World Politics and Ethics!

[AlKilyu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4305927.stm

Huge celebrations have erupted in Beirut after the Lebanese government announced its resignation following two weeks of popular protests.
Tens of thousands of people waved Lebanese flags and demanded that Syria remove its troops from the country.

Prime Minister Omar Karami announced the resignation two weeks after the murder of his predecessor Rafik Hariri.

The US hailed it as an "opportunity" for Lebanon, calling for fair elections free of Syrian influence.

Delight

Mr Karami said in his announcement: "I am keen the government will not be a hurdle in front of those who want the good for this country.

"I declare the resignation of the government that I had the honour to head. May God preserve Lebanon."

His announcement came as an opposition-sponsored motion of no-confidence in the government was being debated in parliament.

The statement prompted delight from at least 25,000 protesters estimated to have gathered in Beirut's Martyrs Square despite a ban on demonstrations.





"Karami has fallen, your turn will come, Lahoud, and yours, Bashar," the demonstrators chanted, referring to Lebanese President Emile Lahoud and his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.

Mr Lahoud accepted the resignation of the government and asked it to continue in a caretaker capacity, a statement said.

The immediate reaction from Syria, which backs the Lebanese government, was non-committal, saying only that it was "an internal affair" for Lebanon.

However, a BBC correspondent in Damascus says the Syrian authorities must be worried the situation in Lebanon is spiralling out of their control and might result in a new government demanding the immediate withdrawal of Syria's estimated 15,000 troops in the country.

Government accused

Both Mr Karami's government and the Syrian government have been accused of involvement in the 14 February assassination of Mr Hariri - charges they deny.

Earlier, Mr Karami - who took office after Mr Hariri resigned last year - said those who accused his government of involvement in the killing "committed a grave injustice".

Before the parliamentary debate opened, MPs observed a minute's silence in memory of Mr Hariri.

A former minister said the government bore partial responsibility for the killing.

"I accuse this government of incitement, negligence and shortcomings at the least, and of covering up its planning at the most... if not executing," the attack, former minister Marwan Hamadeh said.

Protesters watched events from giant TV screens in the square. Many had spent the night there, wrapped in blankets or under tents, before the ban came into force at 0500 (0300 GMT).

Despite army checkpoints, people managed to get to the square and there were no serious clashes.

Many schools and businesses remained shut across the country, following a call by the opposition for a general strike.

Earlier, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, on a visit to Lebanon, called on Syria to withdraw its troops in compliance with UN resolution 1559, passed in September.

Syria says not even the Lebanese want a full Syrian withdrawal, but last week it said it would draw troops back from western Lebanon to areas nearer the Syrian border.

[Binkie]

Fucking great time for the middle east. Lebanon's slowly slipping from Syria's control. Palestine is moving towards a democracy and peace accord with Isreal (which hit a bit of a speed bump lately). Egypt is adopting free election reform. Saudi Arabia is progressing towards women's rights (including suffrage). It's like watching the Soviet Union's collapse all over again.

Gotta wonder just how much of this would be taking place if it weren't for the Iraqi people embracing democracy? Even most Sunnis are now saying they're regretful they didn't take part in the elections, and that they want a role in the new government.

[edible_eye]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Fucking great time for the middle east.

that just about summed it up. a big ol' coming-out party compliments of America.

pity, with all the money and ability to brainwash its populace via religion throughout that land, that it took Americans breaking their backs to make it happen. can we bring our boys and girls home now? can we get our deficit back under control now by keeping our own money in our own land? have we taught them that a shower is something you do with actual water and not just standing beneath the piss stream of a camel?

brings to mind a beautiful sentiment from my youth - fuck the world.

[Loy]

Binkie-Considering that Iran was well on its way of getting rid of the religious heads of it's government (they had already weakened those heads' power during the 90's quite a bit), I would have answered your "how soon would the Middle East have embraced democracy if it weren't for Iraqis embracing it" (which, of course, would loead to the question "how soon would Middle Easterners have embraced democracy without American intervention") by saying "oh, within about 3-4 years".....ironically enough, it was Bush's big mouth that made a number of Iranians stick behind their religious heads, since it was fairly clear that it was the religious heads that made Bush collect Iran as the "Axis Of Evil" (which, despite all the jabbering to the opposite, is a not-so-well veiled threat).

But we're not talking about the spreading of democracy (i.e. allowing a country the right to self-governing) as much as we're talking about the spread of "democracy" (i.e. the spreading of the American hegemon), which is what we have always talked about when speaking of spreading "democracy" throughout the latter half of the last century (the rhetoric of which Bush has fully and openly embraced).

Edible-remember my little history lesson about Iran? Well, I didn't go back far enough to explain exactly HOW those religious heads came into power over there, so I appologise.

Back in the late 40's, after Iran gained its independance, they voted into power a parliament and prime minister who wanted to modernise Iran. One of the steps towards this was the nationalization of its oil fields (which at the time were controlled by British Petroleum). So after they had compensated BP and gained control of the oil fields, the American intelligence community (the fairly new CIA, with the explicit blessing of the president) worked behind the scenes to get rid of the new government....in other words, they staged a coup, and put the Shah into power.

Now, the shah was able to keep the populace under control with the finincial and military resources provided by the US and Britain, and with the Savak, which was the secret police who were trained by American and Israli intelligence officers in the ways of torture. So well trained, in fact, that they were documented as being the cruelest police force on the planet (and this was right after Stalin had kicked the bucket, so they were also being compared to Uncle Joseph).

Over time, an underground resistance hyad formed, but only the hard-right muslim clerics were vocal about their dissent, and unafraid to show their faces. So when the Ayatollah Khomeni was arrested by Savak, the people eventually rose up and kicked the Shah out of power. They set up a parliamentary government structured much like western governments, with the exception that those religious clerics who had led the revolt were to have final say over everything that was voted on.

In other words, American (and British and Israli) intervention had as much to do with the populace' hatred of the Western world as much as radical Islam had.

And don't think Iran was a unique case. During the 40's and 50s, we were intervening throughout the world in similar ways, and in some cases, having them blow up in our face.

And it's this history of American imperialism (sorry, hate to say it, but you gotta call it what it is-imperialism) that is missing from most geo-political dialogue today.

And before anybody jumps on my case about how "it's the CIA that stages these coups, not America per se", let me point out that the CIA is an official governmental body, paid for by our taxes, whose actions are (supposedly) for the interests of the US....in other words, they may be bastard children, but they're still our children, and they're trying to please us. To absolve our government of responsibility for their actions is a moraaly bankrupt stance to take, especially since we're still paying for them to exist.

[edible_eye]

loy -

please stop being so practical and politically adept.

i just want to spew frustration and anger.

thank you.

[Solumina]

can we bring our boys and girls home now?

Our boys and girls are still in Bosnia and Korea, among other places, and if that’s any indication of things to come in Iraq then sadly it looks like we wont get them back for quite some time. I have heard estimates that we may need to keep troops in Iraq somewhere between 15-30 years, but I can’t remember where that number is from so I don’t know how accurate it is.

[Binkie]

Iran was the prospect of reform? Bush caused them to change course? In April of 2000, before the "Axis of Evil" remarks were ever made, Iran had just taken steps to shut down 14 pro-democracy publications in that country in an attempt to stifle the reformist movement. This is, and has been, a long running trend in Iran.

As for the powers of the Cheif of State in Iran, they didn't weaken the powers of the clerics, they simply expanded on those of the President. Iran's government isn't one in which power is balanced. The president can make a call, but that can be overriden very easily by the Islamic conservatives who are really in charge. This is how conservative Islamic clerics keep reformists in check. "Yes, you're allowed to hint at reform, just don't do anything stupid, such as following through."

Talk of ridding the government of clerics was just that; talk. One thing that has helped keep the IRI in power for so long is the ability for the government to talk from both sides of their mouths. This was something they've learned well from the fall of the Shah. Iran simply does not want Western ideology infilrating their government. They've made that clear time and time again by repressing the hell out of any reformist movement that takes action (be it writen action or simple protests). To suggest that a theocracy run by hardline Islamic clerics was the beacon of hope for any major, progressive reform in the middle east prior to the Iraq war seems a little hard to swallow. Any clearly significant political shift to take place in that system would have to happen over decades. Their constitution and everything about their society is centered around conservative Islam.

As for us simply spreading "US Democracy" (rather than...) about the Middle East, that's fair to say only if you don't take into account that Britain's had it's grubby hands in the process of political reform that's taking hold and that Iraq's government, as well as the parliamentary reformist movement that's happening now in other neighboring countires, is nothing like the US's. Those who live in the middle east are mostly welcoming the reform (even al-Jezeera's saying it is "much needed"), but all we're really doing is pushing these nations forward down the path of reform rather than completely holding hands with them and leading them down the course. Have we put the pressure on? Yes. Is the US government dicating the reform? No.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Solumina

sadly it looks like we wont get them back for quite some time. I have heard estimates that we may need to keep troops in Iraq somewhere between 15-30 years, but I can’t remember where that number is from so I don’t know how accurate it is.

Well, we've been in South Korea since the 50s. I'm sure what we'll end up doing in Iraq is setting up a permanent air force base, as we're currently in the midst of a global military realignment that centers on the middle east. It's why we've moved bases from Germany to Kazakhstan recently. Our military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is not likely to wither away in coming years. We'll most likely remain, but not as an occupying force and by no means in the same numbers.

[AlKilyu]

Thanks Binkie...I was thinking that on the way home, but forgot once I got there. I'm talking about Iran squashing any chance o democratic elections there.

I am insulted at the Imperialism comment; the things we rebuild, the money we donate (especially private citizens) and many other reasons that the tylenol pm is fogging up completely smash that argument.

And military bases are what we set up after defeating an enemy, Solumbia, to help ensure that we don't go through that with them again. After WWII, after defeating Japan, we rebuilt their country. Same goes for (half) of Germany, so on and so forth. Saying that we will be in the middle east for years to come doesn't mean we will have the force we have there now, it means we will more than likely have a base set up there. When one joins the military, they know that there is a chance they will be stationed abroad.

[Loy]

Binkie-whilst the power of the president vis-a-vis the clerics was being expanded (as was the power of the parliament), you're skipping over the fact that the parliament and the president/prime minister/whatever are ELECTED by the people, whilst the clerics are not....in other words, the electable part of the government was gaining more power.

See, this transfer of power had been going on since the death of the Ayatolah Khomeni, and it was going quite well until Bush's "axis of evil" remark (which quiute easilly translates to "fuck you, you fucking little shits. Iran is a fly, and America is an elephant. Don't piss us off unless you wanna get squashed") got the people to rally round the clerics, since "axis of evil" was an about-face from Clinton's more hands-off approach (which wasn't so much hands off as much as it was "we'll become friendlier with you guys if we start seeing reforms).

And whilst you'll probably shill for the "talk of getting rid of clerics was just talk" party line, I'd like to point out, for example, that the parliament, from '99-02 had overturned 14 death sentences imposed by the clerics, and that overturning clerical edicts is something that the parliament is NOT supposed to be able to do (since the religious clerics are there to "keep the government in line"). So why didn't the clerics fight it? Well, it's simple-they knew that the parliament had more backing than them, and didn't wanna fuck up what little power they had. It coukld easilly be surmised that had Bush not have been the psychopathic dumbshit that he's proven himself to be, then the power of the clerics would have become nil within a few years.

And what's this about Iranians not wanting Western ideology "infiltrating" their country? I'd buy that a bit more if the Iranian government had been a bit more uncooperative in helping bring Abbas Kiarostami and the films of Moshen Maklmalbaf over here, even though both have been condemned as "anti-islamic" by the Clerics (kind of ironic, considering that Makmalbaf is a fairly strict Muslim, but who says that those clerics don't have a sense of humor?). I'd also buy your anti-Iranian line a bit more if I had never met anybody from Iran, who had lived through it all. Yet I have, and I'm sorry, but I take the word of somebody who, you know, has lived there over part lines.

Before I go onto your next paragraph, I'd also like to point out that, unlike what most conservatives would like to believe, Al-Jazeera is a news organization, and NOT a "terrorist propaganda machine". I know you weren't saying that per se, but your little comment about "even Al-Jazeera..." reeks of that presupposition, and that kind of fact-twisting is morally and ethically bankrupt.....sorry if I misread.

Now.....You stated that the US is "not dictating the reform".....really? Is that why the new "democracy" Iraq is "begging for us to stay"? Sorry, but I don't a president that would've taken Bush's "we'll get out if they ask us to" line seriously and have told the US to get out would've lasted. Our history with things like that isn't exactly the best, and more times than not, we've destabilised popularly-elected governments in favor of ones that are, to be blunt about, America's Bitch Boys, and destabilising THOSE govenrments the very second they step out of line. With Iraq, Bush is using softer language than, say, McInley ("we must christianise our little brown brothers") or Roosevelt ("Gunboat Diplomacy"), but no matter how one phrases it, it's nothing more than "manifest destiny" rearing it's ugly head. To try to make it into anything else is just a case of wilfull ignorance.

And as far as the whole "freedom sweeping the Middle East" thing is concerned, I'd prefer letting the locals there keep the credit for that. It's their freedom. Can the people who've been fighting for this stuff for the past, oh 25 years, get the credit for the work they did instead of us trying to hog all the credit? Can we be honerable about that at least?

Al-sorry if the imperialism comment offends, but it is what it is (sorry, but "all that work we're doing there" is just another aspect of our establishing an American Hegemon), and to speak about it in other terms is a case of avoidance via double-speak. Facts are facts, and if we're gonna have an honest dialogue about this, then we have to call things what they are.

[Binkie]

The president was gaining more of a broad role, not more power. The clerics have the final say on most/everything that goes on in Iran. The president does not have the power to override that (hence why he has to threaten to resign everytime the possibility that a bill being blocked comes up), and until he can, he won't really have more power at all. The recent parilimentary elections that were supposed to happen in Febuary of 2004 are a fine example of this. The president canceled the elections altogether because the clerics would not allow reformists candidates on the ballots. Doesn't matter to the clerics, because eitherway, no reformists would enter into parliment.

Bush's "fuck you" may have pissed them off, but recognized that nation as being significant (in one arena or another) whereas Clinton's "you're not significant enough to care about... nor recognize" policy did absolutely nothing to influence Iran. That nation's youth (30 and under) make up 60% of the population in that country, and most of them are fed up with the regime. They have been for a long time now. Thats why you see changes occuring. Not because Clinton totally wrote them off.

Did Bush piss them off with his State of the Union Address? Undoubtedly. I'm not arguing that, but it didn't significantly change the cleric's approach to stifling the pro-democracy and reformist movements. If you want to timeline when things got worse, opposition movements were being seriously stifled again back in 2000.

The Iranian parliment was the reason those rulings were overturned? All the parliment can do to influence the courts is pass bills (which can be overturned very quickly by hardliners). If they get involved at all, it's voicing distain for a Court's ruling, and that usually doesn't happy unless there's emense pressure from the public (i.e. mass student demonstrations). Most of those overturned cases resulted the way they did because many of the rulings violated international convensions and accords that Iran was a state party to. One of the overturned sentances had to do with a 13 year old boy being sentenced to death, which was overturned because Iran is a state member of a convention that states that no one under 18 shall be sentenced to death in that country. Lower courts made mistakes and they were overturned. This wasn't some emense political power struggle between parliment and the clerics. It was simple violation of conventions at which Iran was a state member of.

I said the Iranians don't want Western Ideology infilrating their government. I already know it's infilrated the culture.

My comment on al-Jezeera goes back to your view on Fox News. Both are reasonable news organizations (I actually get my news from both), but both become considerably biased when you get into the commentary pieces these news networks air and write. Fox's editorialized segments and pieces are obviously pro-American, al-Jezeera's commentary is more widely viewed as anti-American/Isreali. That's why I compared them, because both commentaries agree one the same thing "The reform that's occuring in the Middle East is much needed."

As for us imperialistically dicating their democracy, we've laid parameters. What happens after that is actually up to the Iraqi elected officials. We said there needed to be so many women in parliment to promote women's equality in that government. Guess what the few elected Shi'a women immediately agreed on? That it was alright for men to beat women for violating certain islamic law, just so long as he didn't leave a bruise. Sounds like something the U.S. dicated. Actually, many, if not all, US officals were disappointed with that notion, as well as the fact that out of the two front runners from Prime Minister, the former Pentagon-backed candidate did not get the job.

Wanting U.S. forces to stay shouldn't come as a shock to anyone, as some sort of foreign troops are needed there to assure the rest of the country's stablization occurs while they build up the rest of their mobile forces. If the US is kicked out, who's going to supply a large group of armed forces like we had? Better yet, find a nation willing to spend as much as we had to training Iraqi troops and rebuilding that country's infrastructure and ecnomy.

You can give credit to the Egyptians all you want for the "free" elections that are going to be held there. You can completely ignore the fact that if it weren't for intensified US pressure (cutting off aid if political reform didn't occur), this probably wouldn't be happening. Is anyone saying the US should hog all the credit on that, either? No. But to completely write of the US and say they had absolutely no role in any of this is equally as ignorant.

[Loy]

Binkie-(and appologies for not responding earlier......fyi, I'm having computer problems which culminated in me playing hockey with dead parts, so now I'm reliant on outside 'puters)

On your comment on a broader role vs. broader power (and this can also tie in to your question regarding how their parliament can overturn detah sentences), back in 1997, former Minister of Culture Mohammad Khatami became Prime Minister of Iran by a wide margin (about 75% in favor, by conservative counts). Now what was so appealing about Khatami? He was what we here would call a reformist. What were some of the reforms he called for? 1-Expanding the power of the elected part of the government, 2-Lessening the power of the clerical theocrats, 3-and expansion of spending on education and infrastructure (whilst lessening the spending on the military), and 4-Re-opening and healing diplomatic ties with the West. Now, the clerics didn't exactly care for said reforms (and paid off goons to attack pro-reform demonstraters and college students on the eve of the 2000 election), but they also knew that the margin that Khatami had won meant that he had more of a backing from the populace than they did. So said reforms started happening....hence, more power to the parliament (enough to overturn death sentences imposed by the theocrats), and an exansion of the Prime Ministers POWER.

And Bush's "fuck you" meant that they were signifigant enough to pay attention to? By that logic, whenever I beat my children to the point of unconsciousness, what I'm really saying is "see how much I love you"? Sorry, don't buy it. What Bush's little "fuck you" plays more like is "well, I gotta justify the extra spending we've gotten for this 'terroism' scrare.....Hey, we had problems with Iran before! I'm sure we can use them to scare Americans into not questioning all the extra spending!"

And as far as your little "they're sick of this regime".....true, but reforms started happening in 1997, which, in case you've forgotten, were when Clinton was president. Why didn't we "see those changes" over here? Simple-mass-media blackout. Mass media will do self-blackouts on stories that, though might be factually true, go against what's deemed mass-consensus (which is one reason I dropped out of studying journalism). And what was the mass-consensus view of Iran at the time? "Fucking psychotic anti-western Islamic fundamentalists". Any story that pointed towards the opposite view would've been attacked with a vengeance (and if you're having doubts as to this, look at the Gary Webb case).

About Al-Jazeera....something to make you laugh.....the head of the news department at Al-Jazeera was actually in line to work for Fox...and almost got it until the Iraq thing, when his cameras went where western cameras didn't, and thus, was accused of "undermining the morale of the world". Doesn't really say anything about your comment (which I more or less agree with, though I question as to exactly how anti-western Al-Jazeera is....I'd say "not at all", and also add "they just have a different point-of-observation than westerners do, which is why they seem anti-western", and also add "just because they question the regime in charge of America at this time does NOT make them anti-western, which is where these charges are coming from in the first place"), but an interesting aside.

As far as our influence there....again, read up on your history (from 1835-present day). American intervention in the affairs of other countries, though pushed onto the public as "spreading democracy", has never really done what we've said. In fact, it's always been about "protecting our interest", and as long as our interests haven't been fucked with, then the power within a specific country can do whatever the hell they want.

As far as your "who'd do it if we didn't" argument....let's see, France, Germany, Brazil, the UK....oh yeah, WE didn't allow them to help us out in the first place. Sorry, but your argument is based on incomplete information.

As for your comment on the US cutting off support.....I'll give you that the lessening of financial support might have had an influence, but (as far as Egypt is concerned), the influence is so miniscule that they don't even aknowledge it. It's our news organisations that's trying to make the tenuous connection between Bush and the "sudden outburst of pro-democracy movements in the Middle East" (which have actually been in existence for a while....in some cases, over 25 years, but for the most part, they've either been ignored or suppressed by the US....such as with the pro-democracy groups in Saudi Arabia, who were hounded and beheaded by US trained armed guards....US trained? Yes, trained in our wonderful "school of americas"). Agtain, the information is not complete, or in some cases, correct.

[Binkie]

Loy - Parliment does not overturn clerics on court cases. That's the courts. Parliment's only influence on the judicial branch is passing bills and stating discontent. Those bills can be blocked easily, which is why Khatami has in the past, threatened to resign if that happens to key pieces of legislature. That's not his broadened powers, that's a threat of resigning and possibly causing mass protest and instability in the government.

By Bush's acknowledgement, there is now indirect communication flowing back and forth between Iran and the US. Clinton simply wrote them off and did nothing. I'm not sure how verbal bashing equates to physical abuse in an analogy, because one is a form of communication (be it abusive) and one is outright violence that doesn't warrant any return communication.

As for reforms, however small (and they were certainlly small), they were set back in 2000 when the government began to adopt hardcore censorship (shutting down any pro-democracy/reformist newspapers) and put a strangle-hold back on the reformist movement by stifling opposition and removing reformist candidates from the ballots. Where was Khatami's power to prevent that?

al-Jazeera is heavily anti-Israeli in their commentary pieces and pursues news articles that stigmatise the peace efforts going on right now. I see you didn't really touch that, so I assume you agree (with the commentary remarks at least). It's the same mentality that plauges all other Islamic groups that take a hostile stance against America for helping aid Israel. It's not just the Bush Administration they don't like, it's the government. It's why they have clerics and guest speakers on there all the time denoucing US efforts to do anything in the Middle East. Some go as far as to incite violence against Americans on their programing.

I already cited the UK as helping to push for reform in response to your original comment that the US was trying to soley "impose" itself onto the Arab governments. I've already noted that participation is on a wider scale. However, these nations were riding shotgun in the efforts to press for Arab reform.

You honestly think all of this reform would be taking place without US intervention right now (key words being "right now")? That Saudi Arabia would be holding municiple elections, much less giving serious thought to allowing women to vote and run for office right now? Reforms may have been happening (again, on a very small scale), but as with Egypt and Jordan, there was no one in the government who was putting their foot down hard on the accelerator to ensure this was happening. You don't happen to find it ironic that all of these major reforms are taking place at the same time with the Bush Administration pressing hard for them in diplomatic talks?

[TeapotScar]

This is disgusting, even for Putin:

ACPC Condemns Killing of Aslan Maskhadov
Washington, DC: March 8, 2005, 5:00 p.m. EDT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

-

The American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC) condemns in the strongest terms the killing of Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov.

-

According to statements by the Russian Defense Ministry, Aslan Maskhadov was killed on March 8 by Russian military personnel after they had surrounded a bunker containing Maskhadov and his close associates in the village of Tolstoy-Yurt, located 21 miles north of Grozny. Russian state TV has broadcast images of a body believed to be Aslan Maskhadov, which awaits independent verification.

Among the Maskhadov government’s Western emissaries, no statements have been released that indicate confirmation of Maskhadov’s death. According to interviews with Maskhadov’s special envoy to Europe, Akhmed Zakayev, no verification has been received, although Zakayev believes the reports to be true.

From 1997-1999, Maskhadov served as Chechnya’s only democratically elected President. Throughout the past six years of Russia’s second war in Chechnya, Maskhadov led a resistance movement opposed to the Kremlin and has repeatedly called for peace talks on ending the war. Most recently, Maskhadov declared a three week cease-fire in February that was largely observed by resistance forces.

The Kremlin has continually refused to negotiate a settlement to the second Chechen war. With Maskhadov’s death, President Putin has now eliminated a major interlocutor for peace. ACPC Co-Chairman, Zbigniew Brzezinski, stated, “The killing of Maskhadov is Putin’s answer to proposals for a peaceful end to the conflict. It has left Chechnya bereft of moderate leaders.” Brzezinski added, “The deliberate policy of killing moderates is a self-defeating policy.”

Maskhadov’s death, while a symbolic defeat for the Chechen resistance, is not likely to change the current situation on the ground. ACPC Executive Director, Glen Howard, noted, “After Maskhadov, the only opposition force to Russian policy in Chechnya is the Russian Soldiers’ Mothers Committee.” On February 24-25, representatives of the Union of Committee’s of Soldiers’ Mothers met in London with Akhmed Zakayev for a successful round of peace talks. “Russia has unequivocally demonstrated its rejection of a peaceful solution in Chechnya by eliminating one of its few, and maybe last, viable partners for peace,” said Howard.

Zbigniew Brzezinski concluded, “The Chechens now have a symbol of resistance that will further fortify their determination to be free.”

Founded in 1999, the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC) is a bipartisan coalition of distinguished Americans dedicated to promoting a peaceful end to the war in Chechnya.



Granted, things weren't really moving along towards peace, but the answer is definitely *not* "Kill the only person that the seperatists truly identify with and respect." Especially when, recently, he promised to help with a ceasefire. The ceasefire was unsuccessful, but I'd put the blame on the Russians just as much as on the seperatists.

I'm just in *awe* of this conflict. I would have posted yesterday, but I was waiting for something else to happen... or maybe for myself to calm down. Nothing really happened, the Chechens have more of a connection to their cause than ever... and Russia just looks evil. Fabulous.

[Binkie]

Welp, Maskhadov couldn't keep his country under control durring his presidency before the second war, why would control be handed back to him afterwards?

Russians don't take Chechen prisoners ("We shouldn't even take them prisoner. Capture some for investigative purposes, as for the rest — 'while trying to escape.'"). So if you oppose the Russian Federation and coordinate attacks against them, you'd better be prepared to go all the way. Maskhadov's death, via an FSB Osnaz unit, is comparable in a sense to Saddam Hussein's capture. Both were ousted from control by another nation and both went into hiding, coordinating threats and attacks. Hussein was a hellofalot more ruthless and vile than Maskhadov, but both were incompetent leaders who were so bold as to issue threats of violence against the forces that ousted them.

Maskhadov liked to tell Putin that unconditional peace terms were within range, but never obeyed the calls for rebels to disarm before peace talks could take place. When cease-fire talks happened, they were interrupted after a while by continued violence unto the point where Putin has become fed up with it. Maskhadov and Basayev, the mastermind behind the Belsan school crisis, worked together durring the second Chechen war to fight Russian forces, and apparently the FSB has evidence of Maskhadov's role in the 2002 Moscow Theater seige that killed hundreds. That seems a bit contradictory to Maskhadov's claims that Basayev was a radical he had nothing to do with in 1999 when Russia was finally fed up with the shit that guy was pulling without the Chechen government coming down on him.

So as much as the Western Media (sympathetic to the Chechen wars) wants to paint the man as a symbol of peace and strong Chechen leadership, history shows he really wasn't.

[TeapotScar]

But Maskhadov didn't have complete control over the rebels, and whether or not he *really* wanted to negotiate peace doesn't really matter, because it's the people that are doing the attacks. And Maskhadov wasn't the one doing the latest huge attack (school seige), that was Basayev. So if it isn't one- it's the other. It only agitates the Chechens to kill a figure who stands for their freedom, and who is at least talking about a way to find peace.

[Binkie]

Exactly.

Putin giving medals to all of the Osnaz soldiers involved in the raid is just a little over the top. Russia's #2 most wanted man was killed. Wonderful. Don't need to parade around in the streets and throw medals all over the place over it. Especially when it makes the man into a martyr and will do nothing for suppressing the rebel movement, as all out war was where Maskhadov had control. Terrorist attacks and rebel bands are Basayev's deal.

[TeapotScar]

Yeah, I was livid when I heard about the medals- that was ridiculous.

Also, I don't think that he should be defined as public enemy #2. He was to the Chechen people what Arafat was to the Palestinians- a leader. He didn't always stand for good, but if he had been killed by Sharon... it would have been insanity.

My point is that killing Maskhadov is only going to add fuel to the fire- other people will just take the torch and hold it higher, because now they have *this* to be mad at Russia for, on top of ****, murder, robbery, occupation, and religious persecution.

[Loy]

Binkie-(and again, appologies for the tardiness),

1.You keep bringing up court imposed death sentances, which (according to Iranian law) is always up for review. However, I'm talking about death sentances imposed by the theocrats (or, in laymens terms, the clerics), which, according to Iranian law, was neevr to be reviewd or overturned except by the clerics....that is, until after 1997. Maybe I should have been a bit clearer on this point, and I appologise for not being so.

2.You're wondering where my analogy of the abused child comes from? Simple-I'm taking your "abusive commjunication is better than no communication" stance to it's logical end. You stated that Bush saying "you're a bunch of little pissants, and we'll stomp you if you annoy us too much" is liken to (as you've agnowledged) abusive language. Now, is abusive communication better than no communication? Yeah, that's up for debate. However, you're misconstruing my point about Clinton approach, as I said it was more hands off, and more "we'll become friendlier if we start seeing reforms". This approach is a direct 180 from the Bush Sr/Reagan approach of "we're gonna fuck with you guys any way we can".....now, which is going to bring about better results? Acourse of action bent on excaberating and sustaining tensions, or one of detente, where tensions can relax a bit while both sides work on themselves a bit?

3.As far as the reforms.....you stated that they were stopped by the hired thugs that "stiffled opposition". However, all the clampdown by the clerics did was re-consolidate Khatami's popularity, and the clampdown was lifted, with this many of the reforms that were happening stopped-zero. where was Khatami's power in that? Well, I think it had been demonstrated that he was extremely popular amongst the Iranian populace....power by the people, if you will. And I love how you stated that the reforms were "small".....one thing Khatami (and most of the Iranians) have learned is that shit like this (you know.....changing the social structure) takes time, and if you jump into it too quickly (say, for example, lining up all the clerics on the shooting range), you have more chances of fucking up any positive change that's already taking place. Might not be dramatic enough for you, but fuck it-change is change, and for you to denigrate the path these guys were taking because it lacks dramatic flair is...well, I'm sorry, but it's just plain silly.

4.Al-Jazeera commentary is just like American commentary-a person speaking with a bullhorn. Granted, I tend to read a lot of commentaries in most of the papers I read (they tend to set up the "background dialogue" for the articles within), I take most of them with a grain.....nay, a pound and a half, of salt. As far as you pointing out that the majority of commentaries are "anti-Israli" (which, after checking out a few of them, aren't so much "Anti-Israli" as much as they're "Anti-Fucking-With-Everybody-Else-Israel"), I have two points to make (since I had made the third point)- 1-look at where they're at? These guys are more directly in line for Israel's antagonism (not to discount they're fucking with Israel. However, they're fucking with Israel doesn't get the same backing from the US government as Israels fucking with them), and 2-um, most commentaries from, oh, around the world, happen to fairly "anti-Israli" (again, actually anti-Israel-fucking-with-their-neighbors). (And before you (or anybody else) uses this as a lame example for that whole "liberal media bias" myth, I'd like to point out that quite a number of Jews have actually taken the "anti-IFWTN" stance as well).

4-The only difference between now and before (as far as the reform movement is concerned) is that we're now paying attention to it....and Bush is trying to bigfoot himself in. As I've said, most of the people involved with the actual reform movements over there have never really considered the US intervention as anything but a minor blip in the overall picture there. But this goes into the whole "mass-consensus viewpoint" thing, and that's a conversation that's bound to get fairly long and brutal, so I'm going to leave it for now (since a whole conversation about it is unneccesary for the subject at hand) except to point towards my last post in regards to "mass consensus viewpoint".

[AlKilyu]

Last Updated: Thursday, 24 February, 2005, 17:03 GMT



Iran girl gets 100 lashes for sex

A teenage girl and two young men in Iran have been sentenced to lashes for having sex.

The court dismissed the girl's claim that she was *****. It said she had sex of her own free will, the official Iran Daily newspaper reported.

The girl was sentenced to 100 lashes because her accusations of **** and kidnap could have landed her partners a death penalty, the Tehran judge said.

Sex outside marriage is illegal in Iran and capital punishment can be imposed.

The young men in the case were sentenced to 30 and 40 lashes each.

Rights violations

The Iran paper quotes the girl, who has not been named, as confessing: "I trusted one of these young men, whom I got to know by phone, and went to his place.

"But because he betrayed me, I filed the case against him and his friend out of revenge."

International concerns continue to be raised about women's rights in Iran.

In December the UN General Assembly voted to censure Iran for human rights violations, including discrimination against women and girls.

Tehran rejected the criticism as propaganda.

Under Iranian law, girls over the age of nine and boys over 16 face the death penalty for crimes such as **** and murder, while capital punishment can be imposed in certain cases of illegal sexual relationships.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4295111.stm

[Binkie]

Loy,
first off... if you apologize one more time for having a life outside the net, I'm going to track you down and pistol whip you.

Onto the arguements:

1.) You'll have to clarify further. The "Theocrats" are also found in the positions as judges in the judiciary branch. I've also never heard of certain clerics issuing a death pentalty that wasn't court issued but treated like a piece of legislature where parliment could overturn it. I've heard of them threatening tried citizens that if they were let off of the death sentencing ruling through the courts, they'd kill them themselves, but that's always something that's been treated more informally as "street justice." Could you reference an example for me to look into?

2.) Right, I know what you were tying it back in to, but I don't undestand how you equte physically beatting someone black and blue to simplying saying, "You're Satan" to someone. Unless you're going to stretch the definition of "communication" to it's limits in include physical actions.

3.) You're starting to argue my argument here: that the reforms were going to take time in order to happen big. That if you wanted to point out a nation in the middle east as being the beacon of hope for big reform happening right now without the success of the Iraqi elections and stepped-up US pressure, Iran isn't the one to go with.

4.) As long as you recognize the nature of their commentary, I don't really feel the need to linger on al-Jezeera.

5.) You confused the bejesus out of me cause your last two points were both labeled as "4." :P

The people over there who head up the reformist movements can say whatever they wish. When the US drops a "show us major reform tomorrow or we'll cut off funding" bombshell in their lap and suddenly the next week the President comes out and says that opposition will be allowed in Egypt's elections, it suggests that the US had a bit of a hand in that* happening.

(that = the decision made)

[Loy]

Binkie-before anything else.....pistol-whipping? C'mon, girl! I used to live in LA! Pistol-whippings are nothing! "Phone-Book" however....now THAT'S a different story.

OK.....

1.By "Theocrats", I meant the clerics at the top of the governmental chain. One case (out of many) that has a special place in my heart is of Tamhineh Milani, who was accused of blasphemy and given a death sentence by the clerics in charge. Why? She made a number of films that questioned the theocratical rule of Iran, and one film ("The Hidden Half") was the last straw for them. President Khatami blew the whistle and got Facets ( a film distribution company from Chicago) to pass a petition around decrying the death sentence. (Here's where the soft spot in my heart comes from.....my name is on that petition. I was one of the first non-hollywood types they passed it to. The other reason for the soft spot is this-I love "The Hidden Half"). So Khatami showed the clerics in charge that not only were the Iranian population getting fairly tired of their pronouncements, but he was willing to let the rest of the world in on it as well. The clerics (just like most governments, if you think about it) rely on two things to keep going-blind obediance and obscurity. As I said, this wasn't the first time, or the only time, Khatami was able to overturn a death sentence, but it's one I have a tenuous connection with.

2.Abuse is abuse, simple as that. And something the Bush regime is surely familiar with is how much abuse Iran has received over the past century, and for Bush to make that "Axis Of Evil" remark is liken to telling a street kid who's been beaten and fucked by his dad all of his 13 years that "you're shit, and I can kill you at any moment". Sorry, but it doesn't do well for working towards a better future for all involved.

3.Actually, your argument was that there's a "sweep of freedom" hapenning in the Middle East (and hinting that it wouldn't have happened without our intervention). I was pointing out that this "sweep" is something that's been building up for a long time, and that Iran was well on its way to these reforms, and that Bush fucked it up with his speech. I also have a feeling that, because Iran was doing all this without any outside intervention (or a way for the US to take any credit for it), you are trying to minimise its importance to the region as a whole.

4.Agreed about Al-Jazeera

5.(appologies for my screwy numerics) As far as the "we'll cut off funding" remark...well, we've threatened to cut off funding to various Middle Eastern countries for as long and as often as the Rolling Stones anounce that they're breaking up...and those threats are taken about as seriously as the Stones breaking up announcements are. Again, you're implying something by taking in part of the facts, but ignoring/minimising other facts that could be detrimental to your argument.

Al-While the artivle you brought up is quite interesting, the question you should ask yourself is-"why did you bring it up"? It doesn't negate anything I've said thus far (I've only said reforms were under way, and Bush fucked it all up. In fact, your article could be used to argue how far backwards Iran has gone). It doesn't show up Iran as being more savage than the rest of the Middle East (or any of the countries we're trying to hold up. Shall we speak about the treatment of women in Iraq or Kuwait or Afghanistan or Columbia? About UN censuring, let's talk about how many censures Israel's gotten...and were overturned by the US....I'm thinking of a hominie right now....something about "rocks" and "glass houses"). No, it's a bait-and-switch, and I'm sad that you have to go so low to argue, since it's actually an avoidance of my arguments. Please be more careful in the future.

[Binkie]

Loy,
Phone Books are too awkward. How about I just stab you in the kidneys with an ice pick if you ever say that again? :D

1. I know what you meant by "Theocrats." There are Clerics who head up the judicial branch. And in fact, this case went to the courts. A similiar thing happened with the Iranian professor who was arrested and sentenced to death. Massive protests were held and the President declared his discontent and after enough of an uproar had been stirred, the death sentence was revoked, only to be reinstated sometime later. Is that the real power you're saying the President has? Of petition? I thought you were going for actual power within the government. You're talking more of influence than power. And it wasn't his sole influence on either case that helped the courts change their minds on the rulings.

2. Right. But again, you're deviating on the analogy that you made earlier. You were saying that Bush telling Iran, "Go fuck yourself" is comparable in this situation, not to speaking with an abused child, but partaking in the act of physically punching him.

3. My arguement was that Bush's influence has helped some middle eastern countries reach the reforms that they're currently at. That Egypt and Saudi Arabia would most likely not have implimented their current reforms if there was no US influence asking to get the ball rolling on this or the success of the Iraqi elections to cite. You're saying that's not true and you're saying that Iran is the country we should be looking at. That if Bush were never to make those remarks, that it'd be some kind of beacon of light in the region for major reform, like is happening elsewhere in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Yet you just aggreed that major reform of any kind would take a long time to impliment. Not a matter of 3 years.

4. 7-Up.

5. I've taken into account that groups have been in Egypt trying to press for reform for a long time. What I'm also saying is, "isn't it coincidental that this happens a week after a major finacial threat that came from Bush asking for this kind of reform?"

[ice]

Uhhh...

[Binkie]

No, no, no... if someone was talking about you, ice, they would have said, "Ice... that prick." :lol:

BTW, that Shemagh rocks!