The US Democracy Initiative and Israel

Romair#38:

``And I don`t think the world would stand for that kind of a belligerant bombing......... ``

There wasn`t much enthusiasm in the world for an attack against Iraq either, even in countries of the coalition partners. The more important factor would be domestic opinion, which is all the US Presidents care about. The US withdrew from Vietnam because of domestic pressure, and they may be reluctant to go to Iran also if there is no domestic support for such action.

BeeJay#38:

Thanks for your kind words.
No, it is not a cover. Let me tell you about jews. When I came to Madison, Wisconsin, as a student, most of the students who went out of their way to reach out to me were jews, and even invited me to their homes in far-away New York. My steady date was a Jew. One of my jewish friends even visited me in India. My Major Professor was a Jew as were most other Profs. The person who hired me from India and paid for my and my wife`s airfare to come to Canada was a Jew. But for a Jew, I would not be here.

So, I have nothing but wonderful experiences with Jews. But I do make a distinction between Jews and Israel, just as I make a distinction between Hindus and India or Muslims and Islam. I think that it is a reverse stereotyping to call any criticism of Israel or Israeli lobby as anti-semitism.

Dost-mittar #35: ``But all this just means that the US may not launch a frontal attack on Iran. But it wont stop it from carrying on the kind of regular air attacks the US carried on against Iraq during the Clinton presidency.``

Yes, this could happen. The USA can easily gain air superiority, within weeks, against any country (including Pakistan and India). Then it can bomb from high altitudes, to its hearts delight. This is what the USA normally does, which is why so many thousands get killed everytime the USA invades a country. It only goes to low level strikes when there is zero threat to its pilots from the ground. Unlike India-Pak wars, where low-level strikes were carried out, despite threats, thereby greatly reducing civilian casualities.......

But high altitude bombing will not achieve any objective. It will just kill more and more people. And will strengthen the position of the anti-US govts in Iran...........

It could lauch Tomahawks from a distance also...........

However, under such a situation, Iran would obviously be justified in considering it an all out attack on its sovereignity. At which point, Iran could start attacking the shipping lines from the Strait of Hormuz, under the justification of cutting off US supplies. This would freeze the oil supplies to much of the world. And would make the price of oil go through the roof. Not to mention, greatly affect US allies like Saudi Arabia.

In addition, Iran could openly start hitting US supply lines inside Iraq..........

And I don`t think the world would stand for that kind of a belligerant bombing.........

DM-jee:

I’m sorry I got a little carried away in my interact #17. In particular, I could have made my point quite well without reference to the Khalistani crowd, beef-eating, your nick, your occupation, etc. These were uncalled for and I apologize for them! The main thrust of my arguments stands, of course.

I do not buy the cover that a lot of people use to stealthily attack the Jews – that criticizing Israel is different from criticizing the Jews – unless the criticizing party is a Jew oneself. That’s all!

I have seen too many anti-Semitic remarks from too many authors and interactors (especially from Farzana Versey, the chief culprit) go unchallenged on this web site, and I am getting sick and tired of it! When nobody challenges such asinine and destructive statements, they slowly tend to become an acceptable practice and self-sustaining. If people here had any sense at all, they would realize that what goes around comes around, especially racism – of any variety!

Various Jewish groups (especially the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai Brith) have done commendable work in fighting racism. Such work has generally benefited all kinds of minorities but immensely helped South Asians by opening doors which would have otherwise stayed closed and by encouraging religious tolerance. Farzana and her ilk have no clue!

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

dost,

Suicide bombers or no, people will complain. Those types of bombings are very recent in the history of the Palestinian struggle, which largely went unnoticed prior to them.

Naqshbandi#29:

Your reaction is based on your faith. But as long as Palestinians listen to you and wait for Allah`s promise instead of sending suicide bombers, no one should have any complaint.

Romair:
I agree with a lot of what you say. But all this just means that the US may not launch a frontal attack on Iran. But it wont stop it from carrying on the kind of regular air attacks the US carried on against Iraq during the Clinton presidency.

soysauce:
The Egyptian election will be a pointer; if Mubarak is forced to allow someone to stand against him, it would be a signal that Rice meant business.

Re: # 32

correction:

u.s. army strength: Request, 05


Army 482,400

Marine Corps 175,000

Re: # 32

``But most of all, the USA doesn’t have the soldiers to do it. The US Army is smaller than the Pakistani Army, in number of soldiers. And nearly 1/3rd the size of the Indian Army. It is out of soldiers, even in Iraq. It is occupying Iraq will National Guards. These guys are lawyers and clerks and shoponwers in the USA, who work part-time in the military. Even their tours have had to be extended. ``

You are wrong on that, u.s. army is right behind china and bigger than indian and pak forces. right now it is just overstrected due to its commitment all over the world.

Dost-Mittar #: “I wish this were so. Indications are that they will move into Iran as soon as they can extricate themselves from Iraq, which may be not for a long time.”

I don’t think the USA is going to move into Iran. If for no other reason, because it just cannot. It would be suicidal for the USA to do so, for the following reasons:

- It costs an awful lot to fight a war. The Iraq war, according to www.costofwar.com has already cost $180 billion. And another $80 billion has been approved for the next year. This is more than the annual US education budget of $50 billion. All of this is on a credit card, for the US. It will not even be able to finance the Iraq war, for too much longer. Much less go into Iran….

- There will not be any country, other than Israel, which will cooperate with the USA on Iran. In case of Iraq, while the populations of every country (other than Israel) was against the war, some of the govts did cooperate. But even Blair is not going to go along with the USA, on Iran.

- It will never pass the Security Council. China is signing mega-billion dollars energy deals with Iran. Russia is actually supplying nuclear plant parts. They will veto it

- From where will the USA launch its operations? India and Pakistan are considering gas pipelines, with Iran. And will not cooperate. Afghanistan has a Persian speaking pro-Iran govt. The new Iraqi govt is very pro-Iran. Their leaders all were in exile in Iran, during the Saddam rule. The Iraqi Shias will cut off USA’s supply lines, if it invaded Iran. The Taliban and the Northern Alliance would actually cooperate to do so, as well. It’s only option will be to attack from the North, using Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan,etc. How will the USA fly all its equipment over there? And it is very difficult to invade a country, from only one direction or flank…………

- The US population will not tolerate another adventure. Already, 60% are against the Iraq war. Despite all the hoopla created about WMDs etc. Why would they support another invasion?

- Iran will be many times more difficult to invade than Iraq. It has a battle-hardened organized military, which is supported by nationalism amongst the citizens. It has an elected govt. It is three times the size of Iraq in geography and population. Its population, unlike Iraq’s is very homogenous. Hence there are no Shia-Sunni fissures to exploit. It has, unlike Iraq, a functioning economy.

- Iran sits on the mouth of the Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz. All it would have to do would be to start bombing every ship going in and out of the Gulf. And the price of oil would go through the roof.

But most of all, the USA doesn’t have the soldiers to do it. The US Army is smaller than the Pakistani Army, in number of soldiers. And nearly 1/3rd the size of the Indian Army. It is out of soldiers, even in Iraq. It is occupying Iraq will National Guards. These guys are lawyers and clerks and shoponwers in the USA, who work part-time in the military. Even their tours have had to be extended.

The only thing that could happen is for Israel to try a surgical strike. Or for the USA to park its ships in the Sea and launch some Tomohawks at Iran. Or launch airstrikes. Many of the aircraft in the later will get shot down, since Iran has an air defence system……………

Having said all of this, many of us had predicted that the USA would be in a big mess in Iraq. Which it is in, now. But that did not stop Bush, nor his supporters (many of whom on this site, are still in a state of denial regarding the USA’s failure in Iraq). So there is no limit to stupidity. And hence an attack might get launched, anyways. But it will not be successful. The USA will be completely bogged down in Iran, and will face a nation-wide Irani insurgency, many times the size of what it is facing in Iraq…………

Re: # 30 Oops, I meant Uzebekistan and it came out as Ukraine.

Re: # 22
dostji, you`re very naive. You`re seeing an empty cup as half full. The inflexibility of the Bush adminstration position - where they talk about a sovereign government and yet go on building some 15 permanent military bases - over Iraq should tell you that this is old wine, etc. I don`t think the US could handle popularly elected governments in the middle east as they probably would be at odds with American interests - just look at American reaction to Iran. What they want is some cosmetic adjustments that justify Iraq invasion post facto since just about every excuse has fallen by the way side. Look at what happened in Ukraine. A massacre of a similar nature in Iran or Cuba would have caused the US to push for UN intervention. But what is the murder of a few hundred citizens between friends? The US played a significant role in dampening UN reaction to the Ukrainian atrocity. It`s very similar to what the US has done/is doing with friendly but despotic regimes in South and Central America.
Now coming to Israeli-Palestinian issue, the American idea for a Palestinian state looks like a client state that would under Israeli thumb. Sovereignty, Iraqi style.
Condi`s mission is to make US less hated but unless there is a fundamental change of belief on the part of this administration where other nations and peoples are respected, her PR mission will fail.

Dostmittar,

The US will NEVER abandon Israel nor change its policy towards the Palestinians to make it fairer. The Israelis have the US by the balls through the powerful Jewish lobby. The Jews (to quote Sharon) ``Control America``.

Further, all the US cares about is to protect its oil supplies and prevent the rise of a politically powerful Islamic Bloc; everything else they say about democracy in the Mid East, human rights etc. is total rubbish and lies. The aim is to humiliate the Muslims until they become like them and leave Islam. As Allah says in the Qur`an, ``they will never be pleased with you until you become like them``.

Further, the current bunch of fundo Christians led by the mini-Dajjal Bush believe that Greater Israel has to exist before the Second Coming of Christ (alayhisalam) so they are supporting Israel to hasten the arrival of Sayyidina `Isa.

Except that when Sayyidina `Isa alayhisalam does come he will break the crosses, kill all swine and abolish the jizya and do jihad against the Antichrist who will be Jew...all this is written in our eschatological literature including many hadith sharifs.

That is why no matter what Muslim leaders do to appease Israel and its Chacha, america, they will NEVER allow the Palestinians freedom and a real State with Jerusalem as its capital. Notice how they only speak of a `viable` Palestinian state...

Anyway, the whole land belongs to the Muslims and one day it will be ours again. The best thing the Palestinians can do is not suicide bombs but just have patience and wait, produce lots of babies and wait for Allah`s promise...

Dost

The point is that Akhwan never went on CIA`s payroll as your article implies, but it was those who persecuted them, became clients.

Urstruly#25:

Islamists of Muslim Brotherhood were jailed and tortured by Nasser, not by Americans or thier ally. Later on, of course, Sadaat became an ally but his attitude, or that of his successor, towards his enemies did not change.

correction to post#21

rival should have read allies, i.e., ``For example, during the first Gulf War, Israel agreed to not do anything provocative so as to not upset any of the Bush Senior`s middle east allies``.

Dost

``The Middle East, with its oil, was too important for the U.S and the West to ignore. To combat Nasser’s powerful appeal of Pan-Arabism, the West had to find an equally potent force, which they found in orthodox Islam. It was then that the U.S developed its Middle East policy with the following three pillars:

1. Stability
2. Uninterrupted oil supplies, and
3. Unstinted support for Israel

Under this policy, despots and dictators who depended more on the support of Mullahs than of civil society, were given support and military protection as long as they supported the West and opposed communists. Thus the concept of “He is a bastard but our bastard” took hold.
``

This is grossly inaccurate. From 1954 to 1970 during Nasser`s reign Islamists of Muslim Brotherhood bore the full brunt of state terrorism where they were persecuted, jailed, tortured and murdered. Saddat, a leutenant of Nasser, succeeded him after his death and continued his policies of persecution of Akhwanul Muslimoon. Instead of Akhwan, Us and West were putting all their efforts to woo Sadat instead, which they succeded. The brutal persecution continued, even after Sadat, and that is one of the core reasons that so many Egyptians allegedly took part in bringing the WTC down (twice).