| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3042
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:22 am: | 
|
Who here when they see the chance to read a Bob Herbert article has their excitement level go up? Krugman is at least intelligent and doesn't make pedestrian arguments in his pieces, but Herbert is a cartoon. I could write Herbert's pieces and sneak them by the Times editorial board before the days of Blair. |
jerkyboy
Citizen
Username: Jerkyboy
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 10:42 am: |
|
Blogs, blogs, blogs......
Blah, blah, blah..... |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1922
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 12:17 pm: |
|
Jerk, a quick question: why are you here, on MOL?
Herbert is an intelligent and very competent journalist and author. He doesn't restrain himself in criticizing the administration and he's entitled to his opinion. He doesn't invent facts to support his arguments, unlike some of his counterparts on the far right.
But, getting back to the Iraq elections... we are now starting to learn about "rules" that are being put in place to increase security. Well, I'm sure that the mujahadeen will hand their weapons over so as not to get into any trouble. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 355
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 12:47 pm: |
|
an update:
"The last poll in the Washington Post showed the once strong majorities in favour of the war have long gone. The poll had 58% registering disapproval for the war against 40% approval. A high death toll, such as today's, can sometimes galvanise opinion behind a war but the conflict has been going on for so long now it is more likely to confirm the sense of weariness showing up in the polls.
The same Washington Post poll also showed that six out of ten Americans canvassed said they did not think Sunday's election would bring stability. That view was shared today by the Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, who predicted, during a visit to London, that the violence would continue after the election."
After todays carnage, I wonder what the polls will show now? 
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
History experts: have we ever been successful in forcing "freedom" or democracy onto a population anywhere else? Comparisons with Vietnam have limited use... but don't we have something to learn from previous American efforts, overt or covert, to bring democracy to other countries? |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 358
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
I'm interested to know too!
I wonder which "Head-of-State" Bush will send over to oversee this election?  |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2882
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:19 pm: |
|
In those instances where we have supported the development of independent political organizations and/or have stood as an attractive alternative to an established dictatorship, we have enjoyed some fine successes. In the Ukraine, evidently our support for democratizing forces paid off during the recent political crisis. An in the case of the Soviet Bloc, the fact that the citizens of those countries could glimpse what was happening in the West (e.g. East Germans watching T.V.) went a long way towards undermining those regimes.
Obviously, Germany and Japan were success stories but there were some important mitigating factors, not least of which was the fact that we went from being a simple occupier to a protector against the bloody Soviets.
With respect to Iraq, I think the closest parallel would be the successful British-led counterinsurgency in Malaysia, but that is quite a stretch and their were some important differences between Malaysia of that time and Iraq today. For example, at that time, Islam stood in opposition to Communism.
In short then, if we can leave Iraq in a couple of years with a stable somewhat democratic government, I think that will be one for the record books. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7369
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
You can look at South Korea and Singapore at two countries we had a roll in democraticzing. However, it did take the better part of 50 years. Thanks to MacArthur Japan had the trappings of a democracy a lot quicker. However, one party has dominated for most of its post war history.
Germany had some history of democracy prior to WWII and I think that made the transition a little easier for them.
I think most Iraqis what democracy, but aren't quite sure what it means and how to go about it.
I think most of the people there who are going to vote will do so on their ethnic background (Kurds) or their particular flavor of Islam.
Same thing in Afghanistan. I think even the neo-cons were shocked at the high turnout there. However, in a field of something like 18 Hamad Kazai (sp?) managed to get around 55% of the vote, so I wonder how much understanding they had of the process. Still a nice start. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1959
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 27, 2005 - 10:41 pm: |
|
An Iraqi woman living in the U.S. was interviewed on CNN this evening, and was asked how the various female candidates could manage to campaign at all in such a hostile environment. She said that they simply can't campaign -- they often can't even tell their own families that they are on the ballot. The ballots will not have their names, only numbers. So, a voter is supposed to choose, say "Candidate #143" without having the slightest idea who that person is or what he or she intends to do in office.
This is an election? This is democracy? Gosh, we should be so proud of ourselves. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 670
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
Notehead,
I'm not a complete fan of having this election right now either, though I don't see much choice. Iwish there was more security/stability, but the Iraqi people do seem to want it. But most people will likely be voting based on some party platform or religious affiliation rather than for specific people.
And while campaigning is near impossible for women, some are doing it. There was a story about a woman who is running, and her campaigning consists of spending 5 hours a day on her cell phone, calling people to campaign.
Also, keep in mind what this election is for. It's not for true political offices, but essentially for representatives at a constitutional convention.
It';s just one more reason we need some form of global television here, that is not based in the US. Is any network reporting on Davos this week? Doubtful, beyond the occasional brief mention in a sound bite. |
Bobkat
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 7393
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
1. A decent turnout which would be anything north of 50% with maybe 25% turnout in Sunni areas.
2. The Shites realizing that since three provinces voting against the new constitution is a veto they are going to have to bring the Sunnis (and the Kurds) into the process one way or another.
3. No major increase in the insurgency and Iraqi troops and police being able to stand up to the insurgents by the end of the year, without having Shites and Kurds fighting Sunnis resulting in a civil war.
4. The new government that will be formed by March, in theroy, not asking the United States to withdraw troops immediately. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 1961
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
On the one hand, I feel that the conditions around this election make it fall far short of what could be considered a veritable "success." On the other hand, I am now starting to see coverage of Iraqi expats voting around the world, and how genuinely thrilled they are, despite the shortcomings, and it is certainly great to see. There is also no denying the enormous courage of both the candidates and voters (as in Afghanistan).
I just feel like these people are starving, and we're giving them chewing gum. If Iraqis, with our help, can manage to clamp down on the violence so that they can make some headway with their infrastructure, then something like a proper democracy could be possible in a few years. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4381
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Well I will say I have to agree with Notehead except I do believe we've given a little more then chewing gum. We've provided Iraq with a second chance, one not to many other nations get a chance to take advantage of.
Saddam was a bloody animal. He killed hundred's of thousands during his reign of terror. To each and every Iraqi who just wants to have a life free from oppression, America has been there best friend. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 369
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
Iraq elections loom as debacle for US occupation
By James Cogan
8 January 2005
The elections in occupied Iraq, scheduled to take place on January 30, are looming as a political debacle for the Bush administration. The US objectives are being thwarted by the mass opposition to the American presence in the country and the entrenched insurgency against the occupation.
Under the stipulations of the interim constitution imposed on Iraq by the US in March 2004, the purpose of the coming ballot is the election of a Transitional National Assembly, which will be responsible for drafting a new permanent Iraqi constitution. The constitution is to be voted on by referendum no later than October, followed by another election for the National Assembly no later than December 2005.
Washington’s ambition is to produce a puppet government with enough domestic and international legitimacy to be able to sign off on the real aims of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. These include the establishment of long-term military bases in the Iraq, from which the US can exert strategic hegemony over the Middle East, and the sale to American corporate interests of Iraq’s state-owned oil industry—which controls the world’s second-largest oil reserves.
Far from winning over the Iraqi people, however, each stage of the US occupation has served to only heighten the resistance to the colonial agenda. Claims that the invasion of Iraq is bringing democracy and liberation to the Iraqi people are largely for propaganda purposes in the US itself. They have little resonance in Iraq, where the US actions have produced a nightmare of death and destruction.
As many as 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion. Iraqis have witnessed cities like Karbala, Najaf and Fallujah being pounded into rubble. Two years after the fall of Baghdad, the average household in the capital still only gets three hours electricity per day, while fuel shortages are continuous. Unemployment remains over 50 percent and infant mortality has reached the level of poverty-stricken countries like Haiti. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been detained at various times and, in many cases, subjected to abuse by American troops.
The real face of the occupation is nowhere more clearly seen than in the city of Fallujah. In November it was largely destroyed in order to crush the resistance groups using the city as a base for armed struggle against the US forces and the interim government. The US estimate of the Iraqi death toll is over 1,600, though the Red Cross has estimated 6,000. More than 250,000 Fallujah citizens have been turned into refugees inside their own country.
Fallujans who have returned to rebuild are being forced to live in a virtual prison camp of checkpoints and curfews. Last weekend, as many as 30,000 Fallujans demonstrated on the outskirts of the city on January 1. Children carried placards reading “Where is my father?”, and “Where is my house, liberators?” The impression of a New York Times correspondent visiting Fallujah was that it would be “years” before the largely deserted city returned to anything approaching normalcy.
Read more on this article at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/iraq-j08.shtml
|
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4383
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE?????
Bunch of commie b.s. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5116
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
I'm shocked to hear the Socialist party isn't behind Bush. Shocked! |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 370
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:41 am: |
|
I guess there's no difference between the two  |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4384
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
actually, Dave was just making fun of you Phenix. Dave hates commies. On the other hand you seem to support them. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 371
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Naw… commies like to dictate, just like BUSH!
No difference there  |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5177
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Guess who:
"The leaders want their faith to be enshrined as the national religion, governing marriage, divorce and family inheritance."
This is from Shiite leaders, but it does sound a lot like some other nation's leadership. Wacky times we live in, eh? |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 264
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
That's exactly what is happening in Iran with the mullahs. The parallel has always struck me, what with both basing their decisions on "faith" than "reality." Am not sure whether this administration completely factored in such a strong showing at the polls by the clerics in Iraq, especially those allying themselves with their religious brethren across the border. Guess they thought that they could shoo in Chalabi when the "mission was accomplished" but apparently "our" man had other ideas "to let his people go" once he was flown in with 700 of his followers on a private plane which was provided with the Pentagon. It will be interesting to see what Allawi will do from now on, rather what the US will do with him... |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 265
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 5, 2005 - 11:16 pm: |
|
The Guardian
January 25 2005
Fundamental union
When it comes to defining family values, conservative Christians and
Muslims are united against liberal secularists, writes Brian Whitaker
Brian Whitaker
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a controversial Islamic scholar who
approves of wife-beating and believes in traditional family values.
The Mormon church, having abandoned polygamy more than a century ago,
believes in traditional families too.
With that much in common, they have joined forces to "defend the
family" and fight progressive social policies at the United Nations.
Other members of the holy alliance include Cardinal Alfonso Trujillo,
who campaigns against condoms on behalf of the Catholic church, and
Mahathir Mohamad, the dictatorial former prime minister of Malaysia
who sacked and jailed his deputy for alleged homosexuality.
They all met in Doha, the capital of Qatar, last November for what
was officially described as a conference to celebrate the 10th
anniversary of the UN's Year of the Family. In reality, it brought
together some of the world's most socially conservative religious
forces.
Opening the conference, Sheikha Mousa bint Nasser al-Misnad, the wife
of Qatar's ruler, announced that the well-being of the family was in
peril. She warned against trying to "redefine the concept of family
in a manner contrary to religious precepts" - though there was little
danger of anyone at the Doha conference doing that.
In common with many Muslim states, Qatar rejects basic family rights
legislation such as the international Convention for the Elimination
of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw), using "religious precepts"
as an excuse.
Qatar is a small but rich Gulf emirate that looks both east and west,
and its relations with the United States are simultaneously warm and
frosty. It provided a temporary home for Centcom's military
headquarters during the invasion of Iraq while, from a studio just a
few miles away, al-Jazeera television - owned by the Qatari
government - criticised the war and broadcast tapes from al-Qaida.
In preparation for its family conference, the government of Qatar
appointed the World Family Policy Centre to arrange a series of
preliminary meetings in Mexico City, Sweden, Geneva, Kuala Lumpur,
Manila and Strasbourg "to collect the best scholarship on the current
state of marriage and family life" and make recommendations.
The Doha conference website gave few clues about the organisation
that had been assigned to this important task beyond saying it was
based in Utah. In fact, the World Family Policy Centre is an offshoot
of Brigham Young University - run by the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons).
A week after the Doha conference, the government of Qatar put forward
a conservative resolution on the family to the UN General Assembly
which was approved without a vote, much to the dismay of the European
countries and several others.
"For the first time at the UN, we had the anti-family powers
scrambling by surprising them," the Mormon magazine, Meridian, crowed.
"Anti-family" and "pro-family" are code words embracing a number of issues.
"Pro-family" (as the conservatives call themselves) usually means
anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-gay and iffy about sex
education. The "anti-family" side (as the conservatives delight in
calling their opponents) usually take the opposite view on all of
that and strongly support women's rights as well.
The Doha conference, and the resulting UN resolution, provided a
striking example of growing cooperation between the Christian right
(especially in the United States) and conservative Muslims - groups
who, according to the clash-of-civilisations theory, ought to be
sworn enemies.
It was the religious right who swept George Bush back into the White
House for a second term and the Mormons played a bigger part than
most.
Almost 90% of America's 4 million Mormons voted for Bush last
November and Utah, where the Mormon church is based, gave him the
biggest majority of any US state. Indeed, Bush was so sure of winning
Utah that he didn't even bother to campaign there.
Among the Mormons' Muslim allies, Qaradawi believes that "resisting
the invaders" of Iraq is a religious duty. He has been banned from
the US since 1999 on the grounds that he advocates violence and more
recently has been accused of supporting suicide bombers.
Last year, his visit to Britain aroused much controversy, mainly
because of his statements about wife-beating and the death penalty
for sodomy. Less controversially, in 2001 he visited the Vatican as a
guest of the Pope.
Regarded by some as the foremost Islamic scholar of his day, Qaradawi
is dean of the College of Shariah and Islamic Studies in Qatar but
has become famous throughout the Arab world for his appearances on
al-Jazeera television. He also supervises IslamOnline.net, one of the
largest Muslim websites, to ensure that none of its content "violates
the fixed principles of Islamic law".
IslamOnline, which is owned by a religious organisation based in
Qatar, gave extensive coverage to the Doha conference. The website
also has a special section called "The family under attack" where it
makes common cause with various Catholic groups and United Families
International, a US organisation which preaches sexual abstinence to
the AIDS-hit countries of Africa and blames condoms and sex education
for the spread of HIV.
Under Qaradawi's supervision, IslamOnline frequently attacks
"western" values but also urges Muslims, especially those living in
the west, to work with non-Muslims "in all laudable and beneficial
projects", for example, "to make our streets free of drugs,
alcoholism, prostitution and homosexuality".
"We must never have any hesitation or reservation about cooperating
with our non-Muslim neighbours for such causes," it says.
By the standards of traditionalist Islamic scholars (and
ultra-conservative Christians too), Qaradawi's views on social issues
are sometimes unexpectedly liberal. He believes wife-beating should
be done "lightly" and then only as a last resort; he supports voting
rights for women, and accepts abortion under certain circumstances.
Rather adventurously, he also says there is nothing in Islamic law to
prohibit oral sex, though it is a disgusting western practice
resulting from westerners' habit of "stripping naked during sexual
intercourse".
But Qaradawi's relative liberalism on these matters does not stretch
to homosexuality, which he describes on IslamOnline as an abominable,
depraved, unnatural, foul and illicit practice. It is also a "crime"
against women - and lesbians are as guilty in that respect as gay men.
According to IslamOnline, sexual orientation is a "choice" and gay
Muslims have no option but to sort themselves out by conjuring up
mental pictures of pain and suffering in the fires of hell. By going
through this exercise repeatedly they "will eventually come to abhor
and shun this behaviour altogether" and will then be ready for
marriage.
Under the heading "Are we being misinformed?", IslamOnline has a
series of articles discussing homosexuality in "an Islamic and a
scientific light". Almost all their scientific content comes from the
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
(Narth), a fringe psychiatric organisation in the US which promotes
"sexual reorientation therapy" and enjoys support from the religious
right. IslamOnline has no fewer than 26 links to Narth's website, and
a news item on Narth's website reciprocates by welcoming
IslamOnline's "very useful contribution to the on-going dialogue".
(Narth's views, incidentally, are rejected by all the main
professional bodies in the US, including the American Psychological
Association - with 150,000 members - which says homosexuality is not
an illness and warns that attempting to "cure" it can be harmful.)
The idea of forging an international Christian-Muslim alliance to
fight liberal social policies began to develop in 1996 when an event
known to "pro-family" activists as The Istanbul Miracle occurred. It
happened at a UN conference in Turkey called Habitat Two. Richard
Wilkins - now head of the Mormons' World Family Policy Centre - was
there and, according to his own account, helped to perform the
miracle.
"The Istanbul conference," he wrote, "was convened - in large measure
- by a worldwide, well-organised and well-funded coalition of
governments, politicians, academicians and non-governmental
organisations that were eager to redefine marriage and family life.
"Natural marriage, based on the union of a man and a woman, was
described by professors, politicians and pundits as an institution
that oppressed and demeaned women. The constant claim was that
'various forms of the family exist', and all 'various forms' were
entitled to 'legal support'. The 'form' most often discussed by those
in charge of the conference was a relationship between two
individuals of the same gender."
Wilkins challenged all this with a four-minute speech on traditional
family values which also castigated sex education in schools. He was
hissed by some of the delegates as he returned to his seat but
afterwards, he recalled, "I was approached by the ambassador from
Saudi Arabia who embraced me warmly".
Wilkins gave the Saudi ambassador a list of suggested changes to the
draft Habitat agenda, and The Istanbul Miracle was born.
"Thirty-six hours later, the heads of the Arab delegations in
Istanbul issued a joint statement, announcing ... that its members
would not sign the Habitat agenda unless (and until) certain
important changes were made," Wilkins wrote.
As a result, the draft was altered to define "marriage" as a
relationship between "husband and wife", and references to abortion
were changed to "reproductive health".
International arguments about the family have raged ever since. The
UN has said several times that "in different cultural, political and
social systems, various forms of family exist". This is a statement
of fact as much as anything, but it is anathema to religious
conservatives who dislike the idea of unmarried couples living
together, and especially those of the same sex.
The UN points out that ideas of what a family is have changed over
the last 50 years. Worldwide, there has been a shift from extended
families to nuclear families as well as an increase in the number of
cohabiting couples and one-person households. Family structures have
also been changed by lower fertility rates, higher life expectancy,
migration and, especially in Africa, HIV/AIDS. The UN therefore urges
its members to take these changes into account when developing social
policies.
Qatar's resolution in the General Assembly last month was part of the
conservatives' ongoing struggle to turn back the clock, and once
again Wilkins seems to have worked a miracle in getting it approved.
Just before the UN debate, Wilkins sent out an SOS "to pro-family
government and non-government contacts throughout the world",
according to the Mormons' Meridian magazine.
"You responded to the SOS by answering our alert to email targeted UN
missions that could make the difference on the resolution," the
magazine told its readers. "Even though it was over the weekend, with
only one day's notice, you responded by sending more than 70,000
emails."
In the General Assembly, the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Canada,
Australia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and New Zealand all dissociated
themselves from Qatar's resolution.
The New Zealand representative pointed out that it was highly unusual
for the General Assembly to pass resolutions based on conferences
(such as that in Qatar) to which not all member states had been
invited. The debate was being used, he said, to attack a
long-standing international consensus on the diversity of family
structures and the advancement of women and children's rights. It was
also seeking to promote one model of the family, at the expense of
others.
The family debate certainly divides the world, but the divisions are
not between east and west, nor do they follow the usual dividing
lines of international politics. The battle is between liberal
secularists - predominantly in Europe - and conservatives elsewhere
who think religion has a role in government.
On this issue, with a president who sounds increasingly like an
old-fashioned imam, the United States now sits in the religious camp
alongside the Islamic regimes: not so much a clash of civilisations,
more an alliance of fundamentalisms. |
Mustt_mustt
Citizen
Username: Mustt_mustt
Post Number: 267
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/06/weekinreview/06bott.html?hp
Chalabi again? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
I can't be pessimistic about the direction of all things gay in the world. The fact that there now is open discussion of homosexuality in all quarters is a plus, and I think leads to more acceptance as we move forward. Sure, there are setbacks like a premature gay marriage movement and the resulting backlash, but when Iron Curtains like the Islamic world starts openly discussing it even in backward terms, the ball is in play. It's a matter of time for this to be made right, and that there is discussion at all versus silence means society is further along. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page