quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well of course there was opposition. Simple fact was you can make all the noise, bluster and fireworks you want but if you dont actually do anything about it, thats all it is. A lot of noise and bright flashes that last a few seconds.

What exactly would that be? I'm pretty curious because I certainly can't see anything changeing unless people are actually educated about their governments foreign policy, the interests and motivations that shape it, and then excercise some responsibility (and have the decency) to not elect officials who're complete scum. And I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just very direct.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

James Baker, “realist” posted at 10:54 am on December 8, 2006 by Bryan Former Secretary of State James Baker is known around Washington as being a foreign policy realist. But the evidence suggests that Baker is a realist in the same way that Ramsey Clark is a patriot. Clark demonstrates his patriotism by defending the likes of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, and by denouncing America whenever and wherever he can. James Baker demonstrates his realism on foreign policy by conjuring up fantasies and re-writing history to cover up his failures and turn even the most modest success into earth-shattering conquest. At least the Democrats are smart enough to distance themselves from Ramsey Clark. Baker has yet to cross the line that would make him a political pariah among Republicans, but there’s always hope. Maybe the convergence of Baker’s obnoxious role in the Iraq Survey Group, and his law firm’s representation of Saudi royalty against 9-11 families, could tip the scales irrevocably against him. But that’s probably not a very realistic hope. Since the Dec 6 release of the ISG’s bipartisan fluffpile, a report that cherrypicked from pro-war Column A and Anti-War Column B before being leavened by some of the most naive foreign policy thinking ever crafted by a blue ribbon commission, Baker has been out trying to >strongarm President Bush< into accepting the group’s findings in toto. That would include the insane parts about enlisting the help of terror states Iran and Syria to end terrorism in Iraq. >Says Baker:< quote: Baker replied that the United States gained Iran’s help in overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Iraq, he said, is a different case. “If we can’t do it, we can’t do it, but we don’t lose a darn thing by trying.” What’s missing from Mr. Realism’s analysis is that, in the immediate wake of 9-11, the entire world was scared to death that the United States would sling its military might at anyone who happened to get in the way. Those were the days when even liberals favored drilling in ANWR and dropping big bombs on small caves wherever terrorists might be hiding, without much regard for international niceties or even territorial boundaries. You were with us or you were with the terrorists, and in that climate, yes, it was possible to get the Iranians (who hated the Taliban already for their own reasons) to not intervene or cause trouble for us in Afghanistan. But those days of unity and anger are long gone, as is the fear that gripped certain states and rogue leaders around the world as humanity waited for our vengeful response to a grotesque atrocity. We’re far, far down the road from that time now, to the point that the Democrats run Truther candidates and the left gets away with sliming our own troops, Vietnam-style. The war on terrorism has all the momentum of the war on drugs. The president who enjoyed over 90% support is now around the freezing point and the pro-war party has been booted from power. In this climate, with us openly shopping around for someone to surrender to in Iraq and with us divided like no other time since Vietnam, it can cost you a great deal just to talk to the Iranians. Our interests and theirs in Iraq do not converge at all. Our drive to democratize threatens the mullahs very directly. Our anti-terrorist stance is the polar opposite of their open and warm terrorist embrace. All of that is missing in Baker’s simplistic thinking. But that’s what passes for realism in Washington these days. It’s not the first time Baker’s “realism” hasn’t been all that grounded in reality. Here’s a little history, with >Baker casting himself in the role of James the Great:< quote: Baker’s role in the first Gulf War is illustrative. As an advisor and Secretary of State under President Bush père, Baker played a key role in preventing a decisive end to Saddam Hussein’s provocations. Prior to the war, Baker had leaned on the Likud government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to defy public pressure and desist from retaliating against Iraq’s relentless barrage of missiles. Baker’s reasoning was simple: By acting in its own defense, Israel would risk fracturing the Arab coalition that Baker was mobilizing in support of U.S. military campaign to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It was also shortsighted: Baker’s coalition of Arab states refused to support any military action into Iraqi territory, leaving Saddam Hussein in power and setting the stage for the inevitable confrontation between the U.S. and Iraq in 2003. U.S. General Henry Shelton, later the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Clinton, spoke for many in the military community when he said at the time that “we left the job half-done.” Israel, meanwhile, was forced to stand idly by as Iraqi SCUD missiles – some 42 in total – rained down on the Jewish state throughout the war. Saddam went on to pay a $25,000 bounty to Palestinian suicide bombers. For uncomplicated reasons, Baker has always favored a more charitable assessment of his contributions to the first Gulf War. In particular, he points to his 15 trips to Damascus to win Syria’s support for U.S. military action. Forgotten is just how far he went to flatter the regime of Hafez Assad regime in order to secure its blessing. Stating that Syria “happens to share the same goals as we do,” Baker announced in 1991 that its well-documented ties to terrorism were, after all, unfounded. Speaking at a press conference with Syria’s foreign minister, Baker claimed that Syria had no place on the State Department’s list of states that sponsor terrorism. “We believe that, so far, Syria was put on the list without any justification,“ Baker said. Indeed, in Baker‘s judgment, connections between Syria and terrorism were “meant for political objectives rather than analyzing an objective situation.” Ask yourself in retrospect, just how useful were all those Arab troops Baker won for the coalition? Also ask yourself, when was terrorism not conducted in order to achieve some political outcome? Hezbollah has always had the political objective of destroying “the Zionist entity.” So what does Baker mean with that line about Syria’s designation as a terrorist state? That a succession of US administrations used that label for political reasons that had nothing to do with Syria’s actual support of terrorism? Please explain, Mr. Realist. Syria was at that time, as it is today, the operational headquarters of Hezbollah and the back base for Hamas, the two terrorist groups currently besetting Israel with terror attacks from its flanks. Syria was at that time, as it is now, the headquarters for more terrorist groups than any other state on earth. Syria was at that time, as it is now, in a state of war with Israel in which Syria pledged itself to Israel’s final destruction. Syria was at that time occupying Lebanon; it’s trying to reprise that role now via a Hezbollah coup. All Baker won from Syria in 1991 was a token force from one of the Arab world’s most incompetent regular armies for the coalition against Saddam that we didn’t really need in order to drive Saddam from Kuwait. What Assad won was a veto on both Israel’s right of self-defense and a veto on destroying Saddam once the coalition had pushed into Iraq. A realist would conclude that Assad got the better end of that deal. But that’s not what >Baker says today:< quote: As for Syria, Baker said that as secretary of State to President George H. W. Bush he made 15 trips there in the early 1990s, “and we made them change 25 years of policy.” What policy did Baker get Syria to change? Given Syria’s uninterrupted support of terrorism, Baker’s assessment doesn’t strike me as being very realistic. And he’s now attempting to wrest foreign policy away from the administration. God help us all. A final footnote: Baker’s tony law firm Baker-Botts >represents the reprehensible Saudis against 9-11 families.<. Incredibly, among the Saudi prince’s defense points is the notion that his funneling money to charities that ship it off to al Qaeda constitutes “official acts” that are among his government duties, and are thus beyond the reach of American lawsuits. So Baker’s firm is on record defending a Saudi prince’s support of al Qaeda as an official act of the government of Saudi Arabia. Apparently it’s perfectly within the realm of Washington realism to play both sides of a war without wincing at the morality of it.

>>Source<<

The ISG doesn't sound very non-partisan at all, now does it?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What exactly would that be? I'm pretty curious because I certainly can't see anything changeing unless people are actually educated about their governments foreign policy, the interests and motivations that shape it, and then excercise some responsibility (and have the decency) to not elect officials who're complete scum. And I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just very direct.

The last remanents of the youthful idealist in me sincerly hope that people would empower themselves with some kind education in the matter, rather than let it get to the point of no return we're finding ourselves in at the moment being residents of at least two countries involved in this conflict.
The ugly old realist though considers that most people don't do anything intelligent unless theyre forced to do it under personal duress, career decisions or a life change. Otherwise they'll be down the supermarket dealing with the dilemma of what sauce will go well with lamb chops tonight, why their job sucks and worrying about money. They won't be worrying about someone in a country far away or even what someone in their government may be up too even though both have a fair bit of indirect, impersonal bearing on their life.

The WSJ had too very great Op-Ed pieces the day after the ISG report came out, perhaps Shakka can dig them up for us?


One noted what a good President would have done regarding such a group instead of the shame the ISG became to be.



...


Another interesting idea I read floated on the Op-Ed page of the WSJ a couple weeks ago, was instead of unilaterally pulling out troops or putting in troops etc, put it to the vote of the Iraqi people.

Therefore if the Iraqi people no longer welcome the troops, they can pull back to there bases, and they have not been 'defeated', whereas if the Iraqis decide they should stay a while longer they will have gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqis, creating much good will to go forward. A sorta win/win. Especially when compared to doing one or the other options without the Iraqi people's take on it.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And oh yeah, how is al-Qaeda and Osama?

hiding. making videos. playing on computers. plotting how to murder people in their sleep.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The WSJ had too very great Op-Ed pieces

I found this one pretty good...

quote:

The Iraq Muddle Group Bush and Hakim count for more than Baker-Hamilton. Thursday, December 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST President Bush met yesterday with the Iraq Study Group to discuss its long-awaited report, but by far his most important Iraq meeting of the week was Monday's with Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. That's because the way to success in Iraq lies in stronger U.S. support for Baghdad's Shiite-led governing coalition, not in some bipartisan strategic muddle ginned up for domestic political purposes. This is not to say that yesterday's Study Group report, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, serves no useful purpose. In calling for a withdrawal of most U.S. troops by 2008--if security conditions allow--the report rejects any rapid withdrawal or deadline. Likewise, it reinforces the case Mr. Bush has been making about the ugly consequences of failure in Iraq for American interests. This includes the chance of a bloodbath that would make Rwanda look tame. If the report helps to politically isolate John Murtha and the get-out-now left, its authors will have done some good. As for specific proposals, the Study Group proves Robert Gates's point from his nomination hearing on Tuesday that "there are no new ideas on Iraq." Its best proposal--embedding more American troops to train and fight with Iraqi military units--is well under way at the Pentagon. It has been clear for some time that the Iraq Army needs at least to double its current size, and the presence of U.S. troops with Iraqi units has produced better results. On the other hand, the ISG's proposal to negotiate with Iran and Syria is a very old idea that isn't likely to go anywhere. The report argues that because both Iran and Syria have an "interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq," they will want to cooperate in some larger regional settlement. Come again? Iran's leadership proclaims its satisfaction with the U.S. troubles in Iraq on an almost daily basis. They seem to believe their interest lies in bleeding the U.S. so much that no President will ever contemplate regime change anywhere else for a very long time. In any case, while Iran and Syria can harm us in Iraq at the margins, Iraq's sectarian violence is primarily indigenous--fomented by Sunni Baathists and their al Qaeda allies, and countered by Shiite militias. And this is where the ISG went most awry, with its analysis that comes close to a pox on all Iraqi factions. Of course "national reconciliation" is essential and Iraq's minority Sunnis need to be given a stake in the new Iraq. But the reality is that the main cause of the violence in Iraq--the main enemy--are the Sunni terrorists. They can't be appeased with political offers because their goal is to drive out America and then topple the government. On that point, the best "new" idea on Iraq that we've heard runs exactly counter to the ISG suggestion of "conditional" U.S. support based on forced "reconciliation." According to a report in the Washington Post, State Department Counselor Phillip Zelikow recently drafted a memo on something called the "80% solution," referring to the roughly 80% of Iraqis who are Shiites and Kurds. Mr. Zelikow argues that U.S. attempts to draw violent Sunni factions into the political process have not only failed but also alienated our natural allies among the majority of Iraqis who welcomed the overthrow of Saddam. This does not mean the U.S. would be taking sides with Shiite death squads against the Sunni terrorists. Far from it, the point would be to reassure Iraq's elected government that the United States is firmly on its side. This is particularly important for Mr. Hakim and other Shiites, many of whom still remember being abandoned by the U.S. after they were urged to rebel against Saddam way back in 1991. The U.S. has resurrected that mistrust far too often since 2003--in the use of Algerian Sunni Lakhdar Brahimi to select Iraq's first interim government, and in the U.S. role earlier this year in forcing out former Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Many Shiites now feel Nouri al-Maliki's government is being undercut too. So it's no surprise that Maliki aides reacted angrily yesterday to the ISG suggestion of "conditional" support. Shiite mistrust also played a role in the cancellation last week of the planned three-way meeting among Mr. Maliki, Mr. Bush, and Jordan's King Abdullah. Our information is the snub had nothing to do with the leak of a memo about Mr. Maliki by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley (the Bush-Maliki meeting went ahead as planned) but was instead a signal that the Iraqi government wants no part of a "regional solution" that involves concessions to Sunni terrorists. A fair deal for ordinary Sunnis on oil revenues and other issues is more likely if the Shiite-led government feels secure, not threatened. The Maliki government will also have more clout to disarm Shiite militias if U.S. support seems firm. This strategy is also the best way to counter Iranian influence in Iraq. Most Iraqi Shiites have no desire to take orders from Tehran, but they will surely turn eastward if they feel abandoned by the U.S. Mr. Bush was diplomatic in welcoming the ISG report yesterday, as he had to be. But one idea he'd do well to reject out of hand is the proposal that backing for Mr. Maliki be conditioned on U.S. benchmarks. The more the U.S. looks like it is forcing a political solution on Baghdad's moderate Shiites, the less likely a genuine "reconciliation" will become. Editorial board member Rob Pollock discusses the ISG in a >WSJ.com video.<

>>Source<<

Negotiating with Iran and Syria is just not a good idea.
Talk sure, negotiate? For what?
What could possibly they have to offer other than more henchmen?
And why would they do that again? It's quite clear to them that keeping the area destabilized only prolongs their upper hand before all eyes start focusing their way instead.

The video is good too btw...

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."