a dictatorship - and the West is Evil because it 'installed democracy with a gun'. So, military dictatorships accomplish Our Peace and Quiet.

Other tactics proposed by the left, are socialist, in that socialism is tribal, it rests on utopian fictions, is primarily emotional and rejects reason and individualism. This is similar to Islam, which as it is now, unreformed, is tribal, rests on utopian fictions, is primarily emotional and rejects reason and individualism.

Of course, such a mentality is unable to think, unable to do science, unable to reason. But, the Left and the Islamic Fascist have a great deal in common - and a concern for factual reality is not one of them.

What is missing in the Left Solutions of (1) 'keep them silent by asserting that IF they are restrained by Military Dictatorships, it's because the people WANT to live that way'; and
(2) accept tribalism because it's just like socialism - is reality.

Reality rests on facts not fiction. It requires reason not emotion to debate those facts. And it knows that changes require years not electronic nanoseconds.

ET:

So now you're blaming "The Left" for the problems in the Middle East? Give your head a shake. The neocons and their empire building forefathers are in large part responsible for the mess we have there today.

"The suggestion that solutions will take time, will involve years, will involve death and sacrifice on our part is untenable to the Electronic Left."

Talk about wanting it both ways...all along the neocons have been blaming "The Left" for not wanting to jump in and defeat the Islamofascists, and now it's "The Left's" fault things aren't going well and for expecting a quick and easy job of it.

Neocons need to realize that the world isn't black and white and that there are no simple solutions.

Iberia - I think you misunderstand my position. I'm not a 'neocon' or a 'left'. And I didn't blame the left for the problems of the ME. And I certainly don't accept the old hat 'blame the Imperialists' view either; That's invalid. I blame the ME for the problems of the ME.

But I certainly blame the left for refusing to rationally examine the causes of the problems of the ME and for blaming the US and the West for those problems (as you are doing).

The ME is a problem, not because of any western 'empire-building', but because of its own adamant refusal to modernize its economic and political infrastructures. Its refusal; not the West's refusal. And most certainly, no 'imperial agenda' of the West. By the way, I'm sure you know that the Muslim countries were imperialists - but - their control over the West, at various times, didn't prevent the West from maturing.

Political and economic infrastructures are directly related to population sizes and the ME's populations after WWII in particular, have 'morphed' beyond the functional capacities of their old tribal modes. Tribal modes, as you may/may not know, are fine for medium size population, static, no-growth and peasant agricultural economies. They empower a hereditary minority; they are disastrous in industrical, growth, industrial economies - which require an empowered middle class.

The ME old guard tribes have refused to cede power and enable the dev't of a middle class in their own countries. This is the basic cause of Islamic fascism and the problems in the ME.

In my post, I was examining the mentality of those who both propose rapid-solutions to the ME, and those who reject the necessity for democracy in the ME - and romantically, think that the Old Tribal Modes are 'just great' and 'what they want'.
Such a romantic view, naive at best and ignorant otherwise, held by the left, doesn't help the problems of the ME.

The essence of the problem Kern is touching on is time. Westerners have no patience. Fed from birth on instant gratification, X-boxes, TV dramas in which every problem is solved in under one hour, and four-year election terms people expect quick solutions to age old dysfunctions. Western leftists and the MSM are particularly bad in shrieking for surrender when an overseas problem isn't solved within a month. The only western government to successfully stay the course wrt a long term insurgency was Britain vis a vis the IRA. It's taken thirty years to get to where they are now. The same time frame may be required in Iraq and Afghanistan. The old generation may have to die out and a new generation grow up exposed to democracy and freedom. The insurgents certainly know that time is our weakness. It's why they don't launch one big all-or-nothing offensive, but prefer the chronic wearing down which westerners are vulnerable to. We have to know what we stand for and be willing to stay a course.

To come down to earth from sarcastic flights of fancy -

Civil War? What Civil War?

"Senior American generals are now warning that Iraq could slide into civil war. This is like warning a dead man that his illness might kill him. ... There is no element of civil war that is missing. ... This is not time to give up, but it is time for honest appraisals and clear language. ..."

From an editiorial "Iraq's new war" in to-day's Ottawa Citizen (firewalled at www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/editorials/story.html?id=90db42ef-60f7-48a8-bc70-a1a467e0486d)

DrD: The British also successfully countered insurgency during the Malayan guerilla war, 1948-1960.

agitfact - what's your point about 'civil war'?

Are you one of those, about whom I commented above, who would prefer the 'All is Quiet in the ME' under Saddam Hussein? It certainly was quiet there, for if you dared to critique the dictatorship, you found yourself very rapidly, permanently silent in the ditch, so to speak. Is that your point?

Are you saying that a brutal military dictatorship was/is preferable (for them? for us?) because it was 'quiet'?

Freedom doesn't evolve like a plant growing from small to big; freedom is an actual transformation of that entity - think of a snail to a bird. That's a morphological change.

So, moving from a tribal dictatorship to a democracy is a morphological change; it's traumatic, it must change the basic operating infrastructure of the political, economic, legal, family and social systems of the society.

Are you saying that it shouldn't be done unless it can be done slickly without a hitch, without trauma? Are you saying that IF there's civil war, it means that the Iraqi people were wrong to want democracy, to go to those polling booths, to vote, to try to set up a gov't that was in THEIR control, and not in the control of one elite tribe???

And remember, please, that this 'civil war' is not actuall 'civil' (ie. internal). It's promoted, funded and manned by Iran and Syria, who are very strongly opposed to any ME democracy.

ET:

I apologize if I come across a bit harsh. However, I re-read your 1:17 post and I stick to my response: In an oblique way, you are blaming the left for perpetuating problems in the middle east. You moderate your position somewhat in your 3:00 post, but you still make excuses for all the empire builders/meddlers since the end of WW1 by saying "I blame the ME for the problems of the ME".

If it wasn't for oil, no one would care how they lived...the west wouldn't be in there. The west is in large part responsible for the problems there by drawing artificial nationals boundries or installing/supporting "friendly" despots.

Remember, the Arabs would have remained largely squabbling tribes fighting amongst themselves if the British didn't unite them (somewhat) to fight against the Turks.

"In my post, I was examining the mentality of those who both propose rapid-solutions to the ME, and those who reject the necessity for democracy in the ME - and romantically, think that the Old Tribal Modes are 'just great' and 'what they want'.
Such a romantic view, naive at best and ignorant otherwise, held by the left, doesn't help the problems of the ME."

What helps even less is bombing, invading, occupying and thinking that things will change overnight. The right needs to come to terms with it's actions instead of trying to blame the left for the failure of it's policies.

"Heard of Germany and Japan? It worked well there."

Posted by: Warwick

Iraq and Afghanistan are not Germany or Japan. That was another war...one the US didn't start.

ET,

my point, as always, would be to be careful in selecting your aims, actions and words in international affairs. Unintended consequences operate pursuant to Murphy's Law, and equating the ME with Iraq (or Hussein,) for instance, compounds the error.

I like your point about democracy as a morphological transformation. What then gives us the idea that it can be imposed instantly by external superior force?

The Citizen editorial does indicate that the civil war was internal, that Sunni and Shia milita were killing each other and civilians, and that the "front lines match the country's political faultlines ..." Of course Iran and Syria support their respective sectmates, but on what basis do you suppose that peace would reign supreme if they didn't?

Nemo2: Thanks, good point; also Yemen.

Iberia - No need for apologies. But, I haven't moderated my position.

I don't blame the left for causing the problems in the ME; I blame them for perpetuating them, because they (the left) don't seem to understand that a tribal mode is dysfunctional in large industrial populations and that a civic mode is not a choice but a necessity. The romanticism of the left, which includes its rejection of industrialism (despite the left's love of the results of industrialism)...means that the left supports tribalism! An outdated and therefore disabling mode for the ME.

I maintain that the causes of the problems in the ME, are directly due to the ME. Its refusal to move into democracy and empower a middle class is the basic cause of Islamic fascism.

Oil. Certainly, if it weren't for oil, the ME might well remain, as in Africa, a substandard regime of subsistence agriculture. But there IS oil. It's a reality. You seem to be blaming the West because there's oil in the ME!! That doesn't make sense.

Just like there is hydro-power in Northern Quebec; there are minerals in the Canadian North; there's oil in Alberta and so on. Are you blaming Canada for its wealth of resources? Alberta for its oil?

The fact is, the world operates industrially, i.e., it doesn't use human or animal labour as energy, but obtains its energy from various fuels (coal, gas, oil). I'm sure you can't blame the West for industrialism - for, the West couldn't prevent the rise of industrialism. Industrialism originated in the West because of its population growth....

Oil. The ME is quite happy to industrialize its lifestyle, by selling oil and purchasing cars, computers. And guns. It, unfortunately, has not modernized its educational, legal, political and economic systems to enable its surging populations to participate in the industrial era.
This refusal to modernize and permit its people to participate in the modern world is dangerous. Do you know that the ME world hasn't had a scientific thought for about 1500 years? That's quite a stretch.

No, the ME wouldn't have remained squabbling tribes except for the British and French. Don't forget the French, who played an enormous role in the ME! Why not? Because of that oil. It's a resource of the ME. Just as Alberta oil is a resource; hydro power is a resource.

The error was and is - in the ME. Their adamant refusal to modernize and empower their people. That leaves the people turning to utopian fantasies, emotional fictions - that's Islamic fascism.

You are quite right; it doesn't help for the ME countries to invade, bomb, occupy. For example, Iran and Syria have armed Hezbollah and Hamas to attack Israel. Iran and Syria are also behind the insurgents in Iraq, bombing Iraqi civilians to prevent Iraq from developing its own democracy. The ME states certainly don't want Palestine to be a state, a democracy! It doesn't help for the ME states, eg Iran, to encourage Islamic fascist bombings in the West, murdering civilians in trains, in restaurants and so on.

What should be done? The ME should get out of the medieval era, realize that tribalism won't work with the industrial size populations it has, and permit its people to have power. That means democracy. The tribal elite don't want that; they want to retain power - but - that refusal to empower the citizens of their countries - is the root cause of the ME trouble.

Who is responsible? The ME is responsible. For itself.

agitfact - I don't claim that 'peace would reign supreme' without the insurgent agenda of Iran and Syria. I claim that Iraq would be able to resolve these differences, by itself for itself, and rather rapidly - since the constitution and the elections were careful to include all groups.

But, with Iran and Syria supplying the forces, the agendas, inciting the hatreds - then, the Iraqi people aren't being left on their own to work things out...as they attempted to do in their election and constitution.

agitfact - I don't claim that 'peace would reign supreme' without the insurgent agenda of Iran and Syria. I claim that Iraq would be able to resolve these differences, by itself for itself, and rather rapidly - since the constitution and the elections were careful to include all groups.

But, with Iran and Syria supplying the forces, the agendas, inciting the hatreds - then, the Iraqi people aren't being left on their own to work things out...as they attempted to do in their election and constitution.

You can't 'make' democracy happen by external force' - and that wasn't the agenda of the US. But, you can remove a dictatorship by external force, and thus free the people to set up a democracy on their own. That is what happened.

I am continuously stunned by the assertions of those on the left about 'democracy at the point of a gun'. What nonsense. Were the Iraqi people MADE, FORCED, to set up a democracy? No. So, I think it's time to let go of that urban myth.

"You can't 'make' democracy happen by external force' - and that wasn't the agenda of the US. But, you can remove a dictatorship by external force, and thus free the people to set up a democracy on their own. That is what happened.

"I am continuously stunned by the assertions of those on the left about 'democracy at the point of a gun'. What nonsense. Were the Iraqi people MADE, FORCED, to set up a democracy? No. So, I think it's time to let go of that urban myth."

Posted by: ET

Iraqi people set up a democracy on their own?! Come on, stop being an apologist for the US. The US went in there to force a regime change. They removed Sadam. They thought that the Iraqis would welcome democracy, but because of the tribalism you so often mention, it hasn't worked very well. Tribalism does not become democracy overnight. The net result of what the US has done is create a power vacuum in Iraq, which is now evolving into a civil war.

Left wing romanticism is not the immediate cause of this fiasco - neocon meddling is.

Bloc will only go "IF" a ceasefire is in place.

Bloc Quebecois: Cowards all the way. ...-

MPs fact-finding trip to ME (cnews)

The trip, organized by the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, is scheduled to include stops in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, but security concerns will play a big role in where the MPs actually go. The Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats all plan to send an MP, while the Bloc Quebecois says it will only attend if a ceasefire is in place. ...-

ET,

you asked "Were the Iraqi people MADE, FORCED, to set up a democracy?" I will point you toward a practical answer.

is the index of regulations and orders etc. issued by the Coalition Provisional Authority between April 2003 and June 2004. Who provided the Iraqi expertise and input for this very top-down governance? What is the future value of Iraqi democracy if all future Iraqi governments "inherit full responsibility for these laws, orders, regulations, memoranda, instructions and directives"? (Order 100, "Purpose.") How were Iraqis and their interests affected? Do they consider their daily lives to be better now? What dividends of democracy will they see when?

Those are the questions that will smother or feed the civil war and determine the outcome. High expectations so far have been disappointed.

Sorry, the link leading off para 2 got dropped in transmission (filtering.) It is www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations.

"Peace" is an aberration/neurosis in the story of humanity.

They cry for peace, when there is no peace.

War is the norm. ...-

The cult of peace
August 8th, 2006 by Darcey

The latest from Mark Entwistle at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute:

"The idea of “peace” is dangerous because it is an enabler. It allows us to underestimate the hard work required to earn success in confronting conflict, and a safe haven to hide from reality. It is a distraction because it leads us to false conclusions on the basis of something that does not exist. While we wait for peace, conflict steeps. The greatest threat to any chance of managing our way out of conflict is the idea that peace just happens by willing it." ...-
http://www.dustmybroom.com/

BTW, the pejorative word, "neo-con", is a shibboleth for/of the left liberal/socialists. The left liberal/socialists also use it to spot/identify each other.

The word is a code-word for the WWJC, the world-wide Jooish conspiracy. ...-

Neocon=neoconservative

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative

From Wikipedia:

Neoconservatives describe their shared view as a belief that national security is best attained by promoting freedom and democracy abroad through the support of pro-democracy movements, foreign aid and in certain cases military intervention.

An interesting analogy from the same source:

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, (Claes) Ryn argues that

"Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384)."

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style "liberal democracy" instead of socialism.

Chew on that for a while, maz.

As someone who has rarely been to wikpedia....how on earth did it gain any sense of "it's factual" when anyone can edit anything?????

Is that not correct?

Iberia - the attempt to merge neoconservativism with 'neo-Jacobism' (??) is just that - an attempt. That doesn't make it valid. It's a rather wierd connection - a left-wing ideology linked with a right-wing ideology. I don't think it works.
And, assigning the US the role of 'chief cook' is not one that has been self-assigned by the US government - so, that image is also invalid.

One could, however, link this view of Global Agent to Remake the World, to Islam. After all, that is their stated, public agenda - to remake the world in the mode of Islam, to force people to convert, or submit, or be killed. Islam most certainly sees itself as a champion of virtue, decrying the impurity of other peoples and claiming, openly, their self-assigned task of remaking the entire world in the image of Islam.

Islam is socialist, and so, if you, Iberia, want to set up ideological links, then I think the connections between socialism, bolshevism and Islamism, has a lot better realistic validity than your other outline. They are indeed quite similar in all being socialist, utopian, universalist, fictional, against reason, against the individual, against facticity, top-down authoritarian - and dangerous and destructive.

Actually, the Iraqi HAVE welcomed democracy; that's why they voted in such large numbers. The insurgents, you may recall, are in large part run by Iran and Syria. Are you ignoring this?

agitfact - I can't answer those questions; only the Iraqi people can. But, you could ask the same questions of any novice morphology - and I use the term 'morphology' with intent, because the very FORM of the structure of the society, and thus the experiences of that society, are drastically being transformed in this change from a tribal to a democratic mode. These same questions can't be answered immediately; it takes time to develop the structure when it was lacking in the previous 'morphology'. But I maintain that a dictatorial enforcement of a tribal infrastructure is never a valid or just society - and the transition may be rough - but the outcome - a society in the control of its majority, ie the middle class - is 'the best'.

David - you must have been dozing as you skipped past "Our moral betters in France, Germany, and Russia". What else would you call that but sarcasm?

Peace,Peace, and not the phony peace pact that is to come but the peace that will be everlasting.

The first time Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible - Malkizedek, the King of Shalem (jeru is "city," shalem is "peace") greets Abraham after the first Jew has won a decisive military victory.
Then came the Prince of Peace, the King of the Jews, the Servant-King - the Messiah, Jeshua.
Next will come the King-Messiah, when Christ returns to set up his throne in Jeru-shalem. He will lead the world in such a way that "nation will not lift up sword against nation; humanity will not learn war any more; there will be no enmity or destruction in the entire mountain of My holiness because the Knowledge of the Lord will fill the earth as the waters cover the seas." (Isaiah 2:4; 11:9)

Until then, pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

ET:

"It's a rather wierd connection - a left-wing ideology linked with a right-wing ideology. I don't think it works."

Jeez, ET, not long ago you went on at length about how Fascism is the same as socialism. Talk about a weird connection. (Someone who was a real expert in fascism, Mussolini, defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism.)

Equating neocons with neo-Jacobins is not my doing, but that of Claes Ryn, so perhaps you would like to debate it with him. I was just quoting a excerpt. However, I briefly looked at what he wrote and I think it is a valid comparison. What is the US doing if not trying to remake the Middle East?

"One could, however, link this view of Global Agent to Remake the World, to Islam."

It appears as if you are contradicting yourself: earlier you said that the Muslims are mired in tribalism and that this is outmoded and disabling. Now you have turned them into global boogiemen. They may see themselves as champions of virtue, but just how can they possibly remake the world? They don't have any tanks, planes or ships worthy of mention. They can't even stop fighting each other.

One more thing: I REALLY wish you would stop abusing the word "socialist". Your problem is that EVERYTHING you dislike you label as either socialist or left-wing. Socialism may be a broad array of doctrines but it is not Islamofascism, nor is it Fascism, Nazism, or any government that Canada has ever had in its entire history.

Maz2,

neo-con is not a codeword for "the WWJC, the world-wide Jooish conspiracy..." (Smells like the usual neo-con ploy of painting criticism as anti-semitism.)

Since you love links, let me give you one straight to the heart of American neo-conservatism, the "Project for the New American Century" at www.newamericancentury.org. Look especially at the "Statement of Principles", check the signatories, and look at the Bush administration and events over the last few years. Some "shibboleth."

Robert i.C., share your reservations about the authoritativeness of Wikipedia, but must admit that everything I have checked so far was well-summarized and supported. No games evident in any entries I have read.

Iberia - I think you are diverting from the point. I'm sure you didn't misunderstand my post which was to rebut your alignment of a left-wing ideology of 'neo-Jabocobism' with a right-wing ideology of 'neo-conservativism'. That was the binarism I was critiquing, so, your assertion that I was talking about socialism and fascism is - openly - your own assertion.

As you are very aware, I didn't define fascism as 'right-wing'.

Mussolini's 1932 tract may have said that fascism was opposed to socialism, but, his definition of socialism is incorrect. What he defines as socialist is actually a linear five step communist evolution, focused around class, and ultimately rejecting class. That's not a definition of socialism. Might I suggest that you not rely exclusively on Wikipedia for your data and analyses.

If a political ideology is collectivist, than it is socialist. Fascism is collectivist; therefore, it is readily aligned with socialism, aka a 'left' ideology. It is most certainly not 'right'.

Yes, the US is trying to remake the ME, to move it out of tribalism and enable democracy. This is not an imperialist agenda. After all, the UN is trying to move peoples out of regimes that promote poverty, that reject the rule of law, that reject freedom. Is that objectionable?

You agree with Ryn. I don't. His definition of both neoconservativism and this new 'neo-Jacobin' is superficial and, in my view, irrelevant.

That's right; the ME Islamic world is indeed mired in tribalism and because this political mode is dysfunctional in a large population (becuase it disempowers rather than empowers the majority) - it has led to Islamic fascism. Islamic fascism has established itself within the unreformed and violent agenda of Islamic imperialism. I presume you've read the Koran and therefore, understand and know about its requirement for imperial conquering of all peoples who are not Islamic.

Islamic fascism is a mode of life that is almost entirely fictional - with its focus on a utopian future, its focus on future homogeneity of all the world (this contradicts a basic law of physics and biology); its focus on a future submission of all to Islam. As fictional, it is emotional rather than based on reason.

They don't have tanks or planes? Have you ever heard of Iran? Have you seen what is happening in the ME?
The Muslim world, trapped in tribalism and emotion, most certainly hasn't invented any technology whatsoever. Nothing. Not a scientific peep out of them for 1500 years. But, they can purchase it. What do you think Hussein was doing with his oil and his contracts with France?

So, the Islamic world is quite capable of throwing the Western world into economic and political chaos. Turning a passenger plane into a bomb and taking out two world towers is one example. I suggest that you take the threats posed by this method of destabilization more seriously. Theo Van Gogh was murdered for his film critiquing Islamic treatment of women; how many other people are going to dare to critique and question Islamism if that is the result? And an ideology that sets itself outside of questions and debate - is extremely dangerous to freedom.

And finally I'm not abusing the term of socialism. You may like socialism; I don't. Yes, Islamic fascism and fascism are both socialist. Yes, the NDP and Liberal Parties are socialist. I suggest you research the term, outside of Wikipedia. Again, I can only recommend Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. Natan Sharanky's The Case for Democracy is also handy. Aristotle's Politics.

Socialism refers to a mode of governance focused on the privileging of the group. It rejects the individual as a decision-maker. This is the basis of socialism. As such, its governance must be centralist, top-down, collectivist - and large. I reject it completely as regressive, as moving rapidly into a society incapable of progress and adaptation (because it rejects the individual and rejects dissent).

So - yes, I completely and fully reject socialism. That's me.

ET:

We seem to be going in circles with regards to the political machinations in the M.E. so I think we have to agree to disagree.

"Socialism refers to a mode of governance focused on the privileging of the group."

Your interpretation of socialism is way too broad. It includes virtually everthing that people benefit from, including libraries, schools, recreation centres, mass transit, etc. The list is endless, and not all negative.

BTW, I don't use Wiki as my only reference, but it is useful for providing concise quotes, etc. if the info there can be corroborated elsewhere.