Sunday, August 26, 2007

In Response To The Democratic Party Politicians: Afghanistan The Good War??

If the US were to wipe out the Taliban completely, capture bin Laden, destroy all terrorist camps, would the US then withdraw from Afghanistan?

"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", according to John Kerry in 2004. That still is the mantra of the Democratic Party politicians, and major sectors of the antiwar movement as well. On August 20th 2007 the New York Times called for escalation of the "good war". That represents the consensus of the Democratic Party. Should progressives believe the Afghanistan war is a good war and Iraq is not?

Alan Woods writes; "US imperialism is behaving, not like a bull in a china shop but like an elephant in a china shop. Afghanistan is in a complete a mess and as a result Pakistan finds itself in a major crisis, which we have covered in articles on our website. There was the lawyers' crisis, then there was the Red Mosque crisis, etc. It is clear that Musharraf is hanging by a thread and they are preparing for Bhutto's return to Pakistan. Important developments are on the order of the day and our comrades are in a good position to take advantage of them.

The war in Afghanistan drags on and Western casualties are mounting. The US plan to rely on air power in Afghanistan in order to avoid American casualties has failed. Instead the bombing has caused heavy civilian casualties Afghan aid groups estimate that foreign and Afghan forces killed 230 civilians in the first six months of 2007-as many as in the whole of last year. Since the start of 2006, some 6,000 people are believed to have died, perhaps 1,500 of them civilians.

Most are caused by America's Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), which is separate from the NATO-led stabilization mission, known as the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This is the Pentagon's version of the gentle art of winning friends and influencing people.

British-led troops are fighting on the ground in Helmand province, advancing along the Sangin valley in the hope of reopening the road to the Kajaki dam, to allow the refurbishment of its hydroelectric plant. But they are taking a lot of casualties in a war they cannot win.

The Taliban avoid head-on battles and are now resorting to more suicide attacks and roadside blasts. These "asymmetrical" (i.e. guerrilla) tactics are very effective and are used even in Kabul. A suicide-bombing on June 17th killed 22 police-academy instructors and 13 bystanders. A similar attack almost killed Dick Cheney.

The former ISAF commander, the British general, David Richards, is said to have warned colleagues in London this month that NATO was making "the best of a bad job"; it was short of troops and had to compensate with heavy firepower. This means even more civilian casualties.

However, they cannot get more soldiers. If anything, allies could start to drop out. Some, such as Britain, Denmark and Poland are increasing their forces. But others are not keen to lose more lives. The Germans are present but their troops are confined to the north (where there is little or no fighting) and are forbidden to leave barracks at night. The Afghan mission is unpopular in Germany, and almost brought down the Italian government in February. The Netherlands are also shaky and will decide in August whether to extend its operation in Uruzgan after 2008. And Sarkozy has said he would also like to leave ISAF though officials say no such move is imminent.

The Taliban, by contrast, have plenty of money, men and arms, financed by the Afghan poppy crop. The opium economy and the insurgency are mutually reinforcing; drugs finance the Taliban, while the fighting encourages poppy cultivation, especially in Helmand, which is set to harvest another record crop this year, producing more opium (and from it heroin and other illegal drugs) than the rest of Afghanistan put together.

The drugs business is highly profitable, earning some $320 billion annually. The opium trade is worth about $3.1 billion (less than a quarter of this is earned by farmers), the equivalent of about a third of Afghanistan's total economy. The Afghan opium trade is worth around $60 billion at street prices in consuming countries- and is out of control. Afghanistan last year produced the equivalent of 6,100 tons of opium, about 92% of the world total. At least the Taliban exercised some control, now there is none. These days Taliban commanders and drug smugglers are one and the same.

Some of the biggest drug barons are reputedly members of the national and provincial governments, even figures close to Hamid Karzai. The Economist (28/6/07) wrote: "The whole chain of government that is supposed to impose the rule of law, from the ministry of interior to ordinary policemen, has been subverted. Poorly paid policemen are bribed to facilitate the trade. Some pay their superiors to get particularly ‘lucrative' jobs like border control."

In addition Afghanistan is another buffer against Iran, and a route to the oil rich Caspian Sea region.
RENEGADE EYE

105 comments:

Mad Zionist said...

The war in Afghanistan is not unlike the war in Iraq, and Kerry, as vile and disingenuous as he is, was right in a sense when he claimed we were fighting the wrong enemy in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This should not have been a war against bogeymen (Bin Laden, Hussein) or their specific armies (Taliban, Royal Guard), rather it should have been a war against the criminal ideology of jihad. It's easier to take on a single evil figure, though, so Bush took that route, fueled with a contrived tale of WMD and "nukuler prolifrashun" and now we can't muster the credibility to take on our real enemies as a result.

For once and for all, it's the islam, stupid! Fight the clerics, the shieks, the mullahs and the ayatollahs, for that's the true source of terror in the world.

Farmer John said...

You cannot separate the war in Iraq from the one in Afghanistan, no more than you can separate the Allied campaign in North Africa in '42 from D-Day in Europe in '44.

Afghanistan was the war Osama bin Laden wanted with America. He wanted to repeat his successful campaign against the USSR in the 80s and recruit more mujahadeen troops from around the Arab world for his Islamic "caliphate" Army.

And while war in Iraq weakens bin Laden, the war in Afghanistan strengthens him. Afghanistan is NOT the "good war". Afghanistan is the "stupid war".

sonia said...

I agree with Farmer John. If there is only one war to be fought, it should be Iraq. Afghanistan has no oil, so no matter who controls it, he won't have any resources to do much mischief.

But whoever controls Iraq, controls the second-largest oil reserves in the world. That's enormous power. A lot of suicide bombers's starving families can be paid with oil exports.

Brian said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

The above comments are mind-boggling. At least Sonia's honest enough to admit that the Iraq aggression was everything to do with Anglo-
American seizure of another country's natural resources rather than pretending that it was related to security (American or international) or the "war on terror" (as though you can bomb an ideology into submission).

troutsky said...

The trouble Brian,is that while they are "mindboggling" in their naive lack of understanding and historical perspective, these commenters represent a large segment of public opinion!They have such a blind spot when it comes to the concept of "blowback" they don't see our troubles as the direct result of our past actions.Could they see the irony of our soldiers being killed by weapons we supplied the Iranian Revolutionary Gaurds when they were our buddies (against Saadam)instead of "terrorists"? How about our boys being killed by weapons we supplied the Taliban with to fight the "Evil Empire"?

The threat of the "Caliphate" ruling the Middle East is as fantastical as them "following us home" or the "Dominoe Theory" from the last Cold War.

thepoetryman said...

Afghanistan is the "stupid war".

All war is stupid when it is pre-emptive and channeled through and by decietful chicken hawks.

The war, either one of them, have never been about capturing or killing Osama. They have been about the conquest of the middle east, to not see this is willful ignorance, to see it is maddening.

thepoetryman said...

That'd be the US conquest of the middle east, not the mere conquest but its main actor and its reasoning...

thepoetryman said...

To say you "cannot seperate the two wars" is to be blind to exactly that. Bush seperated them. One was forgotten in the minds of Bush and his minions and the other was pushed forward to implement a long awaited plan hatched by the neocons.

Graeme said...

maybe we should have given the Taliban the evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11 that they asked for before the invasion. If we had any evidence, which we probably didn't, they might have handed him over and we could have tried and executed the bastard already. I don't think it is unrealistic to think that they would give up OBL. They had good ties with the U.S. before 9/11. It would have been worth a try.

Sonia is right. The control of Iraq and its resources gives us enormous power. Mad Zionist exaggerates the threat of "terror" and supports policies that increase it. Perhaps that is the idea. Some hope for war.

Farmer John said...

The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, India, Pakistan, Israel, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, etc. are all part of the SAME fight for Islamic control of secular or minority religious governments, imposition of shari'a law, and fight for Islamic unification under a new caliphate.

It has been going on since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Look at the news from Turkey today.

This is a war being fought by imperialists all right. ISLAMIC imperialists from the Moslem Brotherhood against the secular regimes of the region. In the case of Sunni vs Shi'a in Iraq, its' for control of the eventual caliphate.

From 1917 to 1989 there was a competing "third way" in Middle Eastern politics, socialism/ communism. But when the USSR collapsed, Islam became the preferred path and desired form for restoring the caliphate.

But please, remain in a state of denial and continue to view conflict in this region in terms of independent secular or "nationalist/ geographically dependent" sentiments.

Mad Zionist said...

I wonder...what would it take for a leftwing secular humanist to condemn islamic violence and excuse American military action as the direct result of their provocation? It appears the vision is very poor from their angle.

Farmer John said...

Don't think Osama wanted us in Afghanistan? From Wikipedia about his 'experience' fighting the Ruskies...

For a while Osama worked at the Services Office working with Abdullah Azzam on Jihad Magazine, a magazine that gave information about the war with the soviets and interviewed mujahideen. As time passed, Aymen Al Zawahiri encouraged Osama to split away from Abdullah Azzam. Osama formed his own army of mujahideen and fought the Soviets. One of his most significant battles was the battle of Jaji, which was not a major fight, but it earned him a reputation as a fighter.

Formation of al-Qaeda

By 1988, bin Laden had split from Maktab al-Khidamat because of strategic differences. While Azzam and his MAK organization acted as support for the Afghan fighters and provided relief to refugees and injured, bin Laden wanted a more military role in which the Arab fighters would not only be trained and equipped by the organization but also led on the battlefield by Arabic commanders. One of the main leading points to the split and the creation of al-Qaeda was the insistence of Azzam that Arab fighters be integrated among the Afghan fighting groups instead of forming their separate fighting force.

Bin Laden returned to Saudi Arabia a hero of jihad, celebrated the Saudi press as a pious, courageous warrior, who along with his "Arab legion had brought down the mighty superpower" of the Soviet Union. However, at about the same time (1990), Iraqi army invaded Kuwait and bin Laden was alarmed at the prospect that foreign non-Muslim troops would enter the Kingdom to fight Iraq. He met with Saudi Prince Sultan, the Minister of Defense, and offered to help defend Saudi Arabia:

[Bin Laden:] I am ready to prepare 100,000 fighters with good combat capability within three months. You don't need American. You don't need any other non-Musilm troops. We will be enough.

[Prince Sultan:] There are no caves in Kuwait, the prince observed. What will you do when he lobs missile at you with chemical and biological weapons?

[Bin Laden:] We will fight him with faith.

Farmer John said...

poetryman,

The dream of the caliphate represents the culmination of Islamic faith. It isn't Osama's dream. It is the dream of EVERY MOSLEM.

It's the equivalent of the Christian Bible saying that a great warrior will come and put the Christians in power and they will reign for a thousand years...

...a thousand year reich.

And the Koran is the unerring Word of Allah (p*ss be upon him).

Liberal White Boy said...

Mad Zionist you are truly mad.

Renegade Eye said...

LWB: Mad Zionist and Farmer John said the same thing, only Farmer was more subtle about it.

It is interesting that since the US intervened in Afghanistan, who would have believed that Russians now have more influence there than ever. Putin recently dropped Afghan debt from the Soviet era.

Suppose in Afghanistan all terrorist camps are eliminated, the Taliban is destroyed, the warlords are out of the picture, modernization occurs and the Pakistan border is now a tourist area; would US pull out then?

Having troops on Russia's border, invading Iran and access to the Caspian Sea outweigh fighting Bin Laden.

If you want to fight Islamists invade Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

US aircraft carriers carry no nuclear weapons.

No, seriously. They only carry the tritium triggers, the uranium core, the lensed RDX explosives, the detonators, bomb casings, and the tools to assemble them together in different compartments on the ship.

No nukes aboard at all. Believe that? I don't either.

All we found in Iraq were stockpiles of chemical pesticides stored with binary chemical artilery shells. Never mind that the pesticides when mixed together in flight in a binary chemical shell that has been fired will deliver a nerve gas agent upon its target.

No WMD in Iraq. Just the stuff to make them, quickly, hidden from the UN.

Tell me you don't honestly believe Iraq had held Iran in check all those years between the end of the Iran-Iraq War and Operation: Iraqi Freedom years with the mere suspicion of having WMD programs.

Graeme said...

I wonder...what would it take for a leftwing secular humanist to condemn islamic violence and excuse American military action as the direct result of their provocation?

Alcohol mixed with an opportunist career vision? (i'm thinking hitchens)

More people have died in the last fifteen or so years in the DRC fighting for resources than in all Islamic terrorist attacks in modern history.

sonia said...

Graeme,

More people have died in the last fifteen or so years in the DRC fighting for resources than in all Islamic terrorist attacks in modern history.

Stop reading those leftist sources that tell flat-out lies. In Iraq alone, almost all casualties died in terrorist or ethnic-cleansing attacks. US troops are responsible for less than 5% of people killed there.

Ren,

Afghanistan The Good War??

Afghanistan the Pointless War

Iraq the Inevitable War
(as long as Congress refuses to ban non-hybrid cars, or replaces oil with ethanol)

Mad Zionist said...

Graeme, you have unwittingly, and graphically, proven the point I was making. Thank you.

Farmer John said...

All in good time, Renegade Eye.

Farmer John said...

...and if you still don't think that Osama has "imperial" aspirations, why would he say this:

"We also stress to honest Muslims that they should move, incite, and mobilize the nation, amid such grave events and hot atmosphere so as to liberate themselves from those unjust and renegade ruling regimes, which are enslaved by the United States. They should also do so to establish the rule of God on earth. The most qualified regions for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the land of the two holy mosques [Saudi Arabia], and Yemen."

Renegade Eye said...

Beamish: Saddam didn't help himself with his rhetoric.

The UN inspectors weren't able to finish their work. At the same time scientists from Iraq were moved out of the country, away from Saddam, and still no WMD. The scientists were also threatened and still no WMD.

Even offering cash rewards didn't work.

This is from Counterpunch to bring back memories:

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher March 21, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks March 22, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.

Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003



Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw,
Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan April 9, 2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Ari Fleischer April 10, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George Bush April 24, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld April 25, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.

Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus,
Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee,
Commandant of the Marine Corps May 21, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers,
Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff May 26, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003


What Saddam would want to do in ideal situation for himself, or think of doing is immaterial.

Renegade Eye said...

Farmer: Containment of Islamism is US policy, nothing like you and Mad Zionist describe.

puppeteer (offline) said...

Farmer John: (couldn't imagine a beeter name)

"The dream of the caliphate represents the culmination of Islamic faith. It isn't Osama's dream. It is the dream of EVERY MOSLEM."

Ah, go pick a pack of poseys! And don't come back to me until you've actually met a Muslim, will ya?

Farmer John said...

Gee, puppetteer. There just happen to be 1,000,000 of the Shi'a variety of these nuts on pilgrimmage to celebrate their "warrior king's" birthday in Karbala right now... and Sadr's militia don't call themselves the "Mahdi Army" for nothing.

Happy Birthday to you
Happy Brithday to you
Happy Birthday dear Mahdi
Happy Birthday to you
...

He's going to restore the caliphate! Woo-Hoo!

Farmer John said...

Happy Shabaniyah festival! ...which marks the birth of Mohammed al-Mahdi, the 12th and last Shiite imam who disappeared in the 9th century. Devout Shiites believe he will return to Earth to restore peace and harmony.

Well...after he defeats the infidels, anyway...

Farmer John said...

They say the Mahdi lives in a well outside Qom (Iran & the 2nd holiest Shi'a city). Almonds-in-a-jam, Iran's president, likes to drop wishes down that well hoping for the death of his enemies.

The Mahdi is the 12th Imam. The vast majority of Shi'a are known as the "twelvers"...

Farmer John said...

...and no, renegade eye, what American policy is,and what I would do, are two completely different things. For I would "colonize" the Middle East in traditional 'Islamic' tribal fashion w/an economic twist. They will prop up central governments and do it the "western way and let it economically "founder".

Farmer John said...

btw - Whilst I agree with George Kennan that Containment was the perfect policy for foiling the ambitions of the USSR, I disagree with anyone who advocate that same policy in relation to Islam. Because I know "why" containment worked. The reason is documented in Isaiah Berlin's 1951 letter to Kennan. And that is the same "reason" I KNOW it WON'T work against Islam.

Farmer John said...

...because containment was based upon a moral premise that applied to the USSR, but does NOT apply to Islam. Islam is an "inverse" moral system. Containment will merely aid the Islamicists in their consolidation of the caliphate.

Farmer John said...

Islam requires an "external enemy". To defeat Islam, you must work from the inside...

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beatroot said...

It was clear in that awful, arse licking book by the All the Presidents Men journalist (Bush goes to War) that after 9/11 Rumsfeld etc were anxious that the Whitehouse should be seen to be doing something. If they could link the training camps in Afghanistan to 9/11 then the Taliban – who were seen as being a willing host to bin Laden – was going to get it.

So they got it.

But it was also clear in Bush Goes to War that Rumsfeld was not satisfied with Afghanistan. He is quoted, frustrated, as saying to Bush and others in war cabinet: “There just aren’t enough targets!”

Now I take that to mean that the show of force by American bombing bearded men in caves would not give the American people the impression that the Whitehouse was Doing Something.

So what we got was the ultimate publicity stunt: Shock and Awe in Iraq

So when you folks are scratching your heads wondering why American, British etc lives are being lost in Afghanistan when there is no oil (that old, well worn conspiracy theory classic) then remember – the War on Terror is not about oil….it’s about America trying to find a purpose for itself in the post-cold war world.

People are dieing to give America a sense of purpose. And that really is shocking and fucking awful.

Farmer John said...

There's one hell of a LOT of truth in that statement, beatroot. Fighting the nihilism of post-modern existence is a b*tch!

Nietzsche, "Genealogy of Morals" (conclusion)

If we leave aside the ascetic ideal, then man, the animal man, has had no meaning up to this point. His existence on earth has had no purpose. "Why man at all?" was a question without an answer. The will for man and earth was missing. Behind every great human destiny echoes as refrain an even greater "in vain!" That's just what the ascetic ideal means: that something is missing, that a huge hole surrounds man. He did not know how to justify himself to himself, to explain, to affirm. He suffered from the problem of his being. He also suffered in other ways: he was for the most part a sick animal. The suffering itself was not his problem, but rather the fact that he lacked an answer to the question he screamed out, "Why this suffering?" Man, the bravest animal, the one most accustomed to suffering, does not deny suffering in itself. He desires it, he seeks it out in person, provided that people show him a meaning for it, the purpose of suffering. The curse that earlier spread itself over men was not suffering, but the senselessness of suffering—and the ascetic ideal offered him a meaning!

The ascetic ideal was the only reason offered up to that point. Any meaning is better than no meaning at all. However you look at it, the ascetic ideal has so far been a "faute de mieux" [for lack of something better] par excellence. In it suffering was interpreted, the huge hole appeared filled in, the door shut against all suicidal nihilism. The interpretation undoubtedly brought new suffering with it—more profound, more inner, more poisonous, and more life-gnawing suffering. It brought all suffering under the perspective of guilt . . . But nevertheless, with it man was saved. He had a meaning. From that point on he was no longer a leaf in the wind, a toy ball of nonsense, of "without sense." He could now will something—at first it didn't matter where, why, or how he willed: the will itself was saved.

We simply cannot conceal from ourselves what's really expressed by that total will which received its direction from the ascetic ideal: this hate against what is human, and even more against animality, even more against material things—this abhorrence of the senses, even of reason, this fear of happiness and beauty, this longing for the beyond away from all appearance, change, becoming, death, desire, even longing itself—all this means, let's have the courage to understand this, a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a revolt against the most fundamental preconditions of life—but it is and remains a will! . . . And to repeat at the conclusion what I said at the start: man will sooner will nothingness than not will . . .

Farmer John said...

...but Americans aren't the only ones looking for meaning. That's what the Moslem's are doing, too!

Farmer John said...

...it's that desire that convinces a young Islamicist to strap a bomb around his chest, walk up to a checkpoint, and blow himself up.

Farmer John said...

...and it's not f*cking awful. It's "All too Human."

Farmer John said...

Nietzsche, "Gay Science"

The Four Errors. Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity."

Graeme said...

.but Americans aren't the only ones looking for meaning. That's what the Moslem's are doing, too!

it's that desire that convinces a young Islamicist to strap a bomb around his chest, walk up to a checkpoint, and blow himself up.


For Christ's sake, put down the philosophy books for a second and open your eyes! As Robert Pape adequately documents, the main reason for suicide bombings is occupation, not some existential crisis.

Mad Zionist said...

Yes, the occupation of the planet earth by people who don't follow the terrorist mohammed is ample provocation for moslems to blow themselves up.

Gotta love these do-gooder simpletons who are totally unaware of the actual tenets of islam, or the historical violence and bloody conquest that defines the ideology to this day.

Renegade Eye said...

Beatroot: But it was also clear in Bush Goes to War that Rumsfeld was not satisfied with Afghanistan. He is quoted, frustrated, as saying to Bush and others in war cabinet: “There just aren’t enough targets!”

Now I take that to mean that the show of force by American bombing bearded men in caves would not give the American people the impression that the Whitehouse was Doing Something.

So what we got was the ultimate publicity stunt: Shock and Awe in Iraq


Do you think the invasion of Iraq was a spontaneous idea?

Both wars are based on US hegemony, a permanent presence in the area, and access to oil.

Afghanistan wasn't cool enough?

Graeme said...

Farmer John,

Extremist muslims have been trying to take over "secular" countries for years. They killed Sadat in Egypt and expected the masses to topple the government. They didn't. The extremists tend to be loud, they tend to get a lot of attention from the Western media, but they don't represent the whole Middle East.

You'd have no trouble finding beer and pussy in Damascus, Beirut, Cairo, Dubai, Rabat, Tunis, Istanbul, etc.... Even in Tehran they have a ton of prostitution and bootlegged liquor. (i once heard a guy say something along the lines of 'before the revolution we would drink and dance outside and pray inside, now we do the opposite')

the point I am trying to make is that we shouldn't assume that, because of a few radicals, all, or even most, middle easterners want to live under Islamic law. Most don't. They like their beer and music just as much as we do.

It is true that the extremists are gaining in numbers and influence. This isn't caused sudden mass readings of the Koran, however, it is caused by the U.S. and its client states doing exactly what the extremists said they would do. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars increased the threat of terrorism. (something they had to have known was going to happen) Iranian reformers warn of an attack against Iran because, just like here after 9/11, the people will rally around there leaders. U.S. threats give the government even more reason to shut down any reforms.

We should use law enforcement mixed with diplomacy to fight terrorism abroad. And we should also stop taking part in terrorism, as well as stopping shelter terrorists at home.

Making this a West vs. East, Islam vs. Judaism/Christianity plays right into the hands of the extremists- on both sides.

(Mad zionist, i have Muslim friends as well as an ex-Muslim family member. I know what they believe. I just don't think it is smart to denounce 1.4 billion people because of the actions of a few.)

Graeme said...

Sonia,

In Iraq alone, almost all casualties died in terrorist or ethnic-cleansing attacks. US troops are responsible for less than 5% of people killed there.

bullshit. the U.S. opened pandora's box, they are responsible for what came out.

And how does that factor in with what i said in the first place? The DRC is a Christian nation so the 4 million people that died there died of Christian terrorism?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Why does the US Federal grand jury indictment of Osama Bin Laden obtained in 1998 during the watch of the Clinton administration list Iraq as a collaborative partner on weapons development with Al Qaeda?

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Renegade Eye,

Maybe my theory that toppling Saddam Hussein caused global warming has merit?

sonia said...

Graeme,

And how does that factor in with what i said in the first place?

My fault. Next time, say Congo instead of DRC. I probably thought it was some acronym for US and international forces in Iraq or Afghanistan or something...

Mad Zionist said...

Ahhh, the I-have-a-moslem-friend -so-I-know-islam-is-not-a-terrorist-ideology
argument. OK, I have Christian conservative friends and I know they are not hate mongers. I also have some black friends and they don't pimp, sell drugs, or guns. What the hell is your point?

It seems you have no theological or historical substance to argue against islam's inherently violent nature, so, like other leftists, you resort to the "I have a friend" angle. What's next, a quote or two from Leviticus in some lame attempt to demonstrate moral and theological equivalence?

Come on, Graeme...you have to start thinking independently and quit being a washed brained progressive cultist.

Farmer John said...

Graeme,

Over the "short term" your analysis of how our opposition to the extremists fuels more extremism is correct. But "war fever" is often short-lived. There is always an initial "surge" of enlistee's when the war first breaks out, but after year after year after year of war, that enthusiasm for war dies (literally) PROVIDED it is NOT SUCCESSFUL. It then learns to come to grips with the reality and the FUTILITY of war.

And so we must fight AND stay until THEY become as sick of it as we already are. We must de-MORAL-ize them. And that is what is currently happening in Anbar Province. Even the Sunni's are sick of these foreigners coming in and endelessly extending the conflict. And so if the "crusaders" won't go away, the anti-crusaders must.

Yes, eventually, the army will disappear and the police will be a sufficient force to maintain law and order. But we aren't there yet.

And as for Egypt, etc, it is NOT the countries with large urban centers that concern me, so much as the rural areas of the Middle Eastern world that will be the problem... provided those "urban" people have something to keep them occupied and aren't sitting on their asses collecting "welfare" in "camps" like the Palestinians.

It's the red-state blue-state thing. Urban areas, no matter where they are located, are very liberal places. There are REASONS for that (which I won't go into here). But the rural red-state areas, THAT is where "patriotism" and "religious ferver" thrive. And these are the locations we must go to educate and "pre-empt" the extremists. These are places where there are NO institutions OTHER than the "church" around which a society can organize (learn the lessons of the "Islamic Courts Union in Somalia" and how they formed the seeds around which the anarchy was fought and country partially re-united; before we killed them again). There are no "labor unions" in privatized largely agrarian communities. There is only "local government" and "the church". And "local government" is usually a tribal war-lord with an extended family that is used to secure inter-tribal alliances (these chiefs have 4 wives, usually 2 or 3 from different tribes).

And it is in these "red-state" type rural areas that extremism flowers, especially if the Saudi's fund Wahhabi-dominated madrassas. This is why places like Pakistan's Waziristan are so radicalized.

There need to be organizational structures established in these rural areas to COUNTER the Islamic churches, preferable ECONOMICALLY based (like labor unions). There also needs to be a "security umbrella" that dis-empowers the tribal warlords and equializes the availability of "justice" for the common man. The centralized governments in Kabul and Bagdad are just too remote to accomplish this security function. Warziristan in NOT controlled from Islamabad.

Osama bin Laden does NOT really care so much about overthrowing Afghanistan, as he is in overthrowing Pakistan. He witnessed the Grand Mosque seizure in '79 and how it was liberated by the Paki's (& French). If his Yemeni relatives are to ever conquer Saudi Arabia, he needs to take the Paki's out of the military equation. Having 50,000 mujahadeen in Waziristan does that. The infidels cannot defend the Grand Mosque. Only Moslems can do that. And Osama dreams of reuniting the ummah and reforming Islam (restoring the true faith of the Sunni 4-ers)... which explains WHY al qaeda in Iraq attacked the Shi'a 12-ers.

And as the Islamic churches battle it out, there need to be seeds planted around which ME Society can organize... something SECULAR, preferably "ECONOMIC". Farm Co-Ops. Labor Unions. And as much as the anarchists would love to see this spring spontaneously from the "grass-roots", it won't. Someone has to go in there and PLANT these seeds.

Farmer John said...

ps - The recruits for al qeada in Iraq (AQI) are coming from Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc... These young idiots are all searching for "fame and glory" fighting in distant lands. They've nothing to lose in going to Iraq, becuase their local economies do NOT require their presence. They are parts of those countries "surplus population".

These idiots will still be looking to join al qaeda or perform some "ther mischief" (such as toppling their own government) even if we leave. All the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do is "bring them to two places" and give the "training." And "two" places are better than one. One huge independent Islamic army means... caliphate.

Farmer John said...

The mujahadeen are like the "second sons" of the Christian Crusades. The first son inheritted the castle and so stayed in England/Germany. The second son's only choice was to seek fame and fortune elsewhere... become a "knight errant". The easiest way to get rich was to go sack an enemy city and take their stuff. And so, all the "second sons" and delusional daddies of Europe joined the Crusades.

Osama is calling them all together to join his crusade. Only nobody's coming back from his (or Iraq's) crusade, rich.

Giving the enemy "Iraq" by withdrawing US Forces would change that. It is the 2nd richest country (in Petroleum) in the world. What would THAT outcome do for recruitment in the "next" crusades mujahadeen?

frolix22 said...

If only Britain and the US would pursue policies which isolate the hard core of religious nutcases instead of continually pursuing policies which create a reservoir of pissed off, disaffected poor people ripe for recruiting to extremist ideologies. Now wouldn't that be something.

Graeme said...

Sonia,

My fault. Next time, say Congo instead of DRC. I probably thought it was some acronym for US and international forces in Iraq or Afghanistan or something...

Ahh, looking at it again, it doesn't seem real clear. I wanted to differentiate between the Congos.

Mad Zionist,

Ahhh, the I-have-a-moslem-friend -so-I-know-islam-is-not-a-terrorist-ideology
argument. OK, I have Christian conservative friends and I know they are not hate mongers. I also have some black friends and they don't pimp, sell drugs, or guns. What the hell is your point?


My point was only that I know what Muslims believe. You seemed to imply I didn't.

Islam has some internal stuff to work out. Perhaps they had their golden age to quickly. Historically, Muslims have been much more "civilized" than Christians. It was the Muslims, along with Hindus and Buddhists, that helped modernize the backwards West.

Come on, Graeme...you have to start thinking independently and quit being a washed brained progressive cultist.

Is this an argument? Someone that disagrees with you is "brainwashed." (Of course, this is coming from someone who proudly calls himself a Zionist, in the worst sense of the word.)

Mad Zionist said...

Graeme, what specifically are you suggesting is flawed about islam? You say it has to work some things out and that it reached a Golden Age too early, which is clearly indicting islam for something...I'd like to know what exactly it is you are so convinced is wrong with islam. Also, when going into detail about the problems you see with islam, offer some examples and current manifestations of these flaws in islamic ideology. Also, what toubles you most about the problems of islam for the future, and how would you change islam so that these problems you have with it would be resolved.

Thanks in advance for not deviating to problems you have with any other ideology or religion and keeping your focus exclusively on what you see is wrong with islam.

Farmer John said...

I hate to say this graeme, but capitalism is the best wealth-creation/ anti-poverty program the world has ever seen. As Adam Smith said in WoN...

It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people. Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of beyond what he himself has occasion for; and every other workman being exactly in the same situation, he is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a great quantity, or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great quantity of theirs. He supplies them abundantly with what they have occasion for, and they accommodate him as amply with what he has occasion for, and a general plenty diffuses itself through all the different ranks of the society.
---
Observe the accommodation of the most common artificer or day-labourer in a civilized and thriving country, and you will perceive that the number of people of whose industry a part, though but a small part, has been employed in procuring him this accommodation, exceeds all computation. The woollen coat, for example, which covers the day-labourer, as coarse and rough as it may appear, is the produce of the joint labour of a great multitude of workmen. The shepherd, the sorter of the wool, the wool-comber or carder, the dyer, the scribbler, the spinner, the weaver, the fuller, the dresser, with many others, must all join their different arts in order to complete even this homely production. How many merchants and carriers, besides, must have been employed in transporting the materials from some of those workmen to others who often live in a very distant part of the country! how much commerce and navigation in particular, how many ship-builders, sailors, sail-makers, rope-makers, must have been employed in order to bring together the different drugs made use of by the dyer, which often come from the remotest corners of the world! What a variety of labour too is necessary in order to produce the tools of the meanest of those workmen! To say nothing of such complicated machines as the ship of the sailor, the mill of the fuller, or even the loom of the weaver, let us consider only what a variety of labour is requisite in order to form that very simple machine, the shears with which the shepherd clips the wool. The miner, the builder of the furnace for smelting the ore, the feller of the timber, the burner of the charcoal to be made use of in the smelting-house, the brick-maker, the brick-layer, the workmen who attend the furnace, the mill-wright, the forger, the smith, must all of them join their different arts in order to produce them. Were we to examine, in the same manner, all the different parts of his dress and household furniture, the coarse linen shirt which he wears next his skin, the shoes which cover his feet, the bed which he lies on, and all the different parts which compose it, the kitchen-grate at which he prepares his victuals, the coals which he makes use of for that purpose, dug from the bowels of the earth, and brought to him perhaps by a long sea and a long land carriage, all the other utensils of his kitchen, all the furniture of his table, the knives and forks, the earthen or pewter plates upon which he serves up and divides his victuals, the different hands employed in preparing his bread and his beer, the glass window which lets in the heat and the light, and keeps out the wind and the rain, with all the knowledge and art requisite for preparing that beautiful and happy invention, without which these northern parts of the world could scarce have afforded a very comfortable habitation, together with the tools of all the different workmen employed in producing those different conveniencies; if we examine, I say, all these things, and consider what a variety of labour is employed about each of them, we shall be sensible that without the assistance and co-operation of many thousands, the very meanest person in a civilized country could not be provided, even according to what we very falsely imagine, the easy and simple manner in which he is commonly accommodated. Compared, indeed, with the more extravagant luxury of the great, his accommodation must no doubt appear extremely simple and easy; and yet it may be true, perhaps, that the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute master of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.


And the division of labor depends almost entirely upon the extent of the market. Without access to a very large market, third world countries will NEVER have any surplus value of labor to fight over!

Graeme said...

There is always an initial "surge" of enlistee's when the war first breaks out, but after year after year after year of war, that enthusiasm for war dies (literally) PROVIDED it is NOT SUCCESSFUL. It then learns to come to grips with the reality and the FUTILITY of war.

We are talking about occupation. The Palestinian/Israel situation shows that far from enthusiasm to eject the occupier dying, it actually grows.

Even the Sunni's are sick of these foreigners coming in and endelessly extending the conflict. And so if the "crusaders" won't go away, the anti-crusaders must.

I don't agree with that. The Iraqis don't want to be occupied by foreigners, Muslim or not.

learn the lessons of the "Islamic Courts Union in Somalia" and how they formed the seeds around which the anarchy was fought and country partially re-united; before we killed them again

As far as the ICU in Somalia, they were a threat to no one. Same rules apply as Afghanistan and Iraq. They found out quickly, when they tried to ban the world cup, that Somalis aren't going for that extremist shit. People are willing to put up with it for a bit, in exchange for stability, but when the violence stops and you still can't chew qut, they will demand change. If they were allowed to remain in power, moderate forces would have weeded out the extremist ones. Somalia has never been anything but a moderate Muslim country. Now, because of the U.S. and Ethiopia's attempted colonization, extremists have been gaining ground, they are now more influential than ever. Somalia never had suicide bombers before.

The world isn't our garden to go around "planting seeds" in. Any movement must come from within. If it doesn't happen that way, it is illegitimate.

Muslim extremists can't even take over one country (without our help). If we leave Iraq, the Iraqis would take care of the foreign fighters. Why do you think the rest of the world is so incompetent that they need our help to do everything?

beatroot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Graeme said...

Mad Zionist,

My problem with is with fundamentalism. I have numerous specific minor problems with Islam, such as its anti-alcohol stance, not eating pork, daily prayers, abstinence until marriage, belief in God (ok, that's a major problem) etc.. Also, of course, I don't subscribe to the militant political Islam that promotes Sharia Law. I, however, am not a Muslim. I applaud people like Irshad Manji for bringing up the subject, because they are the ones that have to address it.

beatroot said...

Yeah, Mr Beamish - the invasion of Iraq was all about global warming….all the hot air produced about Iraq was against emissions targets set at the Kyoto Treaty!


greame
For Christ's sake, put down the philosophy books for a second and open your eyes! As Robert Pape adequately documents, the main reason for suicide bombings is occupation, not some existential crisis.

Are you talking about Palestinian suicide bombing? Well, maybe …but if you are talking about four middle class British Muslims walking onto a metro train and blowing the shit out of themselves and everyone else…then that has nothing to do with occupation at all. In one of the videos left by these fools he talked a bit about Iraq, but he also talked about the ‘slags in short dresses’ and the binge drinkers getting drunk etc…which he perceives as being ‘British society’. So he blew himself up because he had one hell of a big existential crisis about modern western living – and imagined himself going to his virgins in a better land.

What a prat! But nothing about occupation. If he was against occupation then he would join a political movement to oppose it. He didn’t.

Renegade – No, I think there was a plan to get Saddam. But they knew then that Saddam was nothing to do with 9/11 – but Rumsfeld still reacted to 9/11 by thinking that the American people needed something bigger than blowing up a few training camps in Afghanistan and getting rid of the Taliban. They needed something MORE. So Iraq and the timing of Iraq was convenient.


The hegenomy point is taken - they meant western democracy with capitalism and a friendly government. And that could be imposed by bombs and armies.

And that is the 'search for a sense of purpose' I was talking about. With the Soviet Union gone, then how do defend the American way of life?

Enter Saddam, Taliban, and 9/11...

Graeme said...

Well, maybe …but if you are talking about four middle class British Muslims walking onto a metro train and blowing the shit out of themselves and everyone else…then that has nothing to do with occupation at all

You are right. That, however, is four people. The vast majority of suicide bombing is a result of occupation, with religion sometimes providing that extra incentive. Robert Pape provides proof

beatroot said...

And drop the oil argument - it just doesn't work. As Tony Blair said before the invasion - if it was all about oil, "Then we would just have dine a deal with him...just like governments have done before...'

America and Britain did not NEED Iraqi oil.

And if shortage of oil was so bad then they would have worked harder to create alternatives, like nuclear etc.

IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT OIL...strange how lefties and righties are equally blind about this...

Graeme said...

Farmer John,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you advocate pushing capitalism through an imperial military force, something that we have been doing for years. If that worked, chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Graeme said...

Control of oil Beatroot, not access to.

beatroot said...

The vast majority of suicide bombing is a result of occupation

How can you possibly KNOW that? They don;t tend to make manifestos, this lot. In fact, suicide bombing is a very isolated process, usually detached from political purpose.

Take the biggest suicide bombing of them all. 9/11....it was never claimed by any group at all. Not really. It was not immediatly followed by a list of political demands.

It was not a political act.

And much of the suicide bombing in Iraq is done by al-Qaeda...something which is finally uniting sunnis and shia in their disgust of these shitheads. al-Qaeda are not just against the 'occupation'...they are not spending their time blowing up the occupiers, but Iraqis. It's nothing to do with occupation.

Graeme said...

Take the biggest suicide bombing of them all. 9/11....it was never claimed by any group at all. Not really. It was not immediatly followed by a list of political demands.

It was not a political act.


I disagree. They didn't attack the Castro district in SF, they attacked the military and trade headquarters. They wanted the U.S. out of the middle east, specifically Saudi Arabia. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Saudis called for the Americans instead of OBL's muhjahadeen army. American troops on holy land was viewed as an invasion. The continued Saudi rule of mecca is viewed as an occupation of sorts, but more importantly it is known to be propped up by the Americans.

And much of the suicide bombing in Iraq is done by al-Qaeda...something which is finally uniting sunnis and shia in their disgust of these shitheads. al-Qaeda are not just against the 'occupation'...they are not spending their time blowing up the occupiers, but Iraqis. It's nothing to do with occupation.

It certainly does. One of their major goals is to drive the occupiers off the land. It is true that they are not "just" against the occupation, but who cares. They are still against the occupation. Granted, the fact that they target shias and other anti-occupation forces shows that suicide bombings aren't only used against occupation, but no one claims that. As I have mentioned three times, Robert Pape collected the data and put out the facts.

If the U.S. troops didn't go to occupy Iraq, would Al Qaeda still be there blowing themselves up?

Mad Zionist said...

I don't subscribe to the militant political Islam that promotes Sharia Law.

So, it is safe to assume that you are opposed to those moslems who are in favor of advancing Sharia Law. Also by this logic you are against islamic states that govern the population by Sharia Law. It's also suffice to say that you would actively oppose those who are attempting to advance Sharia Law and create an islamic nation in other lands.

So far we agree.

We are both against those who are advancing Sharia Law. I have clearly expressed my solutions to this grave problem. How would you suggest stopping those moslem states and organizations that are committed to implementing Sharia Law in as many places as possible? In other words, would you deal with Sharia advocates who want to make non-Sharia territory into Sharia territory with force if necessary? If not, how would you suggest Sharia aggression be stopped from taking hold?

beatroot said...

I disagree. They didn't attack the Castro district in SF, they attacked the military and trade headquarters. They wanted the U.S. out of the middle east, specifically Saudi Arabia.

They might have wanted US out of Saudi Arabia etc…we didn’t actually know that for sometime. And if it was a political act then they would concentrate on creating a political movement But they don’t. They make the odd media and symbolic ‘spectacular’…in the west, which of course is not going to have any political consequence if it isn’t accompanied with political demands. It wasn’t. The first proof we had of Osama bin Hidin’ was when he claimed he was in the planning stage in a video, released quite sometime afterwards.

And I Iraq sunni insurgents have even been working with the Americans in a limited way to try and get rid of these people as they are against not just the occupation but a secular Iraq. So they are Iraqis enemies too.

Al-qaeda were delighted that the US invaded Iraq…it meant getting rid of heathens like Saddam and they could help tear the country, and the people, apart.

Don’t flatter these creeps with putting them in any anti-imperialist movement. They are not. They are nihilists.

Renegade Eye said...

Beatroot; I earned my first death threat from an Islamist. Objectively an subjectively and Islamist can be anti-imperialist, and still be reactionary garbage. Not all anti-imperialism is progressive.

Bin Laden didn't make political demands. His support for Palestinians has been rhetorical.

It is hard to fight Islamism, when Israel funds Hamas as an alternative to at the time radical Fatah, or the US arms Islamists in Afghanistan against USSR.

MZ: Isn't it difficult to fight Islamism armed with nationalism based on religion?

Farmer John said...

The Palestinian/Israel situation shows that far from enthusiasm to eject the occupier dying, it actually grows.

Sure, don't give Palestinan refugee's anywhere to settle on Arab land, put them in camps and then pay them to sit around and collect UN welfare for sixty years...sure they'll hang around and make trouble. What else are they going to do with themselves. Warriors usually come from the "leisure class". And that's what the Palestinians are. They've got zero to lose... just like the "second sons" of the crusaders.

The Iraqis don't want to be occupied by foreigners, Muslim or not.

I agree. But they know we'll leave if the trouble stops. In most cases, we've already left twice. Their Sunni Overlords won't. That's why its' so hard to "flip" the Sunni tribal leaders... but if their own tribes are suffering (from the Shi'a militias), they'll put their own necks above those of foreign Sunni.

Now, because of the U.S. and Ethiopia's attempted colonization, extremists have been gaining ground, they are now more influential than ever.

That's BS, and you know it. The Yemeni's and Eritrean's were backing the Somali tribes in the Oramia (central) region of Ethiopia that were attempting to ethnically cleanse the Christian Oromos there just like the Janjaweed were in Darfur. They were organizing around the Islamic Courts Union(ICU) and moving military supplies up and down the two riverways in Somalia (just look at the ICU maps) taking complete advantage of the anarchy in Somalia and lack of government control. They were also pushing into south eastern Kenya and trying to use their riverways as well. The Somali and Harari(?) were looking to pick up the Ogaden War were it left off in the late 70's.

The world isn't our garden to go around "planting seeds" in. Any movement must come from within. If it doesn't happen that way, it is illegitimate.

That's what's always been done and was the standard practice for humanity up until Marx came along. It's only 'illegitimate' if somebody knows what your up to. And its' exactly what the Moslems are doing throughout Africa RIGHT NOW (but you excuse their behavior). What do you think is going on in Darfur and Ethipia's Oramia, and is spreading south of west from the Horn? Islamic seeds, of the "old style" are being planted. Kill the men, rape the women, the women's kids are now Moslems. They're assimilating Africa just like the freakin' Borg.

Have you ever heard of the "Rape of the Sabine Women (Rome's founding)? You should read it and learn all about "illegitimate assimilation".

It's what lions do in the wild when they take over control of a pride from an old-timer.

Muslim extremists can't even take over one country (without our help).

You're kidding, right? Why do you think Africa is such a mess? They're taking over, BIG TIME. They just don't show it on the evening news.

...and I don't think the entire rest of the world needs our help. China's doing fine. Europe's doing fine. It's Africa and the ME (and maybe SE Asia) that could use a little help.

South America, let them learn the HARD WAY.

Farmer John said...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you advocate pushing capitalism through an imperial military force, something that we have been doing for years. If that worked, chances are we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Capitalism cannot work in a third world environment. The security situation is too tenuous. It's only when a state becomes advanced enough to actually be CONTROLLED from its' "capital" that people can break free of their tribes and clans and become sufficiently free to organize themselves around a newer, more efficient, division of labour. And it is only after that happens that any real surplus value of labour can kick in and feed and cloth the masses.

In a primitve culture, ever man must be a polymath. It's only in an interdependent society that men can become "specialists". And only after the division of labour is successful can the "masses" begin to enjoy the fruits Adam Smith was talking about in the above citation from WoN.

But imperialism would mean we conquer and stay. It's more profitable to conquer and LEAVE. Especially for the guarantor of trade. Us.

And those that don't want to trade, I say leave 'em alone (unless they threaten or attack us). Let North Korea strangle itself. Eventually one of their leaders will wake up and convince them that its' time to join the twenty-first century.

Imperialism? What we're doing isn't imperialism. Imperialism is what the Moslem's are up to.

Farmer John said...

Just call me a liberal.

Farmer John said...

They didn't attack the Castro district in SF, they attacked the military and trade headquarters. They wanted the U.S. out of the middle east, specifically Saudi Arabia.

Osama attacked us. HE WANTED US IN THE MIDDLE EAST. The Islamic revolution wasn't working from the'inside'. The average Joe-Moslem wasn't buying it. He needed an external threat to unify the ummah.

Why do you think he never attacked us again? We were already right where he wanted us, and any further attacks would have shut you idiots up and caused us to REALLY go after him.

D'Souza's book is really pretty good. Don't let the title throw you off...

beatroot said...

renegade - how can al-qaeda be 'anti - imperialist' when all it wants to do is set up an imperial religious kalif?

These jerks should not be regarded as political. Period.

Graeme said...

Don’t flatter these creeps with putting them in any anti-imperialist movement. They are not. They are nihilists.

I certainly don't want to flatter those fucks. I wouldn't say they are anti-imperialists, they are only against occupation that they don't control.

Graeme said...

Mad Zionist,

I think we should support internal movements in such countries, especially Saudi Arabia. The Saudis run the most extreme regime in the ME. We should announce our solidarity for any democratic secular movements (if there is any).

Same with Iran. Internal resistance groups have been spotlighted on this blog before, many are socialist/communists.

Graeme said...

Farmer John,

You use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" quite loosely eh? Sure, there have been some fighting in central Ethiopia between Muslims and Christians, but it is pretty rare. I would say Ethiopia blocking aid to the Ogaden region is more on par with attempted "ethnic cleansing". In fact, many Oromo's (not sure if they are Christian or Muslims, Oromo people are pretty much split down the middle I believe) recently hit the street in Minneapolis/St. Paul in protest of Ethiopia's continued human rights violations domestically and in Somalia. It is difficult to believe that the ICU, who could barely fight off our ex-black hawk down enemies, were going to take over Ethiopia and Kenya. that seems to be the path your argument is going down.
link


Darfur is a muslim vs. muslim conflict. It is over land that is drying up, not implementing Sharia law.

Where exactly are Muslims taking over in Africa? In the last few years most people have been dying in the Christian Congo/Zaire.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Yeah, Mr Beamish - the invasion of Iraq was all about global warming….all the hot air produced about Iraq was against emissions targets set at the Kyoto Treaty!

I don't know, Beatroot. Al Gore was looking very serial about the foolishness of leaving a tyrannical sponsor of international terrorism like Saddam Hussein in power and trusting him to comply with UN inspectors (before 8 years of Clinton and Gore doing precisely just that).

Seems to me if Bush had changed his party affiliation to Democrat upon taking the oath of office the first time, the left would be out selling the Iraq War as the greatest thing since Arthur pulled the sword from the stone.

But that's just me.

Mr. Beamish the Kakistocrat said...

Manbearpig.

Puppeteer said...

BIGOTRY INVASION!!!!!!!
EVERYBODY HEAD FOR THE BUNKERS!

Mad Zionist said...

Graeme, I am pleased to see that you are in favor of actively supporting the overthrow of islamic governments throughout the world. I share share your loathing for islamic tyranny and sharia law.

That said, you didn't answer my question.

To repeat: How would you suggest stopping islamic states and organizations that are committed to the expansion of Sharia Law - a part of islam you are vehemently and outwardly opposed to? Would you be willing to use force to stop islamic imperialism and global jihad? If not, how would you confront this enormous problem?

Again, thank you for not referring to other ideologies or governments and keeping this in the specific context I asked the question.

troutsky said...

The Mad Zionist wishes to place limits and impose sideboards on the discourse,creating his own frame.Otherwise this is an interesting debate.

I wonder if the "honorable opposition" could see this from a Muslim perspective whereby the imperatives of neoliberal economic hegemony,(since you don't like imperialism or neo-colonialism) with it's unquenchable thirst for energy,markets, labor and resources is percieved as a "caliphate" marching throught the late twentieth and now twenyfirst century? It has it's own religious component (Christian),a cultural component,(hedonistic consumerism), an ideological component (portrayed as liberal "democracy")but most importantly an economic component (global capitalism)withit's own prophets (Adam Smith to von Hayeck to Friedman etc)? Can you see how this more nuanced portrayal might be threatening to the masses of the Muslim world and exploited by a small contingent of extremists? Can you give the Muslim mind enough credit to be more than one dimensional (ie, religious)? Can you give them credit for having some historical memory,for remembering recent and late attempts to establish control over oil?

Of course "force" might be one tactic necessary to stop jihad or other assaults on peoples right to self determination but such instances must be measured and a much broader strategy of sharing wealth and power, real justice,(as in Latin America) must be employed.

Renegade Eye said...

Beamish: Not even Laborite Tony Blair could win people to support the Iraq war. The invasion of Iraq was supported by Bill Clinton.

All of the major Democratic Party voted to authorize the Iraq war. To their shame, the more vigorous debate took place amongst Republicans.

If the Democrats led the war, the initial support might have been higher, but over time it would have lost support. The Vietnam war was a Democratic Party war.

The hatred of Bush is so visceral among liberals, that he could bring back the New Deal, and they'd be against it. He is hated in every country in the world, except for parts of New Europe.

Graeme said...

Would you be willing to use force to stop islamic imperialism and global jihad? If not, how would you confront this enormous problem?

Since the global jihad is only made up of a handful of Muslims (although a growing handful), I would favor law enforcement and diplomacy to deal with it. That, I suppose, is a form of "force." As far as military force, which I suspect you are talking about, I completely am opposed to. Not only because it is counterproductive, i.e., it creates more terrorists than we had to begin with, but also because I think the U.S. is using combating global jihad much in the same way it used fighting communism, namely to spread dominance.

Troutsky brings up a good point. Many support resistance to the U.S. for reasons other than Islamic fundamentalism.

The Pagan Temple said...

The hatred of Bush is so visceral among liberals, that he could bring back the New Deal, and they'd be against it. He is hated in every country in the world, except for parts of New Europe.

Posted by Renegade Eye | 30 August, 2007 12:27

That is exactly right. If Democrats had proposed Bush's medical program-the same ones Democrats bitch about now-and did it the exact same way he did it, liberals would be saying it was the best thing sex sex.

The Democratic Party is really one majorly fucked up party. I'm sick to death of them.

I disagree about the Afghanistan War, though. It was more than reasonable to dislodge the Taliban. We had every right to get rid of them. It was completely justified.

The problem is, Bush fucked it up by diverting resources to Iraq. He should have concentrated on Afghanistan, which should have, and could have been a model democracy by now.

Mad Zionist said...

Since the global jihad is only made up of a handful of Muslims (although a growing handful), I would favor law enforcement and diplomacy to deal with it.

Assuming your statistics are verifiable, and there really is only four or five moslems in the world who have declared jihad against the infidel, what should be done to stop them? Clearly these 4 or 5 moslems have been creating incredible destruction and havic, so how will you stop them? Are you thinking dialogue will reason them out of their jihad? Would you take official military action or state police action to physically stop or kill them?

Seriously, how will you do it?

Farmer John said...

Islam is spreading in Africa?

Nah, it's just my imagination...

And troutsky, economic liberalism is a voluntary proposition for all parties. The spread of Islam is not. It's Mo's way, or you die. See the diff, yet?

Liberal White Boy said...

As a liberal white boy living in the United States of America I think perhaps my greatest fear is the expansion of Sharia Law in this country. I have been hearing this concern a lot lately. Each time I hear it sounds as silly as the last time I heard it. Is some one trying to perpetuate another fraud upon us. MZ, I'm still trying to digest the last fraud. Palestine was a land without a people.

Farmer John said...

Graeme. the current president of Ethiopia is an Oromo. Why would he block aid to the Oromo (who occupy the very center of the country and link ALL the regions together? He's fighting off even MORE Moslem incursion by the Somali, who occupy the arid eastern portion of the country and who are attempting to migrate inland and displace even more Oromo Christians with help from there ethnic AND Islamic brothers from the ICU and Somalia.

You know those Moslems. If they aren't living under Shari'a, they've just GOT to overthrow the government (OLF). And that's precisely what they're doing. The "refugee's" in the US... yep, Moslems. No wonder they're bitchin'. They can go pound sand with they're "human rights violations". Human rights are things that only Christian and secular nations observe.

From Wikipedia: The OLF's anti-terrorism policy on civilians is widely supported and recommended by all Ethiopians. However the destabilizing and violent military acts of OLF against Ethiopian governments and individual state governments have been condemned by both Ethiopians and the international community. Also the OLF have killed many innocent Kenyan citizens as they move back and forth from the Ethiopian to Kenyan borders. The Institute for Security Studies stated that, "Changes in target selection has led to the assessment that OLF transformed from a revolutionary movement into a terrorist movement."[41] They have had various conflicts with the Kenyan security forces. In one case, they shot dead two Kenyan women in their sleep.[42] The critics of OLF often go back to the offer made by the Ethiopian government to OLF to join the Ethiopian parliament in 1992. The other issue raised is OLF's cooperation with the alleged enemies of Ethiopia including the current Eritrean government which also supports the Islamic courts of Somalia. The Islamic courts of Somalia has been known to burn Ethiopian flags, and have declared a jihad against Ethiopians[43] and plans to establish an Islamic republic in Ethiopia.

Ben Heine said...

Thanks Renegade for this good analysis
Peace,
Ben

Graeme said...

Graeme. the current president of Ethiopia is an Oromo. Why would he block aid to the Oromo

They are blocking aid to the Ogaden region, not Oromo. That is what I wrote.

Mad Zionist and Farmer john, I think you guys are sincere in your belief that "moslems" live under our beds and in our closets, ready to kill us at any moment, but it is not reality. I've already seen this movie, and in my lifetime I am sure I will see another bogeyman.

Mad Zionist said...

LWB, why would you call Sharia Law expansion silly? Do you realize how many moslems around the world would be incredibly offended by such an insensitive and insulting comment? Try and realize that moslems are not likely to appreciate being mocked.

Liberal White Boy said...

You are pretty good at reframing these discussions mz, but I'm sure you know that what I regarded as silly is that this is a threat to me. I'm sure the average Muslim is far more offended by our governments support for the creation of Israel (land theft I) and subsequent attempt to steal the remainder of Palestine (land theft II) than any thoughts I may have about their religion. You and I both know of course that our western religious mythologies (Old Testament and New Testament) are far superior to any thing the Muslims have.

geez said...

I hope I'm not mocking any Muslims (Moslems is kinda sic, too, heh?), but I just came across this bit below which I figure will send send some of you out to be consumers of capitalist goods:

Permanent Revolution is the title for ska band Catch 22's fourth studio album, released on June 27, 2006. The album can be classified as a concept album, centered around the life of Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940), with the title being named after a theorum that Trotsky had been associated with called Permanent Revolution.

Farmer John said...

graeme,

Go ahead and excuse away Islamic Imperialism because they advance in the time old fashion of killing their opponents and raping their women instead of forcing them to buy Brittany Spears CDs. After all, we all have our own aesthetics standards for acceptable human conduct.

And the next time you fly into Minneapolis and the Somali cab driver refuses to pick you up because you have a bottle of Jack Daniels in you hand or your pet dog Fifi in her travelling case, just remember the 'greater cause' for which you've argued.

Farmer John said...

...and the Somali have already been converted to Islam in the Ogaden regions (now called Somali & is near 100% Moslem). It's where they've crossed the border into Oramia and begun rolling up the Christian & pagan Orami where the "problem" of Islamic imperialism can be observed first hand. They're still in the minority there... barely.

Farmer John said...

And there is still on pocket of Non-Islamic dominance left in northern Africa... and it's time graeme gave that up to them as well...

Farmer John said...

This is the "other" way they spread... it's tribal. It also pays to be able to have four wives...

Farmer John said...

You know how a Somali spells the word "fourth wife"? H-O-S-T-A-G-E.

troutsky said...

Farmer John, (you aren't Christopher Hitchens are you?)No one here is arguing in favor of religious intolerance in any form but instead they are putting this "transgression" in proper context.You naively claim "economic liberalism is a voluntary proposition for all parties" which demonstrates your self imposed blinders. When you say we "excuse away Islamic Imperialism because they advance in the time old fashion of killing their opponents and raping their women instead of forcing them to buy Brittany Spears cds" you both discount the cultural methods they use (madrassas, clinics, social services) and the power of those methods and ignore the blatantly violent methods of "primitive accumulation" applied by global capitalism. (hint: look at Iraq)

Graeme said...

Crusader John,

Perhaps you are nostalgic for the days when it was widely thought to be our burden to tame such savage beasts? Well, there is no reason to be nostalgic, because "spreading democracy" is the new white man's burden.

How long until people like you have us building bunkers in our yards because the "MOSLEMS ARE COMMING." I wonder who will be next? Catholics maybe. The sad thing is, the Muslim leaders are doing the same thing our leaders are.

Té la mà Maria - Reus said...

Your commentaries in your blog are always of our pleasure and we congratulate you on it, regards of your friends of Reus Catalunya Spain

beatroot said...

Beamish
Seems to me if Bush had changed his party affiliation to Democrat upon taking the oath of office the first time, the left would be out selling the Iraq War as the greatest thing since Arthur pulled the sword from the stone.

But the left did try and sell it....many of them....Check out blogs like Harrys Place...

Troutsky, me old freshwater revolutionary mate

but most importantly an economic component (global capitalism)withit's own prophets (Adam Smith to von Hay

Capitalism is not an ecomic system but a mode of production...different thing....what is more important is: do these type of Islamic nihilists want economic development? I would say no..because they fear modernity more thatn anything else (something they have in common with the Green movement).

Liberal white boy
As a liberal white boy living in the United States of America I think perhaps my greatest fear is the expansion of Sharia Law in this country.

Man, you are falling into the Bush trap - i.e. - this is an IDEOLOGICAL WAR....it ain't...if it was about ideology then there would not be suicide bombers and there would not be invasions of Iraq etc...there is not ideological battle going on here at all...

Farmer John said...

...and all this time I thought I was exposing their cultural methods... rape... hostage taking... my bad ;-)

sonia said...

The discussion above is quite ironic. Western leftists are denouncing the present Ethiopian government, which began as a Communist guerrilla movement, for killing Muslim religious fanatics...

Ren, there is an interesting discussion about you on this thread...

Anonymous said...

滿.............................................