Given that, how can one not conclude that Syria’s about-face and sudden spirit of cooperation is the direct result of President Bush’s policies in that region?
Maybe because he wasn’t playing ball in some way? Maybe as a tokenist response? Given your raging TBism though you are always going to assume anything that occurs in the Middle East is a result of the Bush policies, no matter how tagential.
Here we have an example of such; first its you praising the Iraqi military, and when that story went south, you are now spinning the story in a different way so as to make “Dear Leader” Bush look good.
Gary Gunnels - 05:02pm on 02/27/2005
Given your raging TBism though you are always going to assume anything that occurs in the Middle East is a result of the Bush policies, no matter how tagential.
Perhaps, but given your raging opposition to the current administration I’m guessing you’re willing to assume anything positive that occurs in the Middle East is not a result of Bush policies.
But that aside, can you say that this still would have hapened absent Bush’s influence in the region?
Rob - 06:02pm on 02/27/2005
Rob,
The individual would not likely have been at hand to turn over, no; he would have been in Baghdad one assumes.
But I think you critically confuse what happens in Iraq with what happens in the rest of the Middle East.
Gary Gunnels - 06:02pm on 02/27/2005
Rob,
BTW, given my political ideology, dislike of the socialist Bush, and his fellow Republican socialists, is the perferred option. There is absolutely no reason to support his administration in any substantive fashion.
Shit, I might as well as ally with the Green party as get behind Bush; they are cut largely from the same statist cloth after all.
Gary Gunnels - 06:02pm on 02/27/2005
Shit, I might as well as ally with the Green party as get behind Bush; they are cut largely from the same statist cloth after all.
Doesn’t mean you’re any less capable of separating your feelings about the current administration from your opinions about current events.
But I think you critically confuse what happens in Iraq with what happens in the rest of the Middle East.
The middle east has seen a significant amount of progress since the U.S. began operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you’d like to acknowledge it or not.
Rob - 02:02pm on 02/28/2005
In certain urban areas of Kabul, this is true. Out in the countryside, it is not.
One step at a time. Though I’m sure that as soon as the education centers reach the country you’ll move the goalposts again.
One has to have a sense of history in these matters. How did the Taliban come to power in the first place?
What possible evidence do we have to suggest that Afghanistan’s new government will become anything like the Taliban?
Rob - 03:02pm on 02/28/2005
The middle east has seen a significant amount of progress since the U.S. began operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you’d like to acknowledge it or not.
Progress in the wrong direction.
Let’s take Afghanistan, for instance. Virtually everyone on the right and left supported the war in Afghanistan.
Yet, what’s been accomplished? Well, we removed the Taliban from power. But what took the Taliban’s place? Warlords. The leader of Afghanistan, Karzai, is not so jokingly referred to as ‘the mayor of Kabul’ because his power extends to about the city limits.
Warlords and the Taliban rule the rest of the country.
Heroin production has skyrocketed.
JG - 03:02pm on 02/28/2005
To say that warlords now rule Afghanistan is a blatant misrepresentation.
In Afghanistan women are being taught to read for the first time. The government is in the process of setting up a court system and criminal code. Things are getting better all the time.
Sure its slow, but when you start with a society still in the stone age its going to take a while.
Rob - 03:02pm on 02/28/2005
To say that warlords now rule Afghanistan is a blatant misrepresentation
In Afghanistan women are being taught to read for the first time.
In certain urban areas of Kabul, this is true. Out in the countryside, it is not.
One has to have a sense of history in these matters. How did the Taliban come to power in the first place? Well, they didn’t seize power; they were invited to take power. That’s because Afghans were sick of warlords robbing them blind at every turn and abusing their women (this is how Mullah Omar became powerful--he rescued a pair of young girls who had been seized by warlords).
Rob,
Given that, how can one not conclude that Syria’s about-face and sudden spirit of cooperation is the direct result of President Bush’s policies in that region?
Maybe because he wasn’t playing ball in some way? Maybe as a tokenist response? Given your raging TBism though you are always going to assume anything that occurs in the Middle East is a result of the Bush policies, no matter how tagential.
Here we have an example of such; first its you praising the Iraqi military, and when that story went south, you are now spinning the story in a different way so as to make “Dear Leader” Bush look good.
Given your raging TBism though you are always going to assume anything that occurs in the Middle East is a result of the Bush policies, no matter how tagential.
Perhaps, but given your raging opposition to the current administration I’m guessing you’re willing to assume anything positive that occurs in the Middle East is not a result of Bush policies.
But that aside, can you say that this still would have hapened absent Bush’s influence in the region?
Rob,
The individual would not likely have been at hand to turn over, no; he would have been in Baghdad one assumes.
But I think you critically confuse what happens in Iraq with what happens in the rest of the Middle East.
Rob,
BTW, given my political ideology, dislike of the socialist Bush, and his fellow Republican socialists, is the perferred option. There is absolutely no reason to support his administration in any substantive fashion.
Shit, I might as well as ally with the Green party as get behind Bush; they are cut largely from the same statist cloth after all.
Shit, I might as well as ally with the Green party as get behind Bush; they are cut largely from the same statist cloth after all.
Doesn’t mean you’re any less capable of separating your feelings about the current administration from your opinions about current events.
But I think you critically confuse what happens in Iraq with what happens in the rest of the Middle East.
The middle east has seen a significant amount of progress since the U.S. began operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you’d like to acknowledge it or not.
In certain urban areas of Kabul, this is true. Out in the countryside, it is not.
One step at a time. Though I’m sure that as soon as the education centers reach the country you’ll move the goalposts again.
One has to have a sense of history in these matters. How did the Taliban come to power in the first place?
What possible evidence do we have to suggest that Afghanistan’s new government will become anything like the Taliban?
The middle east has seen a significant amount of progress since the U.S. began operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, whether you’d like to acknowledge it or not.
Progress in the wrong direction.
Let’s take Afghanistan, for instance. Virtually everyone on the right and left supported the war in Afghanistan.
Yet, what’s been accomplished? Well, we removed the Taliban from power. But what took the Taliban’s place? Warlords. The leader of Afghanistan, Karzai, is not so jokingly referred to as ‘the mayor of Kabul’ because his power extends to about the city limits.
Warlords and the Taliban rule the rest of the country.
Heroin production has skyrocketed.
To say that warlords now rule Afghanistan is a blatant misrepresentation.
In Afghanistan women are being taught to read for the first time. The government is in the process of setting up a court system and criminal code. Things are getting better all the time.
Sure its slow, but when you start with a society still in the stone age its going to take a while.
To say that warlords now rule Afghanistan is a blatant misrepresentation
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83305/kathy-gannon/afghanistan-unbound.html
In Afghanistan women are being taught to read for the first time.
In certain urban areas of Kabul, this is true. Out in the countryside, it is not.
One has to have a sense of history in these matters. How did the Taliban come to power in the first place? Well, they didn’t seize power; they were invited to take power. That’s because Afghans were sick of warlords robbing them blind at every turn and abusing their women (this is how Mullah Omar became powerful--he rescued a pair of young girls who had been seized by warlords).