|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 2, 2011 19:01:13 GMT -5
Funny to think that 50 years from now people might look back on the salad days of Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Mubarek and the House of Saud.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Apr 2, 2011 19:27:45 GMT -5
That risk has always been real. The more organized party usually wins elections here, too (though occasionally the Democrats do). And usually, something close to half of us don't like the results. There is also a high risk that whoever wins the election will be corrupt in power and do everything they can to make sure fair elections don't threaten their rule going forward. Democracy is messy.
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 2, 2011 19:37:30 GMT -5
Today's news is not good. In the Egyptian elections, the religious parties dominated. Media are reporting that they're the ones with the organizations, whereas the mostly young demonstrators who brought about regime change are highly disorganized. There's been some talk that it was intentional -- that the religious groups had already struck a deal with the military even before the worst of the demonstrations began. That way they could stay clear of the demonstrations and dupe world opinion is a manner that overthrew the horrible but controllable, predictable government. And maybe it's time we stopped using the Neo-Con's "spread democracy" mantra, and understood democracy for the wretched thing it is without good philosophical underpinnings. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 2, 2011 19:48:47 GMT -5
"That risk has always been real. The more organized party usually wins elections here, too (though occasionally the Democrats do). And usually, something close to half of us don't like the results. There is also a high risk that whoever wins the election will be corrupt in power and do everything they can to make sure fair elections don't threaten their rule going forward. Democracy is messy."
Yeah, but it reflects the will of the people. In the marketplace of ideas, some ideas win that may not be ours. But ours may not be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 2, 2011 21:20:02 GMT -5
... Yeah, but it reflects the will of the people. In the marketplace of ideas, some ideas win that may not be ours. But ours may not be right. That's what people were saying around 1938 about National Socialism in Germany. (It's page 15, so it's okay.) |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 3, 2011 0:20:01 GMT -5
we could be witnessing the birth of a caliphate. I'd be real cautious with that term, not only because it is beloved of the paranoid and/or totalizing fringes on both sides of the East-West divide, but because it suggests a repeat of historical conditions that are not very likely to be reproduced. I would be very surprised to see any Islamic movement strong enough to unify the different cultures even of North Africa, let alone a bigger chunk of the Islamic world--or (in the nightmares of the most fearful fringes in the West) Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 3, 2011 11:43:59 GMT -5
we could be witnessing the birth of a caliphate. I'd be real cautious with that term, not only because it is beloved of the paranoid and/or totalizing fringes on both sides of the East-West divide, but because it suggests a repeat of historical conditions that are not very likely to be reproduced. I would be very surprised to see any Islamic movement strong enough to unify the different cultures even of North Africa, let alone a bigger chunk of the Islamic world--or (in the nightmares of the most fearful fringes in the West) Europe. Of course, I hope you are right. Certainly the Arabs before the end of WWI were famously disorganized. But in view of the totality of Islamic history, with its ebbs and flows of religious fervor and aggression, as well as the avowed goals of the religious right today, I believe writing off fears of a caliphate as paranoia is too easy. |
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Apr 3, 2011 11:56:58 GMT -5
With equal respect, I've read some history and also recognize the difference between the mad ambitions of fanatics and the possibilities offered by the world as it is. Why should I take the dreams of Islamists any more seriously than those of Christian Identity nutjobs? Yeah, I know, the CI assholes don't have any clout with our government while various Islamists have some leverage with some of theirs; they have lots of guns and that whole suicide-bomber mentality; they get to use Israel as a focus for a miscellany of grievances; they never had a Reformation; and so on. But the Caliphate emerged from the Dark Ages, flourished in the Middle Ages, and lost most of its steam by the time the Ottomans took over, at which point it was a spent force even in the Muslim world. Establishing an Islamist polity (which would include making Sharia the ruling legal system) that encompasses even the pseudo-Arab parts of the Islamic world would require not only the victory of Islamist factions across North Africa and the Middle East but the coordination of all of those national/cultural factions and the submersion of local cultural sentiments in a general Muslim over-culture.
The fanatics who dream of a Caliphate would have to somehow roll back the cosmopolitan awareness of the educated classes in all those societies and figure out how to keep everybody down on the ideological farm after they've seen Paree on satellite TV and the internet. There are science-fictional scenarios in which this occurs, but they tend to include a catastrophic collapse of the non-Islamic world.
In short, on the list of disasters that haunt my well-equipped and neurotically-active waking-up-at-five-in-the-morning imagination, a returned Caliphate ranks well below global warming, the collapse of the American economy, a flu pandemic, and the cancellation of "All Things Considered."
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 3, 2011 12:35:21 GMT -5
Let us pray for a continuation of Arab disunity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Apr 4, 2011 14:01:21 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen.html?_r=1&emc=naThese are such high-risk times for Obama. If he is seen to have helped usher out a string of Middle East dictators, only to see a set of even more objectionable leaders take over, he is toast. Biden said Obama would be tested in his first six months by a foreign policy crisis. He was off by about two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 4, 2011 16:45:18 GMT -5
60% of U.S. Military Deaths in Afghanistan Have Occurred Since Obama Was Inaugurated in 2009 Monday, April 04, 2011 By Edwin Mora (CNSNews.com) – At least 858 U.S. soldiers have died in the Afghanistan war since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009. That equals 60.13 percent of the 1,427 American soldier fatalities so far in the ongoing 10-year war in that country. For March 2011, there were 26 U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan, including 4 non-combat related fatalities. That brought the total combat and non-combat deaths for 2011 (January, February, and March) to 70. Those fatalities include 57 combat-related deaths and 13 non-combat deaths. For the 858 U.S. deaths since Obama’s inauguration, 791 have been combat-related. This means that for the 1,241 combat-related deaths that occurred since the Afghanistan war began in October 2001, about 64 percent happened in the two years since Obama took office. Last year was the deadliest for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, with 497 combat and non-combat fatalities. Improvised explosive devices (IEDs), or homemade bombs, continue to be the number one killer of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. ................ cnsnews.com/news/article/60-us-military-deaths-afghanistan-have-o |
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Apr 7, 2011 19:44:17 GMT -5
General: U.S. may consider troops in LibyaThe United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.
Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.
Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.
|
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Apr 7, 2011 20:40:54 GMT -5
Sounds like a good time for this. washingtonindependent.com/107679/franken-introduces-pay-for-war-resolutionSen. Al Franken introduced legislation on Wednesday that would require Congress to pay for future wars and ensure that they do not add to the federal budget deficit. The Pay for War Resolution gives Congress the option to finance war through budget cuts, creating new revenue or a combination of both budgetary means. Franken said the bill is meant to avoid a repeat of the $1.25 trillion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added to the national debt. “If we think that a situation requires the men and women in our military to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least be willing to pay for the cost of this adventure with our tax dollars.” |
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Apr 8, 2011 5:49:58 GMT -5
Sounds like a good time for this. washingtonindependent.com/107679/franken-introduces-pay-for-war-resolutionSen. Al Franken introduced legislation on Wednesday that would require Congress to pay for future wars and ensure that they do not add to the federal budget deficit. The Pay for War Resolution gives Congress the option to finance war through budget cuts, creating new revenue or a combination of both budgetary means. Franken said the bill is meant to avoid a repeat of the $1.25 trillion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added to the national debt. “If we think that a situation requires the men and women in our military to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least be willing to pay for the cost of this adventure with our tax dollars.” Sounds like a good idea except for the unintended consequences, IMHO. There should be an escape clause for an actual attack on the U.S. when all bets are off. I can see it for foreign involvements, but those should require congressional support anyway. In the case of an actual attack, money doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Apr 8, 2011 6:57:41 GMT -5
Sounds like a good time for this. washingtonindependent.com/107679/franken-introduces-pay-for-war-resolutionSen. Al Franken introduced legislation on Wednesday that would require Congress to pay for future wars and ensure that they do not add to the federal budget deficit. The Pay for War Resolution gives Congress the option to finance war through budget cuts, creating new revenue or a combination of both budgetary means. Franken said the bill is meant to avoid a repeat of the $1.25 trillion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added to the national debt. “If we think that a situation requires the men and women in our military to risk their own lives, then the rest of us should at least be willing to pay for the cost of this adventure with our tax dollars.” I don't disagree with that but it isn't necessary as we have a provision in the Constitution that requires Congress to declare war before we can send troops to war. And if the Congress can ignore the Constitution and create illegal wars why would we think that they won't ignore a law. |
|
