Is Going Down the Road of the Shah's Iran
commentators generally tend to misrepresent the position of Islamists in Pakistan.
Being close to Pakistan and actively observing the current events it becomes
quite obvious that despite the post-Sept. 11 events (i.e. the increased hatred
for the United States), the MMA (mutahida majlis-e-amal, coalition of
Islamic parties) simply lack the voting base or the popularity to force an Iranian-style
revolution. Musharraf has the most interest in exaggerating the Islamist threat
in order to retain American support for his dictatorial regime. Historically,
the Islamic parties have always gone to bed with the military establishment
and their ability to organize protests and cause agitation has been used by
the military to destabilize secular, civilian governments. Hold free and fair
elections today and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Sharif) and Pakistan People's
Party (Benazir Bhutto) will undoubtedly come out winners because these are the
mainstream parties with popular support. Up til now, the demonstrations have
been peacefully calling for independence of the judiciary and the rule of law
(i.e., civilian control of the armed forces). The problem in Pakistan is that
the military is by far the strongest institution, and they are not likely to
peacefully relinquish power. Will this cause a revolution? Unlikely. Islamist
revolution? Even more unlikely. The most likely scenario is that the the military
generals will remove Musharraf, hold some kind of elections, perhaps make some
kind of deal with the political parties, share power for some time while also
using domestic intelligence agencies to create enough instability, making room
for the next coup d'etat and regaining complete domination. That is how things
have always worked in Pakistan. The other potential scenario that is more troubling
for the world is if this dispute disintegrates into violence, protesters pick
up arms, and there is chaos on the streets and civil war.
I assure you political
Islam will be a blessing as opposed to fringe terrorist groups operating in
an environment of disorder and state failure. If Islamists come to power and
gain access to the bomb, it will be as much of a threat to the world as the
Israeli (Jewish?) bomb or the American (Christian?) bomb. I must say though,
it seems very pompous of you to imply that an Islamist state will act out based
on some crazy dogmas (your perception of their dogmas) when it is the U.S. that
claims to be executing God's will. Most people in the Muslim world (granted,
Pakistan is my point of reference) don't even support peaceful political Islam,
much less violent extremists.
the case of any Islamist party in the world (the Taliban not being a political
party): they have moderated when they have come to power. Ultimately, politics
subverts religion and decisions are made based on political interests rather
than outdated dogmas.
~ Sofia Seer
Islamists don't need to win with votes in this society, just like the Bolsheviks
didn't in Russia. Iran is an example of radical Islamists taking power. The
Iranian regime hasn't moderated that much. The Taliban did run the government
in Afghanistan and didn't moderate either.
article, Ivan, and one that demonstrates, superbly, the duplicity with which
Britain and the U.S. act toward other nations. At the moment (and indeed for
the last 27 years), there has been uncompromising rhetoric aimed at Iran, much
of which is unfounded and caused initially by the U.S. embassy hostage situation.
Here in Britain most of the terrorist attacks and plots involve young disenfranchised
and brainwashed men of Pakistani origin; in fact when was the last time an Iranian
national was directly involved in a terrorist act?
The idea of an Islamist
government in Pakistan would frighten me far more than Iran's nuclear program.
~ Andy Cheshire,
Pakistan, not Iran, is probably the most dangerous country in the world.
has to wonder if Justin Raimondo researches his topics prior to writing on them.
In his "Remember the Liberty!," he commits many falsehoods. The "Israeli
Lobby" did not pay for A. Jay Cristol's book. The book, The Liberty Incident,
was his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Miami. Not only that, but his
book was fully peer-reviewed and published by Brasseys, Inc., which publishes
military books. Raimondo also mentions that Ward Boston said that Adm. Isaac
Kidd said the attack was intentional against a known American ship. One big
problem. Ward Boston only went public with these comments after Admiral Kidd
the ship was attacked because Israel wanted to prevent the U.S. from knowing
they would attack the Golan Heights. But the White House knew in advance that
they were going to attack Syria, and the USS Liberty crew members publicly
say that the ship was attacked because Israel realized the ship saw them executing
over 1,000 Egyptian POWs! Even this new claim is ridiculous, as Egypt never
mentioned anything about their POWs allegedly being executed.
Did Raimondo even
read A. Jay Cristol's book? Has Raimondo ever seen A.
Jay Cristol's Web site, which fully debunks all the myths and lies told,
including the ones in Raimondo's column? It appears that Raimondo has such a
virulent hatred against Israel that he will believe any nonsense people say
about it. The attack was inherently intentional as all military attacks are.
It was simply a case of mistaken identity. Do some more research, Justin, and
~ Sam Karpov
'The Decider' Decide on War?
Buchanan stops short of affirming what my wing of the antiwar/anti-interventionist
movement holds to be true, which is that even if Congress considers a resolution
of declaration of war as it was done in 1898, 1917, and 1941, the initiation
of a war of aggression would be illegal. If it were otherwise, all our fine
promises made at Nuremberg would be empty.
He also is in
conflict with contributor Gordon Prather when he suggests that Iran is refusing
"to let the IAEA see what it is doing." Prather has persuasively, and with documentation,
argued that Iran has been more open than it is obliged to by international agreement
to be in permitting inspection of its nuclear program.
~ Alan Bickley
Bases: A Recipe for Permanent Terrorism
them for yourself! I have asked and received the answer from the Democratic
Party leaders that permanent U.S. bases in Iraq are needed for the training
and support of the Iraqi military. If the Democratic Party leaders will not
say they are against permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, then they are for them!
There are at least
four "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal"
from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases have been constructed as
little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration
officials and Democratic Party leaders say – and they always deny that the U.S.
seeks "permanent" bases in Iraq – facts on the ground speak with another voice
entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency." One of the enduring mysteries
of this war is that reporting on U.S. bases in Iraq has been almost nonexistent
these past years.
U.S. bases fit snugly with other Pentagon plans. For instance, Iraq's 400,000-man
military has been replaced by a 100,000-man, lightly armed military without
armor or an air force. (In an otherwise heavily armed region, this ensures that
any Iraqi government will be almost totally reliant on the U.S. military and
that the U.S. Air Force would, by default, be the Iraqi air force for years
As long as KBR
keeps building them, making their facilities ever more enduring and ever more
valuable, there can be no genuine "withdrawal" from Iraq, nor even an intention
of doing so. The administration does not discuss them (other than to deny their
permanency from time to time). No presidential speeches deal with them. No plans
for them are debated in Congress. The opposition Democrats generally ignore
them and the press won't even put the words "base," "permanent," and "Iraq"
in the same paragraph. It may be hard to do, given the skimpy coverage, but
keep your eyes directed at our "super-bases." Until the administration blinks
on them, there will be no withdrawal from Iraq.
the GOP Destroy Itself Before It Destroys America?
Paul Roberts and his views play a large part in what I see as the demise of
the United States of America as a power to effect positive change in the world.
Regardless of what the liberal Left wants to believe, the majority of positive
change in this world was achieved through violent revolutionary actions, which
equates to advances in human society (humane treatment, rights of equality,
individual freedoms) through a painful and sometimes costly means. As any evolutionary
scientists can attest, the advancement of most all living systems is a process,
violent by nature, that ensures the continued existence and adaptation to a
changing world – this can also draw parallels to human society on a global scale;
to believe that we can continue to be a force that can exert positive change
on this planet without experiencing strife and pain is ludicrous. We cannot
plunge our heads into the sand and expect the world to progress into the utopia
that liberals tend to believe will happen if the U.S. would just stay out of
the global fray.
~ Tony Butler
must be a joke, a caricature of the type of morons who still support Bush (down
to 28 percent, the stupidest people in America).
Certainly no one
as intelligent as Tony Butler could possibly interpret as "positive change in
the world" the murder of 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of
the economic life of a country, the commission of heinous war crimes, the gratuitous
lying to the American people and the world, the utter squandering of $1 trillion,
the destruction of our country's reputation, the radicalization of the entire
Muslim world, and the wake-up warning to Russia, China, and our former European
allies that the U.S. is the greatest threat to peace and stability.
On the other hand,
perhaps I overestimate Tony Butler's intelligence. Anyone who could mistake
me, a notorious Reaganite, with the "liberal Left" is stupid enough to be one
of the despicable 28 percent that lusts for blood and demands yet more war crimes
from the White House.