I am finally back at my keyboard after some travels and already the first days of 2008 look so depressing that I don’t even know where to begin. In no particular order, here are some of the things which make me think that 2008 shall be an ugly and mean year.
United Kingdom: the Brits are loosing it. I mean, they were never known for their kind and honorable foreign policy, but neither were they known for being stupid. But check out this piece of news on the BBC. Not only does the British government insist that Russia hand over one of its citizens on totally incredible charges (if the Russians wanted Litvinenko killed, they would not use something as silly as a polonium poisoning attempt), but they now defy Putin *inside* Russia itself! I mean – how totally out of touch with reality does the British government need to be to think that the Russians will just back down and take it? Do they still think Eltsin is sitting in the Kremlin. Conclusion: Brown is as stupid as Dubya or Olmert.
2008 primaries: the primary in New Hampshire gave a victory for McCain and Hillary and the ‘live free or die” state gave more votes to Giuliani than to Ron Paul. That just goes to prove that raising plenty of money is not enough – you need to have the support of the corporate media to get elected in the USA.
Ron Paul campaign: having received the bad news about Ron Paul’s poor results in Iowa and New Hampshire, the Ron Paul campaign is still not looking at other options. Dennis Kucinich floated the idea of a joint Kuninich-Paul ticket only to be immediately turned down by the Paul campaign. Frankly, I think that the Paul campaign is dead in the water, mainly due to its apparent inability to “think out of the box”.
2008 campaign: the sad reality that Americans do not have a meaningful choice has been perfectly illustrated by the January 3rd DemocracyNow show which featured American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos and the brilliant reporter Allan Nairn (check out his excellent blog). With the exception of Gravel, Kucinich and Paul, all the presidential candidates are just “marketing faces” behind which you will find the same kind of advisors: Neocon thugs, imperial killers, ruthless corporate goons and, needless to say, faithful zealots of the Israel lobby.
Dubya’s clumsy “Persian Gulf of Tonkin” incident: first they told us that Iranian speedboats where threatening USN destroyers (which is bizarre in itself), then they admitted that, well, the audio was not quite clearly from the same Iranian boats (the Iranians offered their own video whose audio was clearly in sink with the sequence of events shown). The fallback position? “Well guys, we were already threatened a month ago, except that we did not report it then“. When nobody took this one seriously, Dubya came out with the usual nonsense about Iran being a threat to the Middle-East. The highlight of the speech was the mantrically repeated accusation that “Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror“. Nevermind that this often repeated accusation is backed up with exactly zero facts, and nevermind that the world’s leading state sponsor of terror is, of course, the USA. What is amazing is that besides being evil and corrupt, the Dubya administration is fantastically incompetent – its not even capable of cooking up a halfway credible “Persian Gulf of Tonkin incident”. Has anyone noticed that the “Iranian IED” nonsense has quietly been dropped? Ditto for the “Iranian covert nuclear weapons program”. I think the Neocons have to bite the bullet and wait for somebody more capable to enter the White House, say Hillary or Obama, to create a pious pretext to attack Iran.
Sibel Edmonds: after much waiting Sibel Edmonds finally gave an interview to The Times with revelations which would make Watergate appear like a minor prank. Reaction in the USA? Nothing. The US corporate media simply will not report any of that, period. Scary. Sibel even published a photo gallery of all the culprits (check out Lukery’s commented version with the names and affiliations indicated). Even though there are plenty of big names named, nobody cares. Really, if top US government officials sell nuclear secrets to Pakistan through Turkish diplomats and under the political cover of Israeli agents in the USA, and if they are all deeply involved in 911 – who cares? Right?!
Loose Change Final Cut released: the final version of the movie Loose Change as been released (official website here, google video here, purchase the DVD here). A much improved version in my opinion, as it makes no claims (as in the past versions), but only asks questions. What is certain is that the entire 911 Commission exercise was just a cover-up for something, the question is what was being covered up. On the latter I remain an agnostic, but my gut feeling is that it involves all the same actors and interests as in the Sibel Edmonds case.
Pakistan: where do I even begin here?! The situation in Pakistan is beyond out of control and all this will probably go down in history as yet another Neocon snafu of truly horrifying proportion. In all fairness, the USA has got it wrong in that region since at least the end of World War II and everything the USA did over there, literally *everything*, only made matters worse, and worse, and worse. To hear how some Neocons actually advocate for yet another war in Pakistan just goes to show how totally out of touch with reality these people are. Had they ever read Hegel (as their Bolshevik forefathers used to do) they would realize how futile it is hope to tackle an insurgency by starting yet another war.
Imperial Homeland: nobody with a modicum of intelligence can possibly doubt that the USA is currently ruled by a cabal of criminal whose crimes range from simple corruption to treason and include such things war crimes, human rights violations, violations of the laws of war, crimes of aggression, espionage, corruption, obstruction of justice, etc. The USA has the highest per capita rate of incarceration in the world, it spends more on ‘defense’ than the rest of the world combined, it has 16 (sixteen!) official intelligence agencies and it is currently directly involved in at least 3 wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia). Add to this that this country has legalized torture, disappearances, kidnappings abroad, that its huge, bloated police forces uses tasers as portable torture instrument on even the smallest sign of non-compliance, that mercenary companies such as Blackwater are training for internal operations and that the National Guard has been re-subordinated to the Federal authorities while FEMA is working on mobile detention centers and you get the picture: the American population is now threatened with a major wave of repression. Sure, as long as the well-oiled corporate propaganda machine can do the job, tasers will be kept holstered. But what if these whackos start a war with Iran and the economy goes belly-up? What if riots break out?
The US empire is dying and there is nothing anyone can do to stop this process. The relevant question is now exactly the same one which everybody asked when it became clear that the Soviet Union was collapsing: how much blood will this cost?
None of the above pretends to be anything like an exhausting analysis with many important things missing (Iraq, Gaza, Sarkozy to name just a few). I just listed some of the things which crossed my mind during the past two weeks. I see them as various signs of the same syndrome of imperial death. My main fear is that the USA has been hijacked (see Sibel’s article here and here) and that a country which used to be allied with the “ECHELON Nations” is now run by a “Nomenklatura” with roots in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan and these guys will stop at nothing, nothing at all, to keep their grip on power.
Is there any good news out there?
Sure there is!
The resistance to the Empire is strengthening all around the Imperial periphery: first and foremost, Iran stared down the wannabe Texan cowboy in the White House and managed to outmaneuver all the Necon attempts to justify a war. Hezbollah as defeated Israel with less than 1000 actual combatants and is now slowly bringing the CIA sponsored ‘Cedar Revolution’ to its knees. The Kurdish guerrillas have shown the impotence of the Turkish military and are now openly challenging the US policies. Hugo Chavez has survived his first defeat at the ballot box and is still keeping the ‘Yankees’ out of power. Russia, now awash in money, is standing up to the US attempts to destabilize it and openly challenges US imperialism. Japan has quietly agreed to pay for its Iranian oil in Euros. The Somali have refused to submit to the invading Ethiopian forces. While US stooges in the Ukraine or Georgia have succeeded in remaining in power, their situation is beyond precarious and it is just a matter of time before they crash and burn. I could go on with this list, but the point is simple: the external resistance to the Empire is getting stronger and stronger. Sadly enough, the internal resistance, while real, has not, so far, been able to organize itself into a credible force.
Welcome back from vacation.
The Russian people have a right to live in a free democracy like the large majority of the world’s 7 billion people do. I am glad that some non-Russians are speaking out on their behalf.
The US government wants to avoid a confrontation with Iran. That was the purpose of the report on Iran’s nuclear weapons.
Khamenei staged this incident for God knows what reason. He is completely irrational. The Arab world is already strongly against him. All he has done is further unite all his neighbors against him. And he has done this for no apparent reason.
Vineyard, have you ever considered that American voters vote for the people they do, because they like them. Because our elected officials do what we want them to do.
In free democracies, which the majority of the world’s 7 billion people live in, the governments are an extention of the poeple. The people and their governments cannot are not easily distinguished from the other.
Vineyard, have you ever considered that American voters vote for the people they do, because they like them. Because our elected officials do what we want them to do.
Yes, I have. This is a truly scary thought which, if true, would fully justify the 911 attacks and make Bin-Laden into a freedom fighter…
My feeling is that while there is an incompressible 20% of inbred Fascists in the USA, as in any country, most Americans would be deeply appalled if they realized that the world is nothing like what their propaganda tells them and if the full magnitude of the horrors committed in their name was brought to their attention. Frankly, if Dahr Jamal could replace the talking heads in the idiot box I think the war would grid to a stop in less than one month, and the entire power structure would be thrown out in less than six.
I mean – how would most Americans react if they realized that their government sold nuclear secrets to Islamic states under the protection of Israel?!
Somehow, I cannot bring myself to accept that Americans are both so stupid and so evil. There is a deep sense of decency in this country, of patriotism, of morality. Americans like wars because Hollywood and CNN make wars look cool, not because Americans are inherently evil and immoral.
And Anand, if you *really* believe that democracies have anything at all to do with the will of the people, I have a bridge I want to sell you…
Anand, I have to disagree with you on the notion that elected officials do what we tell them to do. I don’t think it’s that simple. What we have is what Chomsky calls a “manufacturing of consent.” The information made available to the public and the “legitimate” policy choices available to it are carefully constrained so as to shape a certain outcome. Take the Iraq War as an example. Did the idea of attacking Hussein, that he was a threat to our security really originate with the public? It’s the same with Iran. Even outlets like NPR like to talk about what to do about the threat that Ahmadinejad’s regime poses. The notion that his regime is no threat to America, or that we are obliged to do nothing is not deemed to be legitimate.
Moreover, when it comes to elections we have very little choice. Whereas other democracies can allow three, four, or five parties to share power, ours concentrates power into only two parties. The ruling elite owns all the horses in the race and it makes little difference which one wins.
All the public does is ratify a choice put before them by their elites. And it does so in the context of limited information. Take a look at the coverage of the campaign on Wolf Blitzer’s show and you’ll see that twenty or thirty minutes will be devoted to covering the race but no more than one minute will be spent enumerating the candidates’ policy positions and how they differ from one another. More time is spent talking about the candidates “body language”, their image, or their endorsements than is spent identifying their policy views. A great example is the latest rhetoric from Clinton criticising Bush for sauying he “looked into Bush’s soul.” Clinton launched into arant that Putin has no soul. She goes on to explain how she knows this to be true because of her insight into foreign affairts, because Putin is ex-KGB, blah, blah, blah…. This is not a discussion of policies. It is just self-aggrandizement about the attributes she wants voters to think she possesses.
Focusing on stuff like this is a colossal distraction. But that’s how elections are covered and it glosses over the fact that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the candidates.
– AA
Dahr Jamal is an anti-Shiite and anti-Kurdish racist. He is the quintessential “Ugly American.” He hung out with a bunch of anti-Shia, anti-Kurd, and anti-Fallujan bigots in Fallujah in 2004 and actually sympathized with them. Note that he doesn’t return to Fallujah now. Dahr’s friends are on the run, and most Fallujan locals are openly hostile towards them. Further note, that Fallujah has a lower crime rate today than Jordan or Syria. It would be safe for Dahr to return, provided he behaves himself. (The Fallujan police have little room for trouble makers.)
Still, Dahr Jamal is far better than Osama Bin Laden, who massacred of hundreds
of Shiites in Gilgit, Azad Kashmir, 1988:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/iraqimojo/8660010557349478228/?src=hsr#203680
The world made a terrible mistake by not uniting against OBL in 1988. But better late than never.
Imperialism/exploitation, is another word for globalization and capitalism, that have improved the living conditions of over a billion people in Asia.
Reducing poverty is far more important than most of the issues you write about. “Empire” or transnational globalized capitalism is a small price to pay for it.
I suspect that much of the outwardly animus against “Empire” is a veiled form of bigotry against people of color who are increasingly filling the top ranks of the world’s leaders, knowledge workers, executives, entrepreneurs, and financiers.
You say you observed first hand the horrors of jihadi extremism in the Albanian context (in Kosovo and Bosnia.) Why can’t you sympathize with the rest of the world in the struggle against Jihadi Takfiri extremists.
For all his many faults, Putin understands this threat far better than you. Russia stands shoulder to shoulder with Afghanistan, Thailand and many other countries in the world in their struggle against the forces of darkness.
If not for Putin’s retrenchment on freedom inside Russia, he would go down as one of the world’s greatest leaders.
Vineyard, have faith in the people and their judgment. They may not get every election right, but they are a lot smarter than people give them credit for (in America and most of the rest of the world’s countries.)
AA,
1) I don’t like Hillary. I think Pres Bush really did see into Putin’s soal. I liked Putin too.
2) People are far smarter than Chomsky gives them credit for. (I think smarter than policy makers that I discuss below.)
3) I was strongly against America intervening in Iraq’s ongoing civil war in 2003. I wasn’t deceived by anyone. Americans had plenty of information to base their decision on. 3/4s of them backed the invasion for their own carefully considered reasons. Now they are fully accountable for their decision.
4) Our news channels are ratings driven entertainment outlets. I think almost every American knows that.
5) Our policy makers are not intelligent enough to manipulate American voters. Group think is a problem with policy makers. It is important to think out of the box in the early ideation decision making process that narrows down the options that are later considered. One major problem we have is that many geo-political strategists haven’t the slightest clue about business or economics, or America’s and the world’s actual interests. Similarly, many business leaders and economists are too busy and uninterested to understand the thinking of geo-political “experts” (even though they are not ‘experts’ in any true sense) or educate them. As a result we often have policies that harm America’s and the world’s interests.
6) Consider . . . the Iraq operation has an opportunity cost of over a trillion US dollars that can be spend on other American or “Empire” priorities. Yet was a cost/benefit analysis ever done to carefully consider the options that we have? And in the midst of this are some completely confused leftists from a parallel universe arguing that Iraq benefits American interests, or the interests of empire. The scarcity of rational thinking across the political spectrum is astonishing.
7) There is no conspiracy. Things are as they appear. Our voters feel sorry for policy makers, because they couldn’t make it in the real world (in a start-up, or working for Apple) . . . so they elect them to Washington so that they can at least find some job.
So Anand, you think that Americans are as stupid, as ugly, as immoral, as corrupt, as evil and as repugnant as the US foreign policy? You think that what the USA does around the world is an expression of the collective will of the American people?
If yes, then, at least on this issue, you agree with Osama Bin-Laden and you should logically hate the USA as much as he does.
So how are you going to wiggle out of this conundrum? Either the USA is not a democracy, or the American people are loathsome as Osama thinks. Either or, you can’t have it both ways…
There is no organized “US policy.” America is a plural plutocratic free democracy. Seemingly random actions take place, unrelated to each other. In the chaos, stuff happens. There is no grand design or vision.
Most foreigners are much more focused on influencing America than castigating it as you have.
I am very upset that the Saudi Royals and some non-Americans buy our politicians and use them for their nefarious purposes. But that is America.
But I think that the influence of most of these country lobbies are positive.
Note the significant influence of the Kenyan American community with respect to US policy on Kenya today.
Senator Obama is directly involved in policy.
The Ethiopian American lobby is also very influential in Congress. They have a major influence on US policy today. This is one reason I am confident that the awesome Ethiopians are getting a fair shake. I like Ethiopians. (Even though they eat from common plates :-) )
Your ‘empire’ isn’t all that bad. And the empire isn’t one country. It transcends most countries.
One of my favorite empire people is Lula. He is much more pro-business, pro-Wall Street, pro-Corporate, pro-Globalization than the borderline big government nativist socialists we have running around in this country.
I wish we could have a true man of empire, Lula, running our country. The Brazilians can keep Pres Bush. If they can understand what Pres Bush is saying, or his grand vision, all power to them.
Of course I also like that great supporter of empire President Hu. He is awesome! Much smarter than many of our congress people put together.
Just to be clear on one point, the greatest security threat in the world today is the Takfiri menace (of which OBL is a part.) There was no excuse for his massacre of Shia in Gilgit, Pakistani administered Kashmir, in 1988. And there is no excuse for his many massacres against people around the world since.
I am sure you have heard about AQ killing many Philippinos and Thais in the 1990s. The world must unite to crush OBL first. After the Takfiris are eliminated, we can discuss “empire” and your other priorities.
Anaand, if the news media were merely ratings driven entertainment they would give a lot more attention to controversial elements. You would see 9/11 truthers, white nationalists, black nationalists like nation of Islam, and fringe candidates like Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich would be prominently featured -, if only because their staunchly partisan feelings provoke powerful responses both for and against what they say. That’s not what we get. Ron Paul’s “neoConned” speech would be aired time and again and he would be repeatedly questioned about the neocons Trotskyite links.
And as for Dahr Jamail being anti-Fallujan, his coverage of the siege of Falluja was a lot more sympathetic than anything I have ever seen in the MSM.
AA
And as for Dahr Jamail being anti-Fallujan, his coverage of the siege of Falluja was a lot more sympathetic than anything I have ever seen in the MSM.
Unless, of course, you believe that the ‘heroic’ marine snipers who were constantly shooting at civilians are somehow more sympathetic to the ‘good’ Fallujans that nasty and racist Dahr :-))
AA, you think that the media isn’t interested in profit maximization. Interesting. What do you think motivates GE (NBC), Disney (ABC), News Corp (FOX), Time Warner (use to be AOL), Viacom (CBS)?
You seem to be thoughtful.
For the truth on Fallujah from someone I trust:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/the-rings-on-za.php
See the comments too. I have exchanged e-mails with Michael longer than I have with you Vineyard. Michael grew up a leftist (although he is now more uncertain about where the truth lies). He did not support the 2003 invasion. He is amazingly humble.
If you really want to learn, read his account. This article focuses more on Fallujah police officers than civilians. But feel free to leave him a comment asking him any questions you might have.
Dahr’s friends were disliked by most Fallujans. They were subsequently kicked out of the city.
Michael spent close to a month in Fallujah recently. He says it is much worse than Ramadi, which he visited a few months earlier. He explains what he saw in Fallujah as he saw it.
For the truth on why the world admires Israel:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ISL&t=my
A Pakistani friend once told me that he would sacrifice his arm to destroy Israel, but he admired them greatly.
On a related note, I was astonished to see that Kucinich & Gravel together pulled in less than 1% of the vote in the Democratic primary. If we are to believe what we hear about opposition to the war in the Democratic party, I would have to believe that most Democratic voters have no inkling what the real foreign policy views of Hillary, Obama, or even Edwards are. The rhetoric is ambiguous enough that most voters in the primary simply don’t realize how close they are to McCain, Giuliani, et al.
-AA
Kucinich & Gravel are anti-outsourcing, anti free investment, anti-business. There policies would cause deep suffering on the part of billions of the worlds’ poor.
Ron Paul, the American patriot, was much better than either of them.
AA, do you support cutting off all foreign aid to the GoI and ISF? That is Gravel’s position.
I don’t think Iraqis should be abandoned. Iraqis are fighting AQ linked networks, the same people who attacked America on 9/11. It is strongly in America’s interests that Iraqis win.
I don’t have a problem with withdrawing US combat troops. But we should continue to train and equip the ISF for as long as the Iraqis want it.
I think Congress should appropriate another $50 billion in grants for Iraq (above the $40 billion already appropriated) ASAP.
This is another reason I want nothing to do with Gravel.
I would have to believe that most Democratic voters have no inkling what the real foreign policy views of Hillary, Obama, or even Edwards are
Yep. Ditto for the fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 911 or for the fact that Iran never had a nuclear weapons program. The fact is that anyone watching TV exposes himself to a great risk of SISO, otherwise known as ‘shit in, shit out’, although when I say ‘TV’ I mean the entire corporate media, including NPR (Neocon Public Radio), though TV is the worst, by far (followed by radio talkshows).
As long as Americans will continue to tune in the the corporate media, even for 10min a day, they will be thoroughly SISOized and will be unable to make even some basic rational choices.
Yet another reason for NOT blaming Americans for the US foreign policy. Blame them for watching the idiot tube, sure; but not for what their leaders do.
Profit maximization is an objective that is always subordinated to existing political constraints – especially when there are only a few dominant players in a system. Anything that is potentially destabilizing is eschewed – even if it enhances profitability.
That’s why investment banks won’t struggle to outbid one another over fees on a major bond underwriting. Everyone comes in at the same price. It’s pretty much the same with realtors when it comes to selling your house. None of the major firms will try to underbid another major firm to earn your business, even if it means foregoing a little more income. Economists model this phenomenon in which a few dominant players exert nearly complete control as a Nash equilibrium. Under these conditions chasing after the last few dollars the market has to offer is typically avoided.
Moreover, monetary policy itself is shaped on the assumption that most firms operate in monopolistically competitve markets. They may not operate as true monopolies, but for the purpose of creating a simplified statistical model that shapes policy, this assumption works much better than one in which perfectly competitive markets operate.
The same kinds of constraints operate in the major media. They too limit their search for profitabilty to within a narrow realm that does not destabilize the system.
The marketplace for ideas functions very much like any economic marketplace. Those who exert control & can express their agenda thru policies of the two party system carefully filter both the information and ideas that are disseminated in the major media. It’s no coincidence that a great many Americans believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. I’d venture a guess that the number of Americans who are aware of Islamist notions of establishing a caliphate, dressing women in burqas, and sending young children off to madrassas far outstrips the number of people who can point to any specific grievance OBL had with America.
I remember reading an article by Juan Cole that claimed that a majority of Americans surveyed believed that Ahmadinejad wanted to visit the site of WTC and lay a wreath there so that he could commemorate the hijackers. Most people have no idea that after Hussein’s secular socialist regime, one of the biggest enemies Al Qaeda has is the Shiite theocrats in Iran. They know only that we are in a war against “Muslim extremists” – be they insurgents in Iraq, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria etc.
The identity of the threat to American safety and freedom is vaguely defined for a reason. It is useful to do so as it creates political cover to expand the GWoT to whatever target suits our elected officials. The MSM is unmistakably complicit in this deception. If you don’t believe me just tune in to conservative talk radio, Glenn Beck, or glance at the left-leaning publications like The New Republic. The fearful rhetoric about a vague Islamic threat is expressed in many different ways but the theme of a persistent Islamist threat remains. Even NPR will talk about “what to do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions” or Iran’s provocations in the Gulf.
Think this happens by accident? I don’t think so.
-AA
“Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.”
The Shah had a nuclear program.
AA, I like Glen Beck. He understands the Takfiri menace.
OBL is an anti-Shiite bigot. The world should unite and crush him. Enough said.
AA, you are correct that we have a partial oligopoly in investment banking. But if globalized free markets are good at one thing, it is breaking oligopolies. The oligopolies in I Banking are slowly slipping. The oligopolies won’t last in I-Banking. (The I-Bankers have been ripping the rest of us off for too long.)
I am curious about your use of nash equilibria. The issue that I have is that we don’t have only a few big media players anymore.
We are moving to decentralized content. There are many content providers, including democracy now, blogs, talk show hosts, that cater to different audiences. I think that there is greater diversity in media in the world today then any time in human history.
MSNBC tried some liberal talk show hosts. They failed to generate ratings. One liberal who generates ratings in Michael Moore. He is uproariously funny. That is why he keeps getting invited. Noam Chomsky puts the audience to sleep.
I never understood why so many Americans though Saddam did 9/11. Did they have access to secret information that they didn’t share with everyone else? President Bush never publicly said that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
The reason the MSM is so uncomfortable with terrorism is politically correct sensibilities. Why else do they not talk about Osama Bin Laden’s massacre of hundreds of Shia in Gilgit, Kashmir in 1988? Or his many atrocities around the world since then.
OBL wants to take over Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and use their oil and nukes to advance his global takfiri agenda.
Did you see Zawahiri’s recent rant (a few weeks ago) against Iran? He (and Osama) seem to hate Iran (and Khamenei) worse than America. This is no surprise to anyone with the slightest bit of interest in AQ. But the MSM missed it and its significance entirely.
OBL has never included western pressure against Iran in his list of greviances.
OBL frequently expresses great sorrow that East Timur was taken away from the Ulema.
He also justifies attacks against the UN (which he has attacked since 1993) by saying: “It (the Charter) also obligates them to recognize Russia’s occupation of Chechnya and the Muslim Caucasus, China’s occupation of East Turkistan, Spain’s occupation of Ceuta and Melilla and the occupation of other Muslim lands by non-Muslim governments which are part of the UN.”
OBL almost attacked the Vatican and killed the pope in 1995 (before his plot was uncovered).
How can anyone suggest that OBL is in any way justified?
re “the good news”:
i enjoy US defeats as well as the next man. but chavez and putin are statists as much as any neocon, and hezbollah are a bunch of religious oppressors. i’d call it “mixed” news.
@Anand: “Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.”
The Shah had a nuclear program.
Read again. I said WEAPONS program.
@Petey: hezbollah are a bunch of religious oppressors
Really? And who might they be oppressing? Could you please give me some facts about this?
Why do you think Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program?
I thought it was clear that the Shah was trying to build a nuclear weapons capability (because Pakistan, Saddam and Israel were, and because he did not trust the USSR.)
hezbollah has not been good for Lebanon, especially Shia Lebanese.
Hezbollah has prevented a self reliant economy from building up that would make Shia less dependent on them. How much VC investment has there been in Shia companies? How many successful Shia entrepreneurs? How about test scores in schools? Successful Shia business executives? Companies with Shia founders and executives that have gone public?
On most metrics that matter to “REAL” people, Hezbollah has been disastrous.
Shia are very capable people. See how successful American Shia (Iranian and Lebanese) are in every field of endeavor.
In what way has Hezbollah been successful for Lebanese Shia?
Why do you think Iran has never had a nuclear weapons program?
Because there never was a claim made by anyone about the existance of a nuclear weapons program under the Shah
In what way has Hezbollah been successful for Lebanese Shia?
In a way in which not only the Shia, but all of the Middle-East admires Nasrallah and Hezbollah. Defeating the IDF with less than 1000 men or economically helping the entire south Lebanon to recover after the Israeli “Grapes of Wrath” operations probably helped.
Anand, its hard, really hard, to demonstrate to you that the earth is round over and over again. Frankly, you are so out of touch with reality that I am at loss as how to do that without sounding condescending or rude.
I have to tell you in all candor that you really need to make an effort to look beyond the nonsensical propaganda you are obviously consuming in great amounts and at least try to get a sense of the real world out there. The kind of things you are posting here just make you look phenomenally ignorant and naive to the extreme.
As I already told you. Either you begin doubting your certitudes and take the red pill, or you keep on regurgitating that nonsense in which case I would advise you to pick another, more receptive, audience than the folks posting here.
Think about it, ok?
Hezbollah, Israel, and Lebanon lost the war. It was a disaster for everyone. Everyone lost precious lives. No one won anything.
Many arabs (obviously AQ linked networks . . . but they hate Shia on principle) were not awed by Hezbollah or Israel. Most people criticized both Hezbollah and Israel for the disaster they jointly created.
Hezbollah’s militia has many thousands of soldiers who fought. Many Hezbollah and Israeli fighters died. And for what?
If they want to fight, let them fight their joint enemy, the global Takfiri.
The world needs to unite as brothers and sisters and crush the Takfiri. What greater “security threat” is there in the world today?
But more important than security is fighting global poverty, communicable diseases, (including AIDs), global warming, and promoting our common human values.
To achieve all these things cooperation across countries is needed. Globalization is needed.
Read my hero flat brain has explain why Globalization helps poor people around the world.
In recent years the global economy has grown faster than any time in recorded human history. Over a billion people have worked their way out of extreme global poverty.
This has happened because most countries have allowed free trade and free investment.
Today life expectancy in India is twice what it was when the Brits left. China has had a similar experience. I don’t want to see both countries and the world regress backwards to poverty and suffering.
The most important thing America can do to reduce global poverty is allow outsourcing and the free flow of investment. Hence my support for the great American patriots Obama, McCain, and Ron Paul. They are the most free trade candidates running for president (based on their records and statements.) They are also the least nativist, and most pro-foreign people running for president. (Huckabee might be in this category too . . . I am keeping an open mind about him.) They understand that it isn’t important to see the world through American eyes, but to see and feel the world through the eyes of other people in other countries.
These candidates also come closest (along with Huckabee) to supporting greater immigration and amnesty, which I support.
Obama and McCain cherish the diversity and nuance that comes from trying to see the world through the eyes of billions of people around the globe. The great diversity and richness of views, and beauty, and wisdom. They understand the need for inspiration to common purposes and common goals across the atrophying barriers of race, culture, nationality, and faith.
My observation is that the people in India and China (39% of the world’s people) want a partner in America that can work with them to solve global problems. Help Pakistan and Afghanistan succeed and prosper. Accelerate global growth (by collectively working with the world to provide global public goods that benefit everyone), poverty reduction, disease management, reduce global warming, fight organized crime, manage the Takfiris, keep global sea lanes open,
The one thing that America can do that would most irritate them is if we Americans start to fail (have a financial crisis, a economic slowdown, our otherwise mess up through incompetence.) Because that would hurt them and the world more then any other thing we Americans can do.
And foreigners would prefer not to have to put up a couple trillion dollars to bail us out (which they will do it comes to it.)
We Americans need to be strong and successful not only for our selves but for the rest of the world.
In the real world, 1 + 1 =3. When one person (Steve Jobs) succeeds, he not only benefits himself, but a lot of other people. The boom in Asia has been very good for America, Europe, Latin America and Africa.
China is helping develop the entire African continent by aggressively investing and doing business there. Africa wins, China wins, America wins, the world wins.
This is the “REAL” world that we live.
And it is a hopeful world.
Note that the most successful muslim countries are Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and the 160 million muslims of India. In these countries, muslims are succeeding through free market globalization. This is why the Takfiri are losing around the world. And why the muslim people will prove to the world that they are strong, and good, and worthy of emulation.
Consider learning about the truth in Falluja.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/the-rings-on-za.php
Fallujans have a long road ahead of them. I hope they make it, for all our sakes.
We will know that Falluja has made it when successful start-ups start popping up.
We knew Russia made it when many companies such as Google (founded by two Russian born men) started popping up.
I know the author, and many of you seem interested in Falluja. So consider giving it and the comments a read.
Note how much he admires Iraqis and Arabs. To know them means to love them.
Totten is a major propagandist for American imperialism.
VS wrote:
Yet another reason for NOT blaming Americans for the US foreign policy. Blame them for watching the idiot tube, sure; but not for what their leaders do.
Let’s check part of the American canon, VS, specifically, The Gettysburg Address:
. . . government of the people, by the people, for the people . . .
Americans are responsible for their foreign policy and ignorance or apathy (or both) does not absolve them from guilt.
Mizgîn, I know Totten. Please don’t write about him that way.
It hurts my feelings. :-(
At least leave him a comment explaining what you disagree with him regarding, and let him respond to you.
He welcomes comments and criticisms. Especially from the left, since he originally was from the left.
Give Michael a chance. He isn’t God. He makes mistakes. When you catch his errors, let him know.
Shouldn’t all of us try to absorb as much news and information from as many sources as possible? Isn’t more information always good? We need the discrimination to dissect what we observe and learn. But please, we shouldn’t cut off the flow of information.
Isn’t anyone interested in Fallujah?
Note that Michael has said (I don’t know about his recent articles) that 30% of Fallujans want MNF-I soldiers out of Fallujah quickly, and say so quite directly.
Many Fallujans are skeptical of the GoI.
I guarantee you that you will like a lot of what you hear from Michael Totten. He has no agenda.
Although he has grown to love Iraqis and Lebanese. If you have read him for a while, this is evident.
Looks like someone in here has been reading Thomas Friedman’s propaganda. If you’re really worried about improving living conditions in the developing world the real focus ought to be on resolving what Ben Bernanke calls the “global savings glut.”
Please note that Americans have a negative net savings rate, They consume everything they produce and then some. In this sense they are bailing out the developing world by acting as a consumer of last resort. Any lasting healthy solution to the ills of the developing world will require them to develop their own internal markets. As it is presently, the distribution of wealth in developing economies is highly skewed. Most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few who hold so much capital they cannot consume it all. The excess funnels back into America in the form of large capital inflows. This provides cheap financing which subsidized the dot com boom, in which unproductive companies received massive inflows of capital only to go bankrupt and into the housing boom, which created housing that put families into homes they cannot afford.
Diminishishing the global savings glut by developing new internal markets and stimulating consumption in the developing world provides the only lasting solution. It would remedy trade inbalances, enhance the standard of living among the poor, and prevent excess capital from flowing into the capital markets of America where it is squandered on unproductive or unsustainable economic activity.
But that is a far cry from what Wall Street wants or what the fatcat oligarchs in Dubai, India, and China desire.
-AA
Chinese like to save. They save much more then they invest. They lend the difference to the rest of the world.
We Americans don’t like to save. We save much less than we invest. We borrow a fortune from the rest of the world.
If foreigners stop lending us money abruptly, our interest rates would skyrocket, it would become very difficult to borrow money inside America, and we would have a slowdown to force us to import less and export more.
The US dollar would weaken. Our terms of trade (export prices/import prices) would deteriorate. Our living standards would be impaired in the medium run.
Our government would be forced to slash spending and raise taxes to keep interest rates from rising even more than they otherwise would.
Why would we Americans prefer this? It is much better if China and the rest of the world keep lending us money at low interest rates. It is much better if other countries keep buying our assets (companies, real estate etc.) at high prices.
AA, the quality of investment spending in general has improved over time in America and around the world. (Most of the bad debts are were spent on consumption, including consumption of rental equivalents for real estate, rather than on nonresidential investment.)
This technological innovation, including in the form of improved investment productivity, has resulted in increased living standards around the world and inside America.
I also don’t like the implication that poor or minority Americans shouldn’t be able to borrow money like middle class or rich Americans. The backlash against subprime (loans to poor people) is starting to take ugly class and racial overtones.
I think that we Americans should save more money. But the last thing we want is foreigners to abruptly stop lending us money, or even worse, demand that we repay their money now. Should we have that type of financial crisis, we would need to be bailed out by other countries (Asia, Europe, Latin America) to the tune of trillions of dollars. No one wants that scenario.
Note that the US government now owes the Chinese central bank 1 ½ trillion dollars. Chinese own far more other US assets. The last thing China and other foreigners want is an American crisis that risks their not being repaid what they have lent America.
Please try to read Friedman’s book. I think he has tried to explain the world in simple language.
Economists don’t know how to explain the world in ways that ordinary people can easily understand.
AA, how did you like the article and comments regarding Fallujah?
“Hezbollah’s militia has many thousands of soldiers who fought.”
Says…. you?
Estimates of Hizballah’s numbers vary, as one would expect, but they always refer to hundreds of volunteers, not thousands, let alone ‘many thousands’. According to a recent analysis I read, during the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon, Hizballah never had more than 400-500 men under arms.
Hizballah never had more than 400-500 men under arms.
Correct, at least in the sense that they had less than 1000 for sure, and they kicked several Israeli divisions. The IDF was not even able to take town of Bint Jbeil, right across the Israeli border. Of course, fighting Hezbollah is just a little harder than beating and shooting defenseless Palestinians…
Happy new year Irish Eyes! Always a pleasure to hear from you!
What many Sunni Arabs really think about Hezbollah: http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2008/01/quick-thoughts-on-iran.html
(OK, she is an unusually bigoted Sunni arab.)
Hezbollah fielded thousands of fighters in 2006. Many of them were in their reserve force that is not under arms during peace time.
Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Israel all lost. I don’t get how anyone won.
Many of Hezbollah’s best fighters made the ultimate sacrifice (500-1000.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/11/03/do0302.xml&site=15&page=0
http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/40270
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/world.mideast.misc/1/wed/bq/Alebanon-war-deaths.RYBR_GDS.html
116 Israeli soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice. (Some say 117 or 118.)
For Hezbollah and Israeli families (and other Lebanese unrelated to Hezbollah) the loss is as painful.
This is not to mention the terrible economic cost to Lebanon and Syria.
What did any of them die for?
Lebanon and Israel have no substantial disputes (except the tiny Sheba farms that the UN has declared are not part of Lebanon, which Syria has historically claimed, and which Israel intends to cede to Syria as part of a peace settlement with Syria.)
Israel and Lebanon both significantly benefit from economic integration and prosperity for the other. Instead of having a free trade and free investment agreement, they fight each other over “NOTHING.”
Real success would be business development, facilitating ideation, entrepreneurship, and investment in Lebanon. Improving the education system to prepare Lebanese for the jobs of tomorrow.
Do you really think that Lebanese Shia wouldn’t celebrate if Intel’s largest R&D facility (in Israel now) were in Lebanon?
The era of conflict ended for Hezbollah in 2000. Now is the time for peacemakers, and improving the lives of the Lebanese people. Meaningless wars with foreigners over nothing do not improve the lives of the Lebanese people.
“Hezbollah fielded thousands of fighters in 2006. Many of them were in their reserve force that is not under arms during peace time.”
Have you got a source for that? The Shia population of Lebanon is only about 2 million strong, so it would be amazing if Hizballah were able to field ‘thousands’ of active volunteers. Thousands of sympathizers and ‘adjunct’ members, yes, but there is just no question of them having ‘thousands’ of men in arms.
“
Many of Hezbollah’s best fighters made the ultimate sacrifice (500-1000.)”
Once again you are quoting Israeli propaganda as though it were established fact. It’s understandable that the Israelis would want to pretend that the majority of the 1000 or so victims of their Lebanese onslaught were militants, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. Hizballah funerals are very public affairs, and those present in Lebanon at the time saw nowhere near “500-1000” of them.
But why do I feel I might as well be talking to the wall?
Hi, Saker, happy new year to you too1
I haven’t seen a reputable source claim that less than 500 Hezbollah fighters died in the 2006 war. Perhaps you can find one.
The most common estimate (including from UN sources) is 600 combat deaths. The Israelis, I thought, published a list of 532 names (of Hezbollah soldiers) that they confirmed killed. One of the articles I cited suggested as many as a thousand combat deaths. But perhaps that estimate was a little high?
Feel furnish data regarding how many combat soldiers Hezbollah deployed in 2006. Hezbollah always maintains a crack force of about a thousand, and thousands more of reserve troops that are called up in emergencies.
Lebanon lost a large number of dead civilians. That is why the war was terrible for all parties. No one won anything.
Many American officials (including at DoD) were shocked at how extensive Israeli bombing in populated areas was. Rules of engagement in Iraq do not allow similar bombing inside Iraq. Secretary Rice was shocked at what the IDF did.
I tried to check your links, but none of them worked.
“The Israelis, I thought, published a list of 532 names (of Hezbollah soldiers) that they confirmed killed.”
Ah ha – so the Israelis made this claim? Why didn’t you say so? That would have put it beyond any doubt – it’s of course common practice to uncritically accept casualty figures (with names!) from one side of the conflict. The only question I have is this: does that “list of 532 names” include the three Iranian Republican Guards the Israelis told us they found in Lebanon?
“Many American officials (including at DoD) were shocked at how extensive Israeli bombing in populated areas was.”
I find that hard to believe. After all, previous Israeli excursions in to Lebanon provided ample proof that the IOF has no qualms about unleashing huge amounts of ammunition on populated areas. Siege of Beirut, anyone?
“. Secretary Rice was shocked at what the IDF did.”
I guess those birth pangs aren’t that much fun after all. A caesarian might have been a better idea.
I verified the links. Only Stratford is subscription only. The rest work.
Please provide your own data regarding Hezbollah’s combat deaths, and active troop strenght during the 2006 war.
I think the above is meaningless.
A bunch of people died for no real reason. It was a tragedy.
If people want to fight so darn bad, at least fight AQ linked networks, a true global source of darkness that is committed to destroying Israel, Shia, Hezbollah and Lebanon.
None of your links work – they only bring up a ‘this story is not available’ message. You made the initial claim that “Hezbollah’s militia has many thousands of soldiers who fought”. I hardly think you can ask others to support their contradictions of this, unless you can provide evidence to support your own initial claim.
Copy and paste the links. I just checked again. Two of the links work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anand – using Stratfor to see what people think of Hezbollah – man you are too much! LOL.
Anyone who knows anything about the Middle-East knows that far from hiding casualty figures, Hezbollah very publicly and proudly announces each and every one of them and organizes a big public funeral.
Anand, I will give you a clue to understanding the Shia in general, and Hezbollah in particular. Its just an aphorism with which every single Shia is raised:
Every place is Kerbala, every day is Ashura
If you are really interested in understanding the Middle-East, follow up this lead. Anand, the Shia are *not* people like you, they are fundamentally different in their worldview, culture and psychology because they are raised in a radically different religion and as long as you assume that they are ‘like us’ (whatever ‘us’ means), you will miss the point.
I just gave you a huge clue to understanding Hezbollah and understanding why they were able to kick the shit out of the Israeli Army. As the US saying goes, “its not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog”. One Hezbollah fighter has more ‘fight’ in him than an entire armored IDF division. This is what Beit Jbeil was never taken even though the Israelis send in their ‘elite’ (LOL) Golani Brigade units to try.
Anand, I am close on giving up on you. Do you realize that people like Irish Eyes actually *know* the Middle-East?! You would do well to *learn* something from people like that instead of passing links to Stratfor to them.
Here is what I suggest: if you have a question, a *real* question, a question coming from a need to understand, not just argue for the sake of arguing, please post it. But parrotting the kind of nonsense you have been posting on this thread really makes no sense and only makes you look silly.
Now if you really do want to learn something, take a couple of days to look up, read about and think about Every place is Kerbala, every day is Ashura. ok?
ego: “hezbollah are a bunch of religious oppressors”
VS: “Really? And who might they be oppressing?”
a place to start might be the “ideology of hizballah” article from wiki. it contains the following:
“According to “The Hizballah Program” the principles of its ideology comprising
* To expel Americans, the French and their allies difinetly from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land.
* To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians.
* To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government their desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which alone is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any future tentative attemps of imperialistic infiltration onto our country.
It listed the Ayatollah Khomeini as the leader whose “orders we obey;” called on Christians to “open your hearts to our call” and “embrace Islam” and noted that “Allah has … made it intolerable for Muslims to particuate in … a regime which is not predicated upon … the Sharia” …” (fnn removed)
(i note the nationalism of the first of the three principles, but that’s not the point here.) while i understand that hizballah has modified (temporarily, as it seems to me) its stance on the need to islamicize the lebanese government, it still is motivated by shi’ism. i will leave it to each to decide if the imposition of sharia would be a liberating, neutral, or oppressing event.
* To expel Americans, the French and their allies difinetly from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land.
Well, that obviously refers to the American, French and other GOVERNMENTS, not ethnic groups. All Hezbollah says is that it does not want foreigners to rule in Lebanon. Hardly a proof of opression
* To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians.
That is a basic principle of law: criminals (Sabra and Shatila anyone?) should be brought to justice. I don’t see what the problem is here.
* To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government their desire.
JeezUS! That is nasty indeed!! Choosing their own government in freedom. Seriously, you see this as ‘oppression’?!
We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which alone is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all.
That is an appeal which anyone is free to heed or not. No big deal here, any religion or political beliefs system does the same thing.
Only an Islamic regime can stop any future tentative attemps of imperialistic infiltration onto our country.
An opinion, again, which the facts on the ground in Lebanon have, so far, upheld.
Man, if that is your proof of ‘oppression’ I want to be oppressed a lot! :-))
Notice that is says nothing about Sharia law. In fact, if you study the history of Hezbollah you will notice that Nasrallah actually specifically ruled out an Islamic regime in Lebanon because the Lebanese society is not only Muslim. Proof? There are plenty of Christians in Lebanon, Hezbollah is allied with Christian Michel Aoun, and the Lebanese Christians were never mistreated in any way by Hezbollah.
In fact, the ONLY Muslim regime which did oppress the Christians was the Ottoman empire which kidnapped Christian childern, forced people to convert to Islam (Bosnia is one famous example) and attempted to kill all Armenians.
Then the Wahabi Sunnis have been ugly to all those who do not share their fanatic beliefs, but historically their victims were primarily Shia Muslims, not Christians.
I myself am an Orthodox Christian and I can tell you that I would be totally safe in Hezbollah controlled areas of Lebanon. We have no beef with the Shia, and they have no beef with us. We lived side by side for centuries and we always suffered from the same ruthless enemy: the Papacy.
My 2cts.
oh and more more thing: Hezbollah does not ‘follow Khomenei’ but it has Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader of Iran, as its *spiritual* guide (and not Sheikh Fadlallah as the Western media constantly claims)
Hey, petey, check out this recent article about Hezbollah written by what appers to be an American Jewish leftist:
http://www.countercurrents.org/lieberman150108.htm
“Hey, petey, check out this recent article about Hezbollah written by what appers to be an American Jewish leftist”
will read it.
“the same ruthless enemy: the Papacy”
ah well. i understand a little better now.
I love Shia :-) I am glad that you agree with me regarding the Shia Vineyard.
I suggest that everyone read about Shia history, and 12 Imams. Their stories are inspirational. {Some of my relatives grew up in a Shia neighborhood of New Delhi (about 20 million Shia in India.) I love to hear stories about Ashura. It is hard to explain. But there is a sweetness to the sacrifice that they celebrate.}
Notice that I favor reconciliation and cooperation between Hezbollah, Israel, and America to smash the Takfiri. We would form an awesome combination. ;-)
When have I said that Hezbollah can’t fight, or that they are wimps? (600 dead fighters versus 300 dead fighters does not in any way imply that.)
Dawa/SIIC/Muqtada/Fadheela Sadrists like Hezbollah. Hezbollah likes them. I respect the UIA. Ergo, Hezbollah can’t be all bad.
The Iraqi army soldiers who happen to be Shia fight very well. They have smashed the resistance (500 violent deaths a month versus 3 to 4 K a month at the peak.)
Many of our brave GIs and equally brave IA soldiers have formed deep bonds. They are soldiers in arms, and in blood.
Most of Jamail’s friends that he met in Fallujah during 2004 have either had an out of this world voyage, been imprisoned, or cried uncle and joined the “awakening.” None of Dahr’s friends (that he met in 2004) will ever make the mistake of underestimating the IA again.
The ISF was disproportionately Shia and Kurd 2003-2005.
Now the MoD forces are well integrated (MoI still a work in progress.) Yet many of the heroes and best cadre of the IA hail from 2003-2005 when the IA was largely Kurdish and Shia.
You remember the slogans that some IA soldiers in Falluja use to spray on the walls in 2004. And Dahr Jamail’s friends knew fear.
so i went and read the article. in it i see statements about israel, with every one of which i agree. i see statements about the US, with every one of which i agree. i also see these three items:
“The Party of God has insufficient support for exercising political control of Lebanon and knows it doesn’t have the numbers or the strength to turn the Levant into an Islamic Republic.”
this article was suggested to me as being written by a person who might be expected because of his background to be unsympathetic but who actually appears to be non-judgemental. so even a non-judgemental writer sees that hezbollah has made some calculation as to the possibility of manufacturing an islamic republic (though they don’t like the idea that israel is a jewish republic).
“Hezbollah’s clerics don’t indicate they intend to force Shari’a upon their constituencies.”
they don’t indicate it, says our author.
“Tyre is the home of Sheik Nabil Kaook, Hezbollah commander of South Lebanon. The Sheik narrowly escaped death when Israeli warplanes bombed his home in 2006 war.
In his presence, women are not greeted with handshakes, but with hands respectfully placed over the heart. The women sit veiled and separate from the men.”
here we come to a difficult point. if these women have voluntarily and knowingly entered into literal effacement, then one might respect that decision as rising from their autonomy. but if they have entered into it from social convention, or social pressure, or nationalist enthusiasm, or any other reason, then they’re propping up RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION.
so, once again, i enjoy a US defeat as well as the next man, but the enemy of my enemy may also be my enemy, and just because the US/israeli attack on lebanon was defeated by religious nationalists doesn’t mean i like religious nationalists.
“In his presence, women are not greeted with handshakes, but with hands respectfully placed over the heart. The women sit veiled and separate from the men.”
Sorry, but what sort of ‘effacement’ are we talking about here? In much of Asia – not just the Islamic world – it’s not considered respectful for people to shake hands with the opposite gender, and men may greet unrelated women by bowing and placing their hand lightly over their heart. Is that really so awful? Sounds vaguely charming to me, but maybe I’m just being sentimental.
As for ‘veiling’ if my experience of South Lebanon is anything to go by, these women will have been wearing headscarves but will have had their faces uncovered. Again, is that such a horrid thing? Do you seriously believe it constitutes ‘literal effacement’? Is it in and of itself any more distasteful than, say, an Indian woman wearing a sari? I’m no fan of religious dress, but why is it that traditional modes of dress are only considered objectionable and ‘repressive’ where Muslim women are concerned?
“”The Party of God has insufficient support for exercising political control of Lebanon and knows it doesn’t have the numbers or the strength to turn the Levant into an Islamic Republic.”
Sounds like a neutral observation to me. Of course HB would LIKE Lebanon to be an Islamic state, at least in theory. Would not all political parties wish to see their own principles adopted by everyone? And do not all such parties understand that in reality, that is not going to happen, at least not in a democracy (even a very imperfect democracy like Lebanon)? HB seem pretty pragmatic to me, and anyone who has been in South Lebanon know that, even in their own heartland, Sharia law hardly prevails. That is because, even among Shias, there is little enthusiasm for such a set-up. I have seen no evidence suggesting that HB is not fully aware of, and not particularly bothered by, this reality.
allow me to recount a small anecdote from my personal life. Many years ago, as a student, it must have been 1986-87, I used to work in the summer as a professional driver. One of my clients was a Saudi General who, upon learning that I was an Orthodox Christian, became very friendly and introduced me to his wife. She has an MA in English from UCLA or UC Berkley. They had three wonderful kids.
One day, as we were taking a stroll together along a lake in Europe I asked the wife (who was wearing the hijab) whether she did not consider it as a form of humiliation or oppression of Saudi woman. Just as I asked the question, we passed a couple lying on the grass, she on her back and he on top of her, kissing.
The Saudi lady answered to me with her finger pointed at the couple “*this* is humilitation of woman, our men do not treat us like that”. She added that in Western countries woman were treated like garbage with no respect for their femininity, than the mass circulation of skin magazines and porn videos was just another proof that western man saw women like objects. She concluded by saying “my husband respects me (this I can attest to – VS) and nobody forces me to wear a hijab”.
Now I am no fan of the Saudi wahabis, I know that there is a revolting side to how women are treated there, but I also believe that this Saudi lady had a very valid point.
And then there is the example of a country like Pakistan (also Wahabi in nature) which was willing to elect Benazir to lead it.
The issue of woman in Islam, or in any religion for that matter, is one which must be approached with care and caution, not with judgemental views shot from the hip.
How about we begin by treating *our* woman with the respect and deference they deserve as mothers and spouses and when our own conscience on this matter will be clean, we might maybe inspire others by our example rather than our self-righteous rhetoric?
Concerning Hezbollah’s ‘restraint’ and whether it is motivated by moderation or calculation – I do not have any way of ascertaining it. History tells me that Islam, with the huge exception of the Ottoman empire, is very tolerant of others, at least when compared to the West.
The point if that SO FAR Hezbollah does not oppress anybody and that in comparison to all the other forces in the region, in particular Israel, Hezbollah is outright angelic in its human right record.
I have to say here that, alas, I cannot say the same for Iran whose human rights records is maybe not as appalling as Turkey’s or Egypt’s, but it is not up to the Hezbollah standard either.
Needless to say, this entire bovine excreta about Hezbollah being ‘terrorist’ is just propaganda prolefeed for the ignorant and gullible TV watching people in the West.
“what sort of ‘effacement’ are we talking about here?”
the kind where women’s faces are obscured. you know, the literal kind.
if one wants to accept the cultural habits of an area, OK, but you can’t justify it by saying that women and men don’t shake hands in such-and-such an area because women and men don’t shake hands in such-and-such an area (“In much of Asia – not just the Islamic world – it’s not considered respectful for people to shake hands with the opposite gender”). that’s a tautology, not an explanation. and where and how do people draw the line here? are clitoridectomy and honor killings vaguely charming too?
i see from both responses to my last post that the issues are other than to do with hezbollah. rather they have to do with things like political triangulation and cultural relativism. the fact that “In much of Asia – not just the Islamic world – it’s not considered respectful for people to shake hands with the opposite gender” doesn’t by itself make it alright. and the fact that hezbollah stymied the combined actions of israel and the US doesn’t by itself make hezbollah alright.
i mean, just to lay my own cards on the table (and in the hope that others will too), i am no great fan of any sort of nationalism. one might argue that a robust sense of national independence may be the best defense against the imperial/colonial ambitions of the US (or anyone). i could see that. i could even agree with it. but in the long run the national approach is not geared to diminish concentrations of economic and political power. hezbollah desires to form a government within a nation-state, and therefore i don’t think that too great a distinction should be drawn between them and the other players on their stage, nor any special consideration given to them.
that’s part one, part two would be the policies of such a government, and we’re not getting anywhere on that point, which is speculative anyway, so i’ll leave it.
you can’t justify it by saying that women and men don’t shake hands in such-and-such an area because women and men don’t shake hands in such-and-such an area (“In much of Asia – not just the Islamic world – it’s not considered respectful for people to shake hands with the opposite gender”). that’s a tautology, not an explanation. and where and how do people draw the line here? are clitoridectomy and honor killings vaguely charming too?
But the point here is your claim that Hezbollah oppressed somebody, which you failed to substantiate, and your claim that Islamic modesty laws are a form of religious oppression, which you also failed to substantiate. You last example (clitoridectomy and honor killings) don’t apply at all since they have no basis in Sharia Law or the Kuran.
Hezbollah has even outlawed the traditional Ashura ceremonies for its members because it includes (a mostly harmless) self-flagellation because it considers it as a non-Islamic custom.
Petey – may I suggest that your views are somewhat off-track because they lump with each other very different things: Sharia law, Islam, Shia Islam, Sunni Islam, local customs, etc. And then you appear to be missing that there is an element of arbitrary preference in any country.
In Europe, where I come from, a woman would not get arrested for ‘indecent exposure’ like what happened in California. Heck, in most of Europe women bathe topless in public swimming pools. But in most part of Greece or Spain such behavior is viewed as “prostitute like”.
Americans even ban words like “shit” on their TV something which would appear hilariously infantile to any self-respecting Frenchman (merde!) or Greek (skata!).
In Japan the big thing is not to show pubic hair, but quasi kiddie porn (“lolita” as they call it) is kosher.
I could go on and go on. The point is that ANY decency law limits to actions of some and that ALL countries have their decency laws (try banning oral sex as was done in several US states and you will get a riot in France!).
Take a look at this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2QaqseIGv8
you might find it interesting!
Cheers,
VS
Let me also add this on the shaking of hands issue:
I personally find it kind of disgusting. Did you know that in the Arab world there is one hand for eating and another for cleaning yourself? Now which hand would you rather shake?! Well, you don’t get to choose.
Shaking hands, a masonic symbol promoted by the French Revolution, is not at all a universal sign and most cultures would, I think, consider it as bizarre, unhygienic and immodest (did you know that a man’s pulse rate goes up by about 10bps when a woman touches him?).
I find the traditional bowing of the head and/or torso much more dignified. It is also a fantastic way to quietly signify social rank and respect.
I had a family of close friends from Kazakhstan, Sunni Muslims. I never touched the wife’s hand, but we were close friends nonetheless.
There are plenty of other rules which an American can find baffling (not showing shoe soles, eating with one hand but without any silverware, bowing to a precise angle, etc.) but they are a reflection of the richness of other cultures, not a sign of oppression at all.
my 2cts.
“But the point here is your claim that Hezbollah oppressed somebody, which you failed to substantiate”
point taken. i should have spelled out my thinking more completely, viz, that the original intentions of hezbollah – which i did acknowledge have been at least put in abeyance – countenanced the imposition of sharia (by a syllogism of 1: we want to form a government, 2: no muslim can live under anything that isn’t sharia, 3: our government would impose sharia). from my reading, including the article to which you sent me, this desire has not been permanently abandoned or repudiated, though it may have been permanently modified.
“and your claim that Islamic modesty laws are a form of religious oppression, which you also failed to substantiate”
the substantiation is in the laws themselves, no addition from me needed. as i’ve already said, one would have to examine in each case if the adoption of these effacements was fully voluntary or otherwise. and who invented these rules? why aren’t men veiled? can women take four husbands? can someone just opt out of all this and carry on with life? etc.
“You last example (clitoridectomy and honor killings) don’t apply at all since they have no basis in Sharia Law or the Kuran.”
i asked where one draws the line on a series of practices devised by men directed at the restriction of the actions of women. some are in the koran, some are not. it wasn’t me who introduced the “south asia” parameter, remember. so we start with no handshaking, move to veiling…
“Shaking hands, a masonic symbol promoted by the French Revolution”
or, from wiki:
‘Its origins are unclear, although Philip A. Busterson’s seminal 1978 work Social Rituals of the British traces its roots back to Sir Walter Raleigh, claiming he introduced the custom into the British Court during the late 16th Century.’
i had also heard that the original grasp was further up the arm, designed to show that one was not secreting a weapon.
“is not at all a universal sign and most cultures would, I think, consider it as bizarre, unhygienic and immodest”
how dare they judge my cultural habits! *wink*
“(did you know that a man’s pulse rate goes up by about 10bps when a woman touches him?)”
delightful!
“I find the traditional bowing of the head and/or torso much more dignified.”
yeah, bowing’s fine, if each party does it, and to the same depth.
“It is also a fantastic way to quietly signify social rank and respect.”
i have no respect for distinctions of social rank.
“I had a family of close friends from Kazakhstan, Sunni Muslims. I never touched the wife’s hand, but we were close friends nonetheless.”
and lots of women who aren’t related to me have stuck out their hands to be shaken, and we remain courteous acquaintances.
(have something to say about the last paragraph too, but must run to mind the kiddies.)
(minding the kiddies now)
“There are plenty of other rules which an American can find baffling (not showing shoe soles, eating with one hand but without any silverware, bowing to a precise angle, etc.) but they are a reflection of the richness of other cultures, not a sign of oppression at all.”
i’m glad you mentioned these things, because i am the son of immigrants and was myself raised with “ethnic” cultural practices. i mention this in case anyone thinks they’ve got some kind of american chauvinist on their hands.
i don’t find the things you mention in parentheses oppressive, (except maybe the bit about bowing, see above), or even odd, but all fascinating and exemplary of the myriad ways in which people have reacted to the conditions of life (why, i even minored in anthropology). however, neither keeping one’s shoe soles covered, nor eating in the way you describe, entails the creation or expression of involuntary superior/inferior relationships. if they did, i would hate them.
i am no great fan of any sort of nationalism
Sure, I understand that, as a matter of fact, I don’t really like it either. Nor am I Lebanese or Muslim. But I have no problem with others being Lebanese patriots or Islamists, none at all. I dislike certain ideologies for sure (such as Salafism or the Papacy or Neocon imperialism), but I do not judge people by their ethnicity or religion.
although Philip A. Busterson’s seminal 1978 work Social Rituals of the British traces its roots back to Sir Walter Raleigh
Who himself was a Mason of the Baconian circle, was he not?
yeah, bowing’s fine, if each party does it, and to the same depth.
Oh no, it is far more noble if its done a *different* depths. Ideological egalitarians always end up like Procustus, using violence in pursuit of their idea of equality.
Have you looked at the “Women of Hezbollah” video? Here is a link to the non-Flash version if you rather download it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6489102150268079408
For us in
America, with our queen Brittany and the biggest porn
scene in history,to act as if we are the true
guardians of womanhood is just too ill. :-)
“the kind where women’s faces are obscured. you know, the literal kind.”
Shame you didn’t read my post, much less travel to Lebanon, where you would have seen that covering of the face is extremely rare. Such a custom is rarely practices among Shia women, full stop. However, even if some Lebanese women did cover their faces – and much as I personally dislike the practice – I don’t see how it can automoatically be assumed to be ‘oppressive’ by someone who has never met any of the women concerned.
“the fact that “In much of Asia – not just the Islamic world – it’s not considered respectful for people to shake hands with the opposite gender” doesn’t by itself make it alright.”
I’m genuinely rather baffled by whatever your point may be here. I just don’t know what you are so concerned about. Are you seriously demanding that relations between men and women everywhere in the world must be identical, right down to the trivial issue of greeting customs? And your comparison of this to clitorodectomy is really so foolish as to be unworthy of serious comment – unless of course you believe that any cultural practice which in any way deviates from US norms is no different from honour killing. If you do think that, there is no point in us continuing this discussion.
What’s even more odd is your assumption that traditions which are widespread over a good part of the earth’s surface have anything to do with one political party in Lebanon. This custom was around long before HB existed, and will be there long after they’re gone.
“For us in
America, with our queen Brittany and the biggest porn
scene in history,to act as if we are the true
guardians of womanhood is just too ill. :-) “
brilliantly put Curt.
Petey, you have a good heart. But modesty and respect towards woman isn’t oppression.
Note that there is plenty of very serious sexist repression in the Arab world. But it does not manifest itself in the way you suggest.
Regarding Hezbollah repressing Lebanese:
1) The Shia have been terribly persecuted and mistreated inside Lebanon for centuries.
2) Hezbollah was an extreme reaction to anti-Shiite bigotry and suppression inside Lebanon.
3) Many extreme elements within Hezbollah are now lashing out against Sunni Arabs, Christians and Druze.
4) The extremist wing of Hezbollah engages in terrible abuses against Lebanese.
5) More enlightened elements within Hezbollah are better.
Petey, you are right that Hezbollah engages in major abuses against Lebanese. It is important to acknowledge the truth, for the truth will set us free.
{Other Lebanese groups also engage in repression of Shia Lebanese, among others.}
Completely off topic. What I don’t understand is why Hezbollah and Israel drop the hatchet between them. Both are natural allies, with shared positive values that are the envy of the world, many good qualities, a common Takfiri foe, and shared economic interests. Plus, both are awesome fighters. The world was stunned by how well both sides fought in 2006.
Just imagine Hezbollah and Israel together. They would be unstoppable.
“Israel and Hezbollah together friends forever” !!!!!!!!!!!
“Hezbollah was an extreme reaction to anti-Shiite bigotry and suppression inside Lebanon.”
Demonstrably false. Hizballah was a by no means extreme but rather perfectly predictable reaction to Israel’s invasion and occupation of Southern Lebanon. Not even the most glib hasbara head tries to deny this.
“The world was stunned by how well both sides fought in 2006.”
You mean the ‘world’ inside your head? Again, not even the most die-hard Israeli propagandists claimed Israel performed well in their Lebanese onslaught. Instead, they blamed their defeat (for that is what it was) on the three Republican Guards they found whle failing to take Bint Jbeil (I’m still waiting for your answer about their names). If the world was stunned by anything, it was by the wanton disrespect for life shown by the IDF. Although, as I’ve said, they really should not have been stunned at all, given Israel’s record in such matters.
BTW do you dream about ‘takfiris’ at night? And when you wake up, do you think about ‘takfiris’ rather than your breakfast coffee?
“Petey, you have a good heart. But modesty and respect towards woman isn’t oppression.”
*sighs, rolls eyes, gives up*
“Petey, you are right that Hezbollah engages in major abuses against Lebanese. It is important to acknowledge the truth, for the truth will set us free.”
truth is, i didn’t say that. i said that they are religious oppressors, and that their original desire to encode sharia in a nationalist-islamist government would be politically oppressive. VS asked for current examples of this latter, which i couldn’t give. if they ever actually get ahold of the government, we’ll see, but since they seem to have chosen to go along with power-sharing lebanese-style it may never happen. now, they may have engaged in major abuses against other lebanese, but i don’t have details on that so i won’t assert it.