Bush commutes Libby sentence

[eppie]

Thats a damn good question. Probably been asked a lot since the United Nations have been around.

But I think there *are* consequences for breaking the rules, just not immediate ones. The extremely bad image the United states are suffering from these days in many countries that used to be their most stalwart allies is one of them.

That would be a good thing indeed, however, in Holland I also see other things.
Bush' war on terror' also lives in Holland. We have a large population that reallty thinks that in 10 years holland might be a muslim state. The way people speak about multiculturism, asylum seekers and other faiths (these things are of course always confused) is absolutely terrible. 10 years ago people would go to jail for saying the kinds of things that now seem normal.

If Bush leaves office, it might seem that things will go better again, but the damage has been done already. The world has been changed in a few years into one with a new cold war kind of thing. This is not something that is easily ment again.

The fact is that a conflict is 'created' by Bin Laden and Bush and when such a clash of cultures/religion/way of life is there it is difficult to stay impartial, and if you are not impartial, you chose a side. And guess what; logically we (eg western europe) will of course chose the side of the US instead of Iran.
People will forget their disliking of the US, because it was a disliking of Bush, so the next US government can continue as leader of the world.

[Occhidiangela]

We have a large population that reallty thinks that in 10 years holland might be a muslim state. The way people speak about multiculturism, asylum seekers and other faiths (these things are of course always confused) is absolutely terrible. 10 years ago people would go to jail for saying the kinds of things that now seem normal.

At least free speech has made a comeback in the Netherlands, too bad a portion of it is leaning toward intolerant.

Tell me again why people should be jailed for speaking their minds openly?
Occhi

[wundergore]

Tell me again why people should be jailed for speaking their minds openly?
Occhi

I was wondering that myself. But then I chalked it up to usual histronics.......

W<

[Occhidiangela]

I was wondering that myself. But then I chalked it up to usual histronics.......

W<

:D

Wundergore puts the "Lurk" in Lurker Lounge.

Good "seeing" a de-lurk.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

A handful of Chinese Communist rabble-rousers in a country full of Malays who could mostly care less is nothing like what the US are dealing with in Iraq. National sentiment was for the British, not against them.

Hardly true. I'm not sure how you can classify 500,000(MNLA)/3,120,000(Ethnic Chinese) as a handful. Maybe in comparison to mainland China.

Terrorists can be denied "mobility and safe harbor" if the population that would presumably harbour them supports you in this.

I'm referring to the Briggs Plan, where the US would build new towns , cities and the needed infrastructure then repopulate with known peaceful residents from the insurgent ravaged areas. These areas would need to be geographically isolated from the insurgency, and movement into and out of the secure zones would be strictly controlled. The other part of safe harbor goes to cracking down on States that support terrorism. In this case, we know that Syria and Iran are supplying at least weapons if not fighters. This needs to be better controlled, but then, the US is not so good at border security either.

[Thecla]

Where are you getting that from? I would be interested in seeing a source for such a statistic as I know my general impression has been that of Kandrathe's: the war that is being fought is mostly against non-Iraqis or Iraqis that have been supported by outside groups (Iran, other countries, terrorist organizations, etc).

Incidentally, there were a couple of interesting recent articles related to these questions:

'Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia' is principally composed of Iraqi Sunnis, not foreign fighters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/mi...st/13qaeda.html

And almost, or more than, half of the foreign fighters captured or killed in Iraq are Saudi

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...=la-home-center

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/

Curiously, I could not find the percentage of Iranians since, according to NBC anyway, the army will not realease the figures, only a list of the top 10 countries. (Which includes Iran. Could it be that Iran is 10th?)

Unfortunately, the 'general impression' given by Bush of the current state of affairs in Iraq is no more accurate than the 'general impression' he gave previously of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. This is an administration driven by politics and ideaolgy, rather than by reality, which explains in part the catastrophe they have managed to create.

[kandrathe]

Incidentally, there were a couple of interesting recent articles related to these questions:

I found some more...

NCRI - Reuters Baghdad Story

NCRI - Story

Al Jazeera - US Links Iran to Iraq

Al Jazeera - Iraqis 'with links to Iran' seized

GlobalSecurity.org

[kandrathe]

The fact is that a conflict is 'created' by Bin Laden and Bush and when such a clash of cultures/religion/way of life is there it is difficult to stay impartial, and if you are not impartial, you chose a side. And guess what; logically we (eg western europe) will of course chose the side of the US instead of Iran.
People will forget their disliking of the US, because it was a disliking of Bush, so the next US government can continue as leader of the world.

Maybe also because you are philosophically opposed to an imposed Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracy in Holland?

[Thecla]

I found some more...

NCRI - Reuters Baghdad Story

NCRI - Story

Al Jazeera - US Links Iran to Iraq

Al Jazeera - Iraqis 'with links to Iran' seized

GlobalSecurity.org

If you have a point to make, please tell us. I'm not going to divine what you were trying to say from a bunch of links.

[Jester]

Hardly true. I'm not sure how you can classify 500,000(MNLA)/3,120,000(Ethnic Chinese) as a handful.

That would have been an enormous army, and indeed not a handful. But I don't think your numbers work. I cannot tell exactly what your source is, but since the wikipedia article gives those two numbers in succession, I'm going to assume that was it. If not, feel free to correct me. The wikipedia article also gives the maximum number of combatants at 8000. The MNLA were, if the wikipedia article is to be believed, almost 2 magnitudes less strong than the half million you give. That moves them from their army vastly outnumbering the British, to being vastly outnumbered by them.

The 500,000 were not the forces of the MNLA, but rather the number of poor ethnic chinese farmers involved, most of whom were then relocated. I don't know where 3.12 million comes from. The Chinese population of Malaysia, as best I can estimate it, was about 2 million during the insurgency.

The British military forces, mostly ethnic Malays, outnumbered the MNLA by over 40 to 1, and even 5-1 just counting British Commonwealth troops. You can try Briggs Plan-type operations when you have a prexisting colonial government, well established, vastly outnumbering the enemy. You can do it when you are seen by the national majority as benevolent protectors against an unpopular foreign power, in this case, China. You can do it when your enemy relies on a small number of people for sustenance, and will have a really hard time if they lose local support.

You cannot do it in the middle of a hostile nation, when your authority is not recognized, and you do not outnumber the enemy. This would be the case in any middle eastern country, unless you're planning to start the 'Jihad' in Oman. (Edited: I always mix up Yemen and Oman. Apologies.) And it would be certainly, even overwhelmingly, the case if you were to maintain this kind of plan in more than one country at once.

I'm referring to the Briggs Plan, where the US would build new towns , cities and the needed infrastructure then repopulate with known peaceful residents from the insurgent ravaged areas. These areas would need to be geographically isolated from the insurgency, and movement into and out of the secure zones would be strictly controlled. The other part of safe harbor goes to cracking down on States that support terrorism. In this case, we know that Syria and Iran are supplying at least weapons if not fighters. This needs to be better controlled, but then, the US is not so good at border security either.

This is not a plan that the US is capable of following in these countries, given the existing conditions. You cannot re-arrange the the entire human geography of the middle east, not least because it would cost you tens of trillions of dollars. It would be the largest population displacement ever. And, indeed, where would you displace them to? Support for the insurgency in Iraq is not a geographically isolated phenomenon, and there is little reason to believe it would be any different in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc...

At your current levels of expenditure and military deployment, even the palace-and-swimming-pools Green Zone is not safe from the insurgency. Try securing all of Baghdad before extending the plan to the entire middle east. My bet is that even that's not a feasable plan.

Either you need a military effort of colossal magnitude, or you need a less ambitious way of fighting terrorists than bringing them 'Jihad' in 'great measure' using a Briggs Plan strategy. It would simply not work.

-Jester

Afterthought on links provided: If your point is that Iran is supporting the Shi'a in Iraq, then you need not make it to me. I have not disputed this point, although I am unsure what you mean by it.

[kandrathe]

Right. The potential recruiting grounds for the communist insurgency was 3 million, the number of actual MNLA supporters, funders and sympathizers would have been far larger than the 8000 or so combatants killed or captured.

...And, indeed, where would you displace them to? Support for the insurgency in Iraq is not a geographically isolated phenomenon, and there is little reason to believe it would be any different in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc...

Hey, I'm just looking for a solution other than, "Sorry, you failed, run away and hope they don't follow you home Yankee".

It wouldn't work to move them out of the country. I would look to expand some existing small communities, and improve them greatly over time. The important point is to depopulate the places of innocents where insurgency exists, and move the populations to better, safer places. Given the nature of Iraqi culture, it would probably only work to relocate entire tribal groups, even if it were temporarily (some months at a time) until their former neighborhoods were cleared and reconstructed. Think of it as a vacation from the war for the innocent victims. Have you seen the conditions in Sadr City? I would think the prospect of going to somewhere pleasant and peaceful for a while, rather than a squalid stinking slum to be attractive for some people.

[eppie]

At least free speech has made a comeback in the Netherlands, too bad a portion of it is leaning toward intolerant.

Tell me again why people should be jailed for speaking their minds openly?
Occhi

People should not go to jail for speaking their minds openly but if you say that e.g. Morocans are all thiefs, and muslims all terrorists or if you say that the white men is superior, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech....that is hate spreading.
I don't know if in teh US this is the fact but in Holland denying the holocaust is punishable. Although I love freedom of speech, I think it is good not to let people spreading hatred.

[eppie]

Maybe also because you are philosophically opposed to an imposed Islamic Fundamentalist Theocracy in Holland?

Yes, but not more than I'm opposed to a christian fundamentalist theocracy in Holland.....problem is that I expect that part of my fellow countrymen are not.

[Jester]

Right. The potential recruiting grounds for the communist insurgency was 3 million, the number of actual MNLA supporters, funders and sympathizers would have been far larger than the 8000 or so combatants killed or captured.

Estimates for the total number of active supporters goes to around 40,000, which seem to be mostly subsistence farmers squeaking out a life on the edge of the jungle. The number of "active supporters," of the British was overwhelmingly higher, as was their "potential recruiting grounds," not to mention their actual ability to carry out that recruiting. Again, the MNLA was vastly outnumbered, and only survived at all by hiding in the jungle. Malaysia was a different situation in about a dozen ways that make the Briggs Plan an unusable model for Iraq. Or anywhere else in the middle east.

Hey, I'm just looking for a solution other than, "Sorry, you failed, run away and hope they don't follow you home Yankee".

And I'm telling you this one won't work. Call the President if you find something that will. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that particular problem to be solved.

It wouldn't work to move them out of the country. I would look to expand some existing small communities, and improve them greatly over time. The important point is to depopulate the places of innocents where insurgency exists, and move the populations to better, safer places.

...

I would think the prospect of going to somewhere pleasant and peaceful for a while, rather than a squalid stinking slum to be attractive for some people.

If the US had a proven record of making anything more than their own camps "pleasant and peaceful" in the face of the insurgency, this would make more sense. But the US is far too resented, and nowhere near in control enough, for this to work. I don't think there are enough Iraqis left who support the US enough to go along with such a scheme to populate more than a handful of towns. Every batch of "innocent victims" would contain enough sleepers to make the plan unworkable. Your villages would go up in smoke almost the moment they were built, just like everything else the US has tried to build in Iraq. People would fear relocating to such an obvious target, and the most violent insurgents would, of course, make blowing up such places primary objectives.

Even if some version of this plan worked, by some miracle, it would still be frighteningly expensive, require massively increasing your troop deployment, and take years to complete. The will to even continue the war has evaporated in the US, let alone to ramp it up substantially.

-Jester

[wundergore]

People should not go to jail for speaking their minds openly but if you say that e.g. Morocans are all thiefs, and muslims all terrorists or if you say that the white men is superior, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech....that is hate spreading.
I don't know if in teh US this is the fact but in Holland denying the holocaust is punishable. Although I love freedom of speech, I think it is good not to let people spreading hatred.

I just know I'm going to regret this but.....

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You can't really stifle someone because you don't like what they have to say. Yes, there are certain limits, but those have to do with inciting people to violence or causing a clear danger (the famous litmus test of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Preaching something that could be considered hateful is protected speech. The KKK does it all the time. Louis Farakhan (sp?) and the more militant members of the Nation of Islam also do it.

And it's spelled "the", by the way. God that annoys me.......

[Jester]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. You can't really stifle someone because you don't like what they have to say. Yes, there are certain limits, but those have to do with inciting people to violence or causing a clear danger (the famous litmus test of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater). Preaching something that could be considered hateful is protected speech. The KKK does it all the time. Louis Farakhan (sp?) and the more militant members of the Nation of Islam also do it.

The Constitution of the United States doesn't apply outside its borders. That definition of what is and is not covered by free speech is not necessarily universal.

The countries of Europe, as eppie points out, particularily those that participated (willingly or not) in the holocaust often have strong anti-hate speech laws. In those countries, hate speech is considered an incitement to violence. The kind of racist screeds the KKK (and Louis Farrakhan, for that matter) is famous for would get you thrown in jail.

Whether this is a good thing or not is an open question. It certainly has upsides and downsides. I myself fall in favour of a very broad definition of free speech. But the Americans do not own the philosophical concept of free speech. Every country gets to define for itself where to draw the line.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Even if some version of this plan worked, by some miracle, it would still be frighteningly expensive, require massively increasing your troop deployment, and take years to complete. The will to even continue the war has evaporated in the US, let alone to ramp it up substantially.

When I am king, you will not be my morale officer.

[kandrathe]

Yes, but not more than I'm opposed to a Christian fundamentalist theocracy in Holland.....problem is that I expect that part of my fellow countrymen are not.

I had an interesting conversation with a guy who just returned from spending a couple of years in Kabul. He was commenting on some the difference in culture, including the virtual enslavement of women, and the cultural causes of it. In an Islamic society your innocents are not safe, so as a father and husband you build high walls around your house, hire armed guards to protect them, and cloth them in garments that would not entice attack. In contrast, a society who's people are called upon for having pure hearts and minds can allow their innocents to mix in society unmolested, even when in provocative clothing. The point is that if you merely look at the results of Islam in a society versus the results of Christianity in a society you would change your mind. There are theological reasons why this is so. BTW, I also would not desire any theocracies, but given a choice I would rather a society who model the behavior of Jesus, rather than those who model the behavior of Mohammad.

[Thecla]

When I am king, you will not be my morale officer.

Hmmm...Yes! The kandrathe/Jester ticket. I'll vote for it.:)

[eppie]

I had an interesting conversation with a guy who just returned from spending a couple of years in Kabul. He was commenting on some the difference in culture, including the virtual enslavement of women, and the cultural causes of it. In an Islamic society your innocents are not safe, so as a father and husband you build high walls around your house, hire armed guards to protect them, and cloth them in garments that would not entice attack. In contrast, a society who's people are called upon for having pure hearts and minds can allow their innocents to mix in society unmolested, even when in provocative clothing. The point is that if you merely look at the results of Islam in a society versus the results of Christianity in a society you would change your mind. There are theological reasons why this is so. BTW, I also would not desire any theocracies, but given a choice I would rather a society who model the behavior of Jesus, rather than those who model the behavior of Mohammad.

You are mistaking religion with culture.
At this moment in time the most developed countries are the ones with Christian backgrounds. The development of this countries happened despite Christianity, not because of Christianity.

It is just a question of time. I mean as little as 150 christian americans were slaughtering native americans...and I'm sure this was done, backed up by their faiths. As little as 300 years ago the protestant dutch were transporting slaves to the america's, and I'm also sure this was entirely accepted in the church.

Our culture has been greatly improved/altered, their culture hasn't yet. Big difference now is that with globalization everybody can see what happens everywhere, and hate mongers use that.
All religions to me are equally wrong. However culture/education/development is clearly superior in western europe. Saying that a religion is superior to another makes one part of the conflict.