Howard Dean's Anti-Semite Comment

[Mr. Blue]

The prime minister of Iraq is visiting and Howard Dean decides to say this:

"The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite....We don't need to spend 200 and 300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbullah."

Thoughts and opinions on this topic?

I'm actually not completely sure what to make of it, part of me agrees, part of me disagrees, and part of me wonders if Dean just lost his marbles again.

Not everyone in America supports Israel's move against Hezbullah. Now imagine a freely elected official in a war torn Muslim dominated Iraq...do you really think he's going to come out and say, "Go Israel!" He'd be dead within a week if he did.

[Bill]

What good would be an Iraqi government that didn't support the US?

Hezbolla is just as much of a threat to Iraq as to Israel. Terrorists threaten the whole region.

Jus because the Iraqis call the American soldiers "the Jews" doesn't mean the Iraqi government shouldn't support Israel.

[Mr. Blue]

What good would be an Iraqi government that didn't support the US?

Hezbolla is just as much of a threat to Iraq as to Israel. Terrorists threaten the whole region.

Jus because the Iraqis call the American soldiers "the Jews" doesn't mean the Iraqi government shouldn't support Israel.

It's a Democracy, if you give them the chance to vote, they're going to vote and pick people that represent their overall ideology. This is kind of a no brainer that a faith driven Muslim society would pick a leader that wouldn't support Israel.

Maybe the idea of Democracy in Iraq is flawed. If you want a guaranteed friendly entity in Iraq, set up a puppet government, a dictatorship or some flavor of dictatorship, etc and make sure the leader knows he can't survive without the support of the U.S.

That's the problem with democracy...it didn't really work in Palestine when they elected so many Hamas to office, why would we think Democracy would work in our favor in Iraq?

[SirMoby]

Seems like we have two topics here.

1. I don't think that Dean should have used a back handed slang term in talking about Iraqi's leader.

2. While the world was very successful in turning Germany and Japan into favorable allies I don't see that happening in Iraq. Sure in the short term they will support us since we have troops there but they never attacked the USA and eventually a free Iraq will hate us.

The lack of diplomatic talks from this administration seems to be causing a lot of harm. N. Korea say, we want to talk and if you don't we're going to test missiles. Iran says we want to talk and if you don't we're going to keep developing nuclear power and support an attack on Israel. Even Sadaam offered a direct line of communication at least 3 times and was rejected.

The free world is electing non-USA friendly governments for a reason and I hope that we take notice and learn that cowboy diplomacy may win with hostile voters at the polls but in the long run make the world a far more dangerous place.

[Mr. Blue]

The free world is electing non-USA friendly governments for a reason and I hope that we take notice and learn that cowboy diplomacy may win with hostile voters at the polls but in the long run make the world a far more dangerous place.

Would any Muslim country elect a leader that would be USA friendly while Israel is still in existence? I'm just doing some mental checking on this, so, I might miss some facts and if I'm terribly wrong on it...feel free to correct me. Is there any freely elected ME country that could currently be considering "US" friendly?

Right now I can only say it would be Egypt, but Egypt's economy is so dependent on tourism, especially U.S. Tourism, so they have a vested financial interest in not pissing anyone off.

So, why exactly are we trying to create a democracy in Iraq?

[SirMoby]

While Egypt had an election there is concern that the newly elected government is a bit more extreme then we'd like. They're more USA tolerating for now then friendly to the USA.

It's not a good sign. Kind of like Mexico's last election.

I think the only Muslim democratically elected country that is a NATO ally is Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was defeated almost 100 years ago. If it takes that long then The Middle East will simply ally with China since they will be a much stronger economic force then the USA in the next few decades.

[Mr. Blue]

While Egypt had an election there is concern that the newly elected government is a bit more extreme then we'd like. They're more USA tolerating for now then friendly to the USA.

It's not a good sign. Kind of like Mexico's last election.

I think the only Muslim democratically elected country that is a NATO ally is Turkey. The Ottoman Empire was defeated almost 100 years ago. If it takes that long then The Middle East will simply ally with China since they will be a much stronger economic force then the USA in the next few decades.

Agreed, especially about China. China is heading to be the only world power, they right now are so heavily invested in the USD (so is Japan) that they could basically destroy the U.S. economy whenever they want. They wouldn't do it anytime soon because it would hurt them too badly economically...but still...yikes.

Another country to look for is India. They might be slightly behind China, but you'll see India quickly moving up as a world power. I wonder how unimportant Europe is going to see on the global market when China and India get in full stride.

[Bill]

If the Iraqis were a decent, civilized people, wouldn't they be grateful we saved them from Saddam?

[Mr. Blue]

If the Iraqis were a decent, civilized people, wouldn't they be grateful we saved them from Saddam?

Have you read the Koran?

[SirMoby]

If the Iraqis were a decent, civilized people, wouldn't they be grateful we saved them from Saddam?
What do they have to be grateful for?

On average about 100 civilians are killed
They had more potable water before the war
They had more electricity before the war
They had more jobs before the war
They never had gas shortages before the war

Who will save them from us?

We have given them Freedom Of Speech or at least it appears that way. It's strange because that's the one thing that they're trying to take away from us here.

[Bill]

On average about 100 civilians are killed
They had more potable water before the war
They had more electricity before the war
They had more jobs before the war
They never had gas shortages before the war



1. That's their fault, not ours - our collateral damage is much smaller. They are killing each other. The shia hate the sunni because of many years of oppression. Maybe the sunni deserve it. Sunnis attacked the shia first - they blew up that one beloved mosque.
2. Their fault - they are too lazy to fix the water system, and allow the terrorists to sabotage it. Would Americans be so lazy as to not go out and fix the damn water pipes?
3. See 2.
4. See 2.
5. See 2.

[Bill]

Have you read the Koran?

Parts of it. It's a shame they don't practice it. Instead they follow the _example_ of Mohammad, who was a pedophile, slaver, abuser of women, and a merciless slaughterer of innocent people, when they wouldn't join his religion.

Ever read a history of Mohammads life? I have. Even when it's sympathetic, you have to be pretty fucked up not to realize he was a homicidal maniac.

I guess he didn't read his own book.

[Linkster]

I am in total disbelief that none of you know the history of Iraq - since someone brought up the Ottoman empire, Iraq used to be part of that - it was split off as a "colony" of England in the 1920s. Even back then there were the running battles between the religious sects - the way the land had been split basically didnt work too well. Thats why Churchill had to go in with chemical weapons and kill off whole villages to "control the natives"(isnt that the same thing were preaching Saddam did as a crime?) - go watch Lawrence of Arabia - its all about that time in history and actually is pretty factual on its historical basis.
Later on Iraq actually established a democracy that worked great when it annexed from Britain - right up until the 70s when the US needed some help against Iran - things were getting pretty hot in Iran and we needed an ally to fight against them - so we helped establish a military ruler in Iraq(destroying the democracy they had built) which led to Saddam coming to power. We then (through Dick Cheney at the time) supplied Saddam with weapons (including the chemical weapons) to fight against the Iranians who were being supplied by Russia.
A side note at this point is that the "villagers" that Saddam killed off were the same religious groups that were helping Iran - so it was a war act according to our current presidents definitions and perfectly legal - and are the same villagers that we are hunting down right now in Iraq labelled as "terrorists"

So my question to all of you is why do we keep talking about establishing a democracy in Iraq? We are the ones that took it away from them. Do we as a country feel guilty for what we did back in the 70s?

As far as Israel support - you will find if you go back to the same time period - every country that was supposedly out allies in the first Gulf war - are exactly the same people that Israel attacked in the 60s and 70s and all of them want revenge - and I dont blame them - the asshats in charge in Israel have to flex their muscle every once in a while to feel superior (although most locals that live there, that I know, are totally against all of what Israel is doing) and unfortunately the US knows they cant back out of supporting Israel after they gave them the technology to produce nuclear weapons.

[SirMoby]

1. That's their fault, not ours - our collateral damage is much smaller. They are killing each other. The shia hate the sunni because of many years of oppression. Maybe the sunni deserve it. Sunnis attacked the shia first - they blew up that one beloved mosque.
2. Their fault - they are too lazy to fix the water system, and allow the terrorists to sabotage it. Would Americans be so lazy as to not go out and fix the damn water pipes?
3. See 2.
4. See 2.
5. See 2.
I noticed that you never answered my question. Why?

[Bill]

I thought your questions were rhetorical.

Who will save them from us? They don't need saving from us, they need to cooperate with us, and stop protecting the terrorists.

It'a a basic, long established principle of guerilla war that guerillas CAN'T operate without the support of a population. If the Iraqi people cooperated and informed the proper authorities whenever they saw a terrorist planting an IED or carrying a rifle, the fighting would have been over two years ago.

We're the good guys, remember? We are there to protect them until they can build a police force to do the job.

Every Red Stater knows this - the blue staters don't believe in the American Dream, and apparently thinks that the US soldiers are the bad guys.

And they should be grateful that with our help they have a chance to run their own country and profit from their own oil, instead of all their resources going to support Saddams crazy dictator lifestyle. It's not our fault if they are too cowardly to take the oppurtunity, because it's cowardly to support a terrorist guerilla army.

[Kinky Jones]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-05-detainees-usat_x.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/

http://tania.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20041115/009188.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/060806.html

[Kinky Jones]

Every Red Stater knows this - the blue staters don't believe in the American Dream, and apparently thinks that the US soldiers are the bad guys..


you are completely misguided in your thinking... we support the troops 110% and want them home where they belong instead of driving around Iraq trying not to get blown up and trying to make sure every one of their buddies come home... we want an end to the mess and "staying the course" isn't working one bit... we are sick and tired of the "my country right or wrong in the name of jesus" way of thinking

[Bill]

I'm actually not talking about "staying the course" - because clearly whatever it is that the generals are doing now is failing.

I'm saying we have to be more agressive. When a town goes over to the terrorists it should be flattened with artillery. Give the people a day to get out, then rub it out.

When an IED kills an American soldier, every house within eyesight should be flattened. You and I know that the people in those houses know when an IED is being planted. And if they are intentionally looking the other way, they are just as guilty as the terrorists.

It worked for Joshua, it worked for the Romans, it works for Israel. If Israel wasn't agressive, it would have been destroyed long ago, because it is surrounded by enemies and terrorists.