Politics in 2016

[Kirkhill]

Kilo, I am happy to concede that there are a few good people in the region ... Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon make up all of my list. None of the others are, even remotely, in our "friends" column and only a very few, if any, might be in the "not to bad" column.

All the rest, beginning with Iran and Saudi Arabia, equally, deserve whatever we can send them ...

                                               

And in the spirit of "plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"  - here was the geopolitical situation in the region circa 3800 years ago  [

Genesis 18:16-33New International Version (NIV)

Abraham Pleads for Sodom
16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17 Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.[a] 19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

20 Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare[c] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

33 When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Selling guns to bad people who will use them to kill other bad people who then might, in turn, want to buy some more guns from us is good business ... money in Canadian workers' pockets and lots of (local) blood in the sand over there ...

                   

                                                ... what's not to like?

:goodpost:

 

[Loachman]

... what's not to like?

Other than that she's an anti-gun nutbar, nothing at all.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Who cares?  It's pleasurable to see the politicians on both sides and the unions displaying how easily their principles and positions are jettisoned in the name of self-interest.

 

[Kilo_302]

you inadvertently hit the nail on the head in your first paragraph.

Where was that secular democratic movement when there was a free election in Egypt? Overwhelmed by the Muslim brotherhood who then went on to drag the country towards their fanatical ideas.

If the Saudi royals fell, don't kid yourself on who would take over. Secular movements all over the region get overwhelmed by the fanatics no matter how the government falls. In Syria isil and al nusra run wild, what's left of the moderates being bombed and blown to pieces. In Egypt, when people are given a choice they don't pick the moderates, they go for the Muslim brotherhood who are closet isil. Tunisia might be the only place where moderates actually got into power.

So our choices are hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists. Moderates don't factor in.

That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.

You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support democratic and secular movements, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.

 

[Edward Campbell]

That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.

You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support democratic and secular movements, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.

Are there any ... any, at least with any kind of credibility or staying power?

 

[Edward Campbell]

That wasn't inadvertant . I agree that the "fanatics" will overtake the secularists as they always do historically. But let's pause for a moment to reflect on why that is. Historically, the West has chosen to support secular and theocratic dictators who will support our aims in the region. Why have we been dealing with Shahs in Iran since 1979? Because we overthrew a democratically elected secular leader in the 50s. The Saudi royal family is only in power because of Western support, same with the Egyptian military.

You've said our choices are "hardline human right abusing strongmen or hardcore Islamists." Well, that's only accurate in that that's what we've always chosen. Hardcore Islamists were preferable to us during the Cold War because it was a guarantee they wouldn't be friendly to the Soviets. We COULD choose to support democratic and secular movements, but that's assuming that we would want that in the first place. We don't, because it wouldn't serve our purposes.

Now I think you're pretending to be a cynical hyper-realist. In fact, in my opinion, a real "democratic and secular" government in any Arab state would serve our purposes very nicely ... I just don't think that the conditions are right for anything like that.

 

[Kilo_302]

Now I think you're pretending to be a cynical hyper-realist. In fact, in my opinion, a real "democratic and secular" government in any Arab state would serve our purposes very nicely ... I just don't think that the conditions are right for anything like that.

I should clarify, that't not what I think we should be doing, that was from the point of view of the realists that run our FP.

We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).

Democracy means the people get a say. Given the last 15 years, I think many people might call for an immediate ejection of Western forces, and for the state to exercise sovereignty over its resources. This doesn't jive with what we want, but it would be reasonable position in a democratic and secular country.

I agree that conditions aren't ripe for democracy in many or any of the countries we've been talking about. But take Egypt for example. The Muslim Brotherhood won an election, fair and square but instead of accepting it, we put the military right back into power. We could have dealt with them as a government, and it would have had a moderating effect on their policies. Sure it would have taken time, but isn't that preferable to the mass executions by the Army driving them back underground where they will resort to violence to get their point across?

Similarly, by helping the Saudi royal family maintain its grip on power, all we're guaranteeing is whatever comes after them will be hostile to the West, and extremely reactionary.

Our strategy has brought nothing but more extremism, largely in reaction to the incredibly corrupt and ruthless regimes we put in power. Jack Layton was called "Taliban Jack" for suggesting we deal with the Taliban. Well guess what we're doing right now? It takes patience, but diplomacy will usually have a better outcome than military action.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I should clarify, that't not what I think we should be doing, that was from the point of view of the realists that run our FP.

We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).

Democracy means the people get a say. Given the last 15 years, I think many people might call for an immediate ejection of Western forces, and for the state to exercise sovereignty over its resources. This doesn't jive with what we want, but it would be reasonable position in a democratic and secular country.

I agree that conditions aren't ripe for democracy in many or any of the countries we've been talking about. But take Egypt for example. The Muslim Brotherhood won an election, fair and square but instead of accepting it, we put the military right back into power. We could have dealt with them as a government, and it would have had a moderating effect on their policies. Sure it would have taken time, but isn't that preferable to the mass executions by the Army driving them back underground where they will resort to violence to get their point across?

Similarly, by helping the Saudi royal family maintain its grip on power, all we're guaranteeing is whatever comes after them will be hostile to the West, and extremely reactionary.

Our strategy has brought nothing but more extremism, largely in reaction to the incredibly corrupt and ruthless regimes we put in power. Jack Layton was called "Taliban Jack" for suggesting we deal with the Taliban. Well guess what we're doing right now? It takes patience, but diplomacy will usually have a better outcome than military action.

:goodpost:

You'll notice, I hope, Kilo, that I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, I'm just trying to knock some of the rough edges off your notions ... or however than analogy is supposed to work.

The Anglo-American engineered coup in Iran in 1953 was a blunder and it has coloured policies ~ ours, theirs, Russia's ~ ever since, generally for the worse, especially to the degree that we learned the wrong lessons.

But, even if Mohammad Mosaddegh had been left in peace, even if the Iranians had been allowed to make their own, sovereign decisions about their own, sovereign resources, little ~ nothing in my estimation ~ would have changed on the social front. The Shia~Sunni split would still have worsened, the Wahhabi (and it's cousins) influence would still have grown and spread like a cancer; and so on ... both secularism and the sorts of foundations that are needed for a real democracy to take root were never present in most of what is now the Islamic Crescent; that is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why islam took such easy root there ~ it offered something much more coherent than the systems in place 1,500, 1,000, 500 years ago and, in parts of Africa, right now.

It took us centuries ~ arguably since, say, 1265 ~ to "fertilize" the social ground well enough for democracy to take root and flourish. Why one earth should we expect any other culture to do it in significantly less time?

__________

Anyway ... keep at it, Kilo ~ you're not making many friends here but that shouldn't bother you too much. I, obviously, don't have you on  :ignore: ~ I don't ignore people because I diasgree with them; I ignore them because either:

    1. They cannot make a cogent argument; or

    2. Their opinions are odious.

 

[Kilo_302]

:goodpost:

You'll notice, I hope, Kilo, that I'm not disagreeing with the general thrust of your argument, I'm just trying to knock some of the rough edges off your notions ... or however than analogy is supposed to work.

The Anglo-American engineered coup in Iran in 1953 was a blunder and it has coloured policies ~ ours, theirs, Russia's ~ ever since, generally for the worse, especially to the degree that we learned the wrong lessons.

But, even if Mohammad Mosaddegh had been left in peace, even if the Iranians had been allowed to make their own, sovereign decisions about their own, sovereign resources, little ~ nothing in my estimation ~ would have changed on the social front. The Shia~Sunni split would still have worsened, the Wahhabi (and it's cousins) influence would still have grown and spread like a cancer; and so on ... both secularism and the sorts of foundations that are needed for a real democracy to take root were never present in most of what is now the Islamic Crescent; that is one of the reasons, in my opinion, why islam took such easy root there ~ it offered something much more coherent than the systems in place 1,500, 1,000, 500 years ago and, in parts of Africa, right now.

It took us centuries ~ arguably since, say, 1265 ~ to "fertilize" the social ground well enough for democracy to take root and flourish. Why one earth should we expect any other culture to do it in significantly less time?

__________

Agreed. Although one could make a case that the process could be sped up given the working examples around the world (although I'm also cognizant of the fact that this line of thinking is partially what got us into Iraq in the first place). The West did the "hard work" of forming liberal democracies, perhaps if we weren't so focused on immediate gratification in the region at large we could foster similar movements there.

Anyway ... keep at it, Kilo ~ you're not making many friends here but that shouldn't bother you too much. I, obviously, don't have you on  :ignore: ~ I don't ignore people because I diasgree with them; I ignore them because either:

    1. They cannot make a cogent argument; or

    2. Their opinions are odious.

Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a few friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement.

It seems you and I agree on many things, but I appreciate that we also disagree on others and keep it quite civil with very little effort. Cheers.

 

[Altair]

Agreed. Although one could make a case that the process could be sped up given the working examples around the world (although I'm also cognizant of the fact that this line of thinking is partially what got us into Iraq in the first place). The West did the "hard work" of forming liberal democracies, perhaps if we weren't so focused on immediate gratification in the region at large we could foster similar movements there.

Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a few friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement.

It seems you and I agree on many things, but I appreciate that we also disagree on others and keep it quite civil with very little effort. Cheers.

It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.

It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well if my inbox is any indication, I've made a few friends here, and have received a few words of encouragement.

It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.

It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.

You two should get a room. :grouphug:

 

[Kirkhill]

And in the "There are no good options / Enemy of my Enemy" file:

This commentary in the Telegraph from

It's time to abandon our obsession with Syrian 'moderates'

Many of the groups who are willing to fight Isil over Assad are deeply nasty. In the short term, we must accept that – and work with them anyway


By J. Singh-Sohal 1:52PM GMT 14 Jan 2016

While making the case for extending air strikes against Islamic State into Syria (and rightly so), it came to light that 70,000 moderate rebel fighters were willing to fight against IS on the ground, all we had to do was support them from above.

But as David Cameron took questions at the Commons Liaison Committee, it transpired that those thousands upon thousands were likely not engaging against IS but rather fighting what they see to be the bigger threat – the Assad regime.

That's because the sad fact of the Syrian war, one which can no longer be ignored, is that the Assad regime is despised more than Islamic State. But both are to blame for the continued suffering of the Syrian people. The slaughter has left men women and children all over the war-torn country traumatised, there are few fighters left who have not been radicalised by the brutality of Damascus or the barbarity of IS.

The "moderate" Syrians the West now craves to fight IS on the ground are not democracy-supporting and liberal minded, like we may hope to find. They are, rather, the ones that have not committed atrocities or contravened the Geneva convention (yet). Most have indeed become jihadists, but are waging holy war against other Muslims (Sunni and Shia) to free their country.

"But the reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that it is time to think of widening who we support"

Moderate fighters who we can work with do exist, protecting their towns and villages. But the longer the Syrian war is left to continue, the more they are likely to become less moderate in their fight against the regime. What other way could they survive – or indeed fight back, having seen entire communities obliterated by Assad's indiscriminate shelling, barrel bombs and even sea mines being dropped in densely populated areas. What hope do they see for their families in moderation when towns such as Madaya are being blockaded by the regime?

The West – particularly Britain and the United States – has set the bar high in its pursuit of a moderate Syrian force capable of fighting such oppression without themselves being inhumane. It has only trained and equipped men that are vetted and found to be free of radical ideology or any connection to violent extremist groups or people. This is a laudable approach.

But the reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida’s Syrian branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict has seen too much of already.

In doing so we must be clear that this is with the aim of defeating Islamic State first and foremost; afterwards we will deal with violent extremist organisations such as Al Nusra and the Khorasan Group. Assad, the butcher of Damascus, can and must be ousted through political means, but there is no solution to the Islamic State problem other than their defeat on the battlefield. That responsibility lies with the Syrian people, and we must find ways to support any of their fighters engaged in that struggle. Even if it means holding our noses.

J. Singh-Sohal is a writer and communications specialist who has served as a British Army Public Affairs Officer in the Middle East.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12099530/Its-time-to-abandon-our-obsession-with-Syrian-moderates.html

I can't agree more with the position.  The stratagem has ancient roots and it works.  The "what-comes-next" concern needs to be relegated to "crossing-that-bridge-when-we-get-there". 

I don't assume that stability can be achieved and that nirvana will arrive -  Sheep and Lions will not be lying down anytime soon.

Churchill worked with Uncle Joe, Tito and the Greek Communists not because he liked their world view but solely because they degraded Hitler and Mussolini and helped to achieve his war aims.

Cleaning up the mess afterwards, in Churchill's terms, putting the Communists back in their place, began in Greece from 1944 to 1949.

 

[Kilo_302]

It's odd, my inbox is full of those who agree with my Liberal views but don't ever post in the politics section.

It appears the CPC supporters here can be a little intimidating.

I just need to make it clear I'M not a Liberal  ;D.

So no room, sorry Recceguy.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

We had a democratic and secular regime in Persian Iran in the 50s. The only problem was they wanted to control their own resources (shock horror!). Now the Cold War is over, but judging how we (the West broadly) treat democracies who won't play ball on our terms, I don't think a democratic and secular regime in the Middle East WOULD serve our purposes (again from the perspective of those who call the shots).

And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Kilo_302]

And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are you asking if the Nazis were elected? That's what the question mark would indicate.

Are you suggesting I am "okay" with the Nazis?

Are you also comparing the Nazis to the Muslim Brotherhood?

 

[a_majoor]

And the Nazis were democratically elected?  Despite the fact that both are okay with you, I am not sure who is more racist, the Nazis or the Muslim Brotherhood.

The use of elections to gain entrance to the halls of power is hardly a new idea; I recall hearing the phrase "One man, one vote, once" used in the context of post colonial African regimes "electing" their new governments and promptly sinking into dictatorships. And Communist nations made/make a huge show of holding elections, even though everyone knows the outcome long before the writ is dropped.

Since the agenda of both Socialists and Radical Islamists is to seize and hold power at all costs, there is no surprise at all that the National Socialist German Worker's Party gained entry through elections, or the Muslim Brotherhoods worked long and hard to become contenders in post Arab Spring elections. Gaining power through the ballot box and slamming the door firmly shut behind you is a lot simpler than storming the halls of power, and the illusion of legitimacy disarms opponents for a crucial period of time while the Socialists or Radicals enact their changes to election laws/suspend the constitution or whatever they use to get to the finish line.

As for racism/xenophobia, this is an age old phenomena affecting humans everywhere (the Han Chinese are probably just as racist as any pre civil rights era Southerner, and examining the published writings and recorded speeches of various African American "community leaders", they are probably just as if not more racist than those same pre civil rights Southerners.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has appointed David MacNaughton as ambassador to the US. This is a good, smart move on his part and I commend him for making a good choice.

The Americans will be pleased to have an ambassador who is a close political confidante of the PM, and we, looking at Mr MacNaughton's résumé, may be assured that he will know how to best present Canada's case to the White House, the Congress, and the American people.

Good move, Prime Minister.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

1. Are you asking if the Nazis were elected? That's what the question mark would indicate.

2. Are you suggesting I am "okay" with the Nazis?

3. Are you also comparing the Nazis to the Muslim Brotherhood?

1. The Nazis were democratically elected.

2. You were the one that said Elected Racist = Legitimate

3. Nazis and Muslim Brotherhood?  One and the same.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is a broader lesson to be drawn.

The Germans were one of the most progressive, cultured, intellectual peoples in Europe.  Until they weren't.

The trouble is seeing what is coming, and averting it.  You have some people sounding warnings, and others denigrating fear-mongering.  If the non-alarmists are correct, they are still obligated to treat the Chicken Littles respectfully and to address the concerns rationally and systematically - unless they (the non-alarmists) are prepared to roll the dice that extremists won't ascend.