The biggest hole in Safire's (and others too who subscribe to the mindest) simplistic world views, lies in their blindspots as relates to the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict. THey thought if the suicide bombers could be stopped,they could bring the conflict to an end, obviously by supporting Sharon's brute force.
There are other issues, Tom Friedman, has been doing a farly good job of explaing those, inspite of his own, simplistic faith in hoping to change things in the middle-east by bringing democracy thru conquest. Not that they are that stupid. Not that they don't know. They are just unwilling to deal with the issue. Because to deal with it forthrightly, USA will have to sacrifice a lot, will have to undo a lot of misdeeds on OUR part spanning decades and administrations. Columnists like Safire, or the ideologues like the Neocons, have been attempting to SPIN the Iraq venture as nation-building, democracy building. Yes, it is indeed a part of the story. But not the only part. When they deal with only the democracy building part, and not acknowledge the rest, they don't carry any credibility with those who are looking for REAL answers to the problem.Right now that segment of the population is more than half the US polity, if recent polls are to be believed. THese jokers thought that if Saddam is taken out, Palestinian suicide bombers won't have anybody else to bankroll their murderous assaults in Israel or Al Qaida and others to launch terror strikes on the US. THey believed shock-and-awe would do the trick, while the 'special forces' would take out Saddam and his cronies and Iraqis would suddenly turn around to democracy. The world will live happily ever after. The president , one would have hoped, is not that simple minded about the matter. But obviously the saner segments of W's handlers lost out and the chicken hawks led by Cheney ruled. But as they are now finding out now, they got us into another fine mess. Now we cannot get out, while the death count keeps escalating. The longer we are stuck in Iraq the worse it is going to get on all fronts.For ALL of us. >I am sure he gambled that Iraq's oil would pay for the transformation. *** Money is hardly the defining factor here. It is the perceptions, the reactions, the co-operation or absence there-of of the Iraqis. And we knbow Iraq is NOT homogeneous. >Dil always brings up a good point- what then prevents Mr. Bush from >radically >changing Pakistan and rooting out islamic fundamentalism and >terrorism at the >ource. *** Wrong diagnosis. India's problem with Islamic terrorism is rooted in India's stonewalling on the Kashmir issue. OThe US and Israle's is the Palestinian issue.As long as we pretend they don't exist, or that it could be wiped out with brute force, we are doomed to live with it. As long as these problems remain unsolved, Islamic fundamentalists would continue to receive support from the Muslim millions. We need leaders who would acknowledge these problems and deal with them with a view to finding real and achievable solutions. Smoke and mirrors, political spin or PR blitxes go only so far. >She also gives me the answer that it will make India too strong to USA's >>liking. *** I find that rather far fetching. India is NOT held back by Islamic fundamentalists. Even if ALL the Muslim 10% of the billion Indians are AGAINST India's own well-being, they still could not hold a progressive , cohesive India back. The trouble with India is Indians themselves. And its pre-occupation with Pakistan. >I have seen many articles recommending action in Pakistan, to White House, >but >haven't seen any article that analyzes the reasons for not doing it. *** USA knows full well that going to war against Pakistan would be absurd, futile and totally counter-productive. More so with nukes ready to be launched or given to AlQuaida likes. India can fight Pakistan. Would India do that? Why should India look to the USA to solve its problems? India should seriously engage in finding a solution in Kashmir. And Assam and the NE. Those two bleeding wounds would do wonders for India. >Next let me ask another question- Do you think 9/11, the events that >preceded >and the events that followed are manifestations of a covert >struggle between >Islamism and Christianity to be the premier religion? *** Not by a long shot. It is all about Palestine / Israel and US's inability to play fair in that conflict. Everything else is an offshoot of this cancer. Whatever might be there in the religious conflicts would never have escalated to where we find ourselves now. At 2:11 PM -0800 11/10/03, D Deka wrote: > People in Texas know George W. Bush wants to be a great president (don't >they all?), better than his Dad. Dad George and Mom Barbara have always >been pushing their first born. But the doubt remains even in the Texan >minds - is he capable of achieving it? Will he get the time to get out of >Iraq and get re elected? I think George Bush was moved deeply by 9/11and >wants to provide long term security to the American people. Also it looks >like he honestly believes only way he can achieve that, is by changing >the way of thinking in the islamic world, through westernization. >Democracy or the talk of it is just the vehicle for it. Iraq with a fairly >large educated and trained population and with the history of its >leader's hostility to USA, seemed like a good and easy place to start >from. I am sure he gambled that Iraq's oil would pay for the >transformation. But did he start at the right place? My wife Dil always >brings up a good point- what then prevents Mr. Bush from radically >changing Pakistan and rooting out islamic fundamentalism and terrorism at >the source. She also gives me the answer that it will make India too >strong to USA's liking. I haven't heard that theory anywhere else but it >seems to make sense. Now let me ask you all a question: What prevents >almighty USA from swooping down on Pakistan that has been a training >ground for terrorism of all kinds and for terrorists from all over the >world? I have seen many articles recommending action in Pakistan, to White >House, but haven't seen any article that analyzes the reasons for not >doing it. Next let me ask another question- Do you think 9/11, the >events that preceded and the events that followed are manifestations of a >covert struggle between Islamism and Christianity to be the premier >religion? Dilip Deka > >Chan Mahanta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >What do YOU think Dilip :-)? > > > > > > > > > > >At 6:04 AM -0800 11/10/03, D Deka wrote: >>Is there anyone here who believes this columnist's interpretation? Let's >>hear. Dilip >> >>The Age of Liberty >> >>By WILLIAM SAFIRE >> >>Published: November 10, 2003 >> >> >> >> ARTICLE TOOLS >>>11/10/opinion/10SAFI.html>>.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/opinion/10SAFI.html&positi >>>on=> >>>11/10/opinion/10SAFI.html>>.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/opinion/10SAFI.html&positi >>>on=>E-Mail This >>Article >>>amp;position=> >>>amp;position=>Printer-Friendly Format >> >>Most E-Mailed Articles >>>p;position=> >>>p;position=> >> >> >>> >>ire/>Columnist Page: William Safire >> >>Forum: Discuss This >>Column >> >>E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> RELATED >> >> Text: In Bush's Words: 'Iraqi Democracy Will Succeed' (November 6, 2003) >> >> TIMES NEWS TRACKER >> >> Topics >>Alerts >>>19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=BUSH%2C+GEORGE+W&rt=1%2Cdes%2 >>Corg%2Cper%2Cgeo>Bush, George W >> >> >> >>>AL+RELATIONS&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=UNITED+STATE >>S+INTERNATIONAL+RELATIONS&rt=1%2Cdes%2Corg%2Cper%2Cgeo>United States >>International Relations >> >> >> >> >> >>EW ORLEANS >> >> >> >>With a strong sense of history, George W. Bush last week made the case for >>"a forward strategy" of idealism in American foreign policy. He dared to >>place his Big Idea � what has become the central theme and purpose of his >>presidency � in the direct line of aspirations expressed by three of the >>past century's most far-seeing and controversial U.S. presidents. >> >> >> >>He evoked Woodrow Wilson trying to make the world safe for democracy in >>1918; then F.D.R. in 1941 giving hope of freedom to peoples enslaved by >>Nazism; finally, Ronald Reagan telling a skeptical Britain's Parliament in >>1982 that a historic turning point had been reached and Communist tyranny >>could not stop the march of freedom. "From the Fourteen Points to the Four >>Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the >>service of principle," Bush said. "The advance of freedom is the calling >>of our time." >> >> >> >>That is called a theme. Did he develop that theme in his speech, >>marshaling his arguments both rationally and evocatively at a time of >>crisis? Did he succeed in setting his vision of our mission in the world >>before the American people in a detailed, coherent and inspiring way >>worthy of rallying their support? >> >> >> >>I think he did � not only because I agree that protecting and extending >>freedom has always been America's "calling," but because I was able to >>read and re-read the serious speech in its entirety. >> >> >> >>You have probably not had that opportunity. Most people did not have the >>chance to catch the whole speech on cable, and found only snippets on >>broadcast TV; the longest excerpt of the half-hour address ran less than >>four minutes on prime-time network news. >> >> >> >>Some newspapers front-paged accounts of the news in the speech, noting >>departure from the realpolitik of Nixon, the elder Bush and others: "Sixty >>years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in >>the Middle East did nothing to make us safe � because in the long run, >>stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." But not even The >>Times gave readers the chance to study the full text in the paper. (It's >>on the Times Web site at >>www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06TEXT-BUSH.html.) >> >> >> >>This speech clearly articulated the policy this Bush will be remembered >>for. If you are interested in knowing where he wants to take this country >>and why, you will find it worth reading all the way through. Reading >>summaries and excerpts and critiques lets editors and analysts do the >>thinking for you. Film snippets of applause lines won't help you grasp the >>import, which you should have even if you want to disagree knowledgeably. >>A carefully constructed speech, like a poem or a brief or a piece of >>music, has a shape that helps makes it memorable. Bush's "age of liberty" >>address begins on a note of historical optimism: "We've witnessed, in >>little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the >>2,500-year story of democracy . . . It is no accident that the rise of so >>many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential >>nation was itself a democracy." (He chose "influential" rather than >>"powerful" to stress our democratic example.) >> >> >> >>Then he takes us on a tour d'horizon of the state of freedom today: from >>"outposts of oppression" like Cuba, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe to >>China with its "sliver, a fragment of liberty," to the West Bank leaders >>who are "the main obstacles to peace." Egypt, having "shown the way toward >>peace" (under Sadat) "now should show the way toward democracy." >> >> >> >>He returns to his opening theme in dealing with Iraq, where failure "would >>embolden terrorists around the world," but where "a free Iraq in the heart >>of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic >>revolution." (Failure gets the conditional "would," but success the >>certain "will.") >> >> >> >>But let me not join the summarizers. Invest a half-hour in reading this >>moving exposition of the noble goal of American foreign policy. And note >>the subtlety in Bush's concluding reference to the deity in underscoring >>our opportunity in this age of liberty: "And as we meet the terror and >>violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not >>indifferent to the fate of freedom." >> >> >> Do you Yahoo!? >> Protect your identity with Yahoo! >>Mail AddressGuard _______________________________________________ >>Assam mailing list >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam >> >>To unsubscribe or change options: >>http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam > > > > _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
