I would say diplomacy as a solution to Islamic jihadism is as naive as was diplomacy with the nazis. Pakistan's current rule of law is the death penalty for blaspheming the name of the prophet, and not only is that too secular for the taliban jihadists, it is so intolerably so that they are waging a war against civilians over it. The proudly claim credit for shooting children on school buses, and proudly note their intent to finish Malala off if given the chance. What kind of diplomacy do you expect to see followed exactly?

Should Pakistan's military and police really refuse to meet the countless taliban attacks on civilian targets with no use of force? Should they really just proceed to try and talk to the criminals prosecuting these crimes every single week? I think it's a strategy doomed to horrific failure, and one that invariably leads to far more death and suffering.

History doesn't exactly bare out that ignoring dictators and extremists leads to them just giving up and playing nice. Brutality was terribly successful and effective for the Pharoahs. Same for the Caesars. Same for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il and on and on and on. There comes a point when failure to face evil with force just emboldens and strengthens it.

@bcglorf

i did not posit drones are bad.
i didnt posit anything actually,except to refrain from the conversation entirely.
(our government,not you or i).

you or i can discuss ad nauseum and would have every right to.
we can and many do actually volunteer their time to help those in need,helpless or hurt.
some very brave souls travel to these broken countries to help ease the suffering of ordinary folk.

and you already know my answer to your query.
diplomacy is the only resolution and the reason is twofold:
1.diplomatic talks almost always are started with a cease and desist of all aggression.
2.it allows a multilateral approach therefore diffusing the hypocrisy i spoke about.

many people in this country are reluctant to look at what their own government has perpetrated in their name.
maybe out of fear...or pride.
but in my opinion any real conversation has to begin with absolute truth.

so by my vicious criticism of my governments foreign policy over the past 50 years does not mean that i ignore all the great achievements,great accomplishments and great ideals.

so if i was to posit anything on this thread it would be this:
we have lost our way.
the very things that made us great have become whispers lost in a cacophony of paranoid musings by the powerful and we sold our freedom to be cocooned in the safety of consumerism.
and while the wolves howl at the door we are fed platitudes of american exceptionalism and handed flags to wave in remembrance of good-deeds from days long past.
individualism has been ratcheted up to a fever pitch of self-aggrandizing twitter feeds and selfies.
that a persons self worth is based on their ability to purchase status symbols.
where news has become opinion and everybody has a right to one.
where facebook is a place to post your own,personal cartoon all the while never really communicating with anyone.

we have become afraid little children.

and its time to grow up.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

@bcglorf

coming from the sifter who states,and i quote:
"Oh, and he thinks the Iraq "problem" was created by America in the last decade. America's role started with support for Saddam, and from there 99% of the "problem" with Iraq needs be laid at Saddams feet for the decades of brutal repression destruction of Iraqi society that he committed. All that damage had everything to do with how horrific and ugly Iraq is today."

i think maybe you should do a bit of research before you throw broad generalizations out there.
i.e: how the sift embraces something.what are we? borg?

so you choose this thread to continue your berating of people who happen to disagree with you.

so let me be clear.
all those examples in your incomplete list are proven facts.
F.A.C.T.S
there is NO concrete evidence assad's regime is responsible.
there is suspicion.
some information implicates.
but to use the 2003 bush administration jargon,there is no smoking gun that led to a mushroom cloud.

and here we are 10 years later.
6 million displaced.
over a half million dead.
a culture practically destroyed.
a population in tatters and government ineffectual.
all based on a LIE.

so those of us suggesting non-intervention or diplomacy are assholes?

look at what YOU are suggesting!
bomb bomb bomb

so let me ask YOU.
what do you think bombing syria will do?

*edit-and who the fuck is giving assad the "benefit of the doubt"? so because people are being cautious in a complicated issue all of sudden they are fans of a brutal dictator?
fucking seriously?

@bcglorf
thanks for the thoughtful response my friend.

since i wrote my comment i have come across a few more pieces of information that implicate assads regime but not assad himself.it has become apparent that chemical weapons were used but still no conclusive evidence WHO authorized the use.

so right now,in regards to who is to blame for the usage of chemical weapons is still conjecture.

my friend,syria is an awful situation.
two millions people displaced and flooding into neighboring countries.innocent people are dying.the political situation is a hornets nest of privileged power,theocracy and religious dissidents.

but you skipped over (much like the obama administration is doing currently) my questions regarding diplomacy.
why are we not searching with vigor a multi-lateral diplomatic solution?
what would a limited strike on damascus actually produce besides continued violence in which the innocent will pay in blood and only succeed in prolonging a violent civil war?
already the civil war had been prolonged due to outside interference (many countries bear that shame,including the US).

now let us consider if we DO go in to "punish" assad.which i think is likely.
what are the possible consequences?
could it be possible that russia,china and iran react?
what then?

do you see where i am going with this?
a diplomatic resolution may take more time.it may take some..you know..talking and patience,but the final outcome will benefit those innocents both you and i (and pretty much the world) AND the political stability in that region and all outlying players.

while a military resolution will create more casualties and deaths,many of them innocent civilians,and may possibly create a conflaguration of a world powers conflict.where the innocent body bags will begin to be counted in the millions.

am i being overly-dramatic?
possibly.
my point is the diplomatic resolution keeps innocent death counts low while a military resolution will only raise the death count and create more refugees.

so maybe i was not clear in my commentary because i guess i appeared that i didnt want the united states to do anything.
this is untrue.
i was just pointing to the utter hypocrisy of the political rhetoric.
and whatever moral credit america once possessed,it was spent many years ago.

so the best route to take BEFORE there is even talks of military action is diplomacy.even our staunches allies have refused to engage militarily,and yet what are we seeing?obama traveling the political circles to promote the march to further violence.

syria is no threat to the united states.
the humanitarian argument to fight violence with violence is a canard,its bullshit.
this has nothing to do with saving lives nor preventing further violence.

the international community needs to band together and put pressure to cease and desist.this is the moral path to take.
this is the path that will garner results quickly with far less bloodshed.


i fear this is not what is going to happen.
right now as i wrote this the obama administration is putting political pressure on all fronts.
i fear this is going to end badly.
i fear that this may domino and drag opposing nations to a conflict where the death toll will be catastrophic.

i hope i am wrong.

thanks for responding bc.i know we disagree politically on some issues and its always a pleasure discussing issues with you so i can see things from a different vantage point.

Bravo for advocating for actual diplomacy rather than more arms.

We need more people on the cable news shows talking like this.

All for amping-up the civil disobedience phase of a revolution before more social meltdown and a slow, ugly decline. Larry Wilkerson's perspective seems the most palatable though, unlikely. Arms embargoes, diplomacy and discussions about details of scenarios that have already been set into motion won't change the push forward into that direction I suspect.
The best form of civil and economic disobedience peeps can flex is through collective boycott/embargo/non-participation in failed or toxic systems. Stop watching television firstly and groom a thinking generation off the teat of their programming. Change the shit-think and the obvious answers appear. Welcome to planet earth it's a dangerous place, don't panic.

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

"Degrees of darkness" sounds like that meaningless phrase people say when trying to make someone feel better about a shitty situation. Prison systems period. Corrupt rackets, all.

Rodman in his surreal romp to Ill-ville does smell a bit like some diplomatic inroad concocted by handlers designed to prep BabyDic for some lessons in how to keep a nuke out of his anus should he flex according to HIS handlers retardedly brilliant strategies in diplomacy and universal humanitarianism.

I have never imagined Un to have any real power beyond that of his namesake-He's a carbon-copy of the human garbage that was his father, grandfather-The real power is in their jackboots and their thugs.

"Richard Bilton uncovers a struggle at the heart of US diplomacy between the ideals of freedom and spreading democracy, and the ruthless demands of American security and narrow self-interest."

Already this is bullshit. America doesn't care about spreading real democracy, only that governments be subservient to them whenever they can. There's decades of evidence and dozens of examples of this. We didn't need Fucking Wikileaks to know this at all.

You'll find no argument from me about whether our government has been rattling the hornets nest over there for some time. However, I don't place the blame for Muslim outrage on America, or the KGB, I place the blame on Islam. The reason they are so stirred up is because their religion teaches them to hate Jews, Christians, and anyone else who isn't a Muslim. In their eyes we are all the devil and need to be destroyed, or subjugated.

What's going on in the middle east right now, specifically in Iran, cannot be understood unless it is seen through the lens of their particular eschatology (beliefs about the end times). What the Iranians believe is that the coming of their Messiah, called the Mahdi, or the 12th Imam, is imminent. They believe what ushers in the Mahdis return is a series of great wars at the end of time. They also believe that Iran will be the spark to that flame. This is what Irans top general said recently:

"With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war

The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God"

http://glblgeopolitics.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/iran-official-big-war-means-mahdis-coming/

So what you have here, essentially, is a doomsday cult looking to acquire a nuclear weapon so that they can start a global war to usher in the coming of their Messiah. They believe that their Messiah will subjugate every nation under Islam and bring about worldwide sharia law.

So, everyone who thinks that the middle east is a problem we can straighten out with diplomacy, or instituting democratic reforms, is extremely foolish. It's the same with these sanctions; Iran is not going to break or change their mind. Their top general stated it in very clear terms; that they believe martyrdom is the only true path to God. It is reported that their leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, ascends to the sky (in the spirit) once a year to meet with the Mahdi, and that the Mahdi ordered him to continue the nuclear program because it would be what facilitates his coming.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/iran-preparing-now-for-armageddon/

If you look at Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN last week, it was all about the soon coming of the Mahdi:

http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/exclusive-ahmadinejad-gives-most-detailed-explanation-of-twelfth-imam-to-date-says-mahdi-will-soon-re
ign-over-whole-world/

This is why our policies in the Mideast fail again and again. Everything we try to do there ends up creating the exact opposite effect. Even when they themselves overthrow repressive governments, they end up electing even more repressive governments. It's not a problem we can solve. This is the way things are headed, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. Their Messiah is most likely our Antichrist and regardless of how it all comes about, the end result was predicted over 2000 years ago;

There will be a one world government, one world economy and one world religion, with the Antichrist at the head. There will be some kind of global calamity in the near future, such as an economic crisis, or perhaps a war, involving Israel, and that is when the Antichrist will enter the world stage. He will come preaching peace and safety, and will head off the calamity by establishing a 7 year peace treaty between Israel and the rest of the world. At around the 3.5 year mark the Antichrist will take off his mask and declare himself to be God, and cause the entire world to worship him. Anyone who doesn't know Jesus Christ at this time will follow the antichrist. Anyone who takes the mark of the beast will be eternally condemned. If you're curious about what the mark of the beast is, it will probably be something like this:



The purpose of the mark is to control who can buy and sell. Anyone without the mark will be unable to participate in the economic system.

Don't count on believing later, or that you won't be deceived into taking the mark, because it will be under threat of death. Today is the day of salvation, so do not harden your heart because He is calling to you. The fact is that He loves you and is knocking on your door:

Revelation 3:20

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.

>> ^Stormsinger:

The problem with that claim is that the animosity goes back well before Pacepa's time. We overthrew the elected government of Iran in 1953, because they were threatening oil company profits. By 1967, the KGB was doing very little except throwing gasoline on a fire we'd already started and built up to four alarm status. It's not reasonable to try and put the blame on the KGB...it clearly belongs on our own government agencies, which have proven over and over again to be extremely shortsighted and unwilling to accept any ethical boundaries.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Too bad for him (and you) that "flying the plane" involves diplomacy and charisma.>> ^quantumushroom:
I don't care if the pilot of the 747 I'm on isn't the World's Most Interesting Man/Media Creation, I only care that he's sober and can fly the damned thing.
ROMNEY LANDSLIDE 2012.



And, incidentally, caring about the interests of more than just the richest 1% of the county.

Too bad for him (and you) that "flying the plane" involves diplomacy and charisma.>> ^quantumushroom:

I don't care if the pilot of the 747 I'm on isn't the World's Most Interesting Man/Media Creation, I only care that he's sober and can fly the damned thing.
ROMNEY LANDSLIDE 2012.

Vetoing the 2012 NDAA would have held up the military budget and would not have stopped the detention clause. It was a lose/lose game of political chicken and Obama chose pragmatism over idealism.

Obama has greatly helped the country by creating a healthcare program, by passing stimulus, by using quantitative easing to keep the recession from going depression, by ramping down military operations in the middle east, by favoring diplomacy over sabre rattling in Iran.

As far as promises go, he has kept (or at least attempted to keep to the best of his ability) most of his big promises, like ending combat in Iraq, creating a health care system, ending the use of torture, putting needed financial regulations into place, restricting warrantless wiretaps, ending denial of health coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and signing an executive order to shut down Gitmo. Congress blocked his order to shut down Gitmo, which means the timetable is dependent on getting Republicans out of congress this November. Contrary to popular belief the executive branch is not all powerful. I know you don't like Obama, but can you at least admit these are positive changes for the better that would not have happened under a McCain or Romney administration? What were the broken promises you were talking about?

I love intellectuals like Chomsky and Chris Hedges and respect their criticisms of Obama. I think it would be much more productive to be informed by intellectuals, rather than slumming it in the right libertarian gutter. This video is just as frivolous as the Jackson video, if not morso.

I wish Obama was could be more progressive too, but that isn't going to happen in a conservative country where big business and the military industrial complex wield as much power as they do. We need both idealism and pragmatism if we are going to make progress. The country is far from how I'd like it to be, but I am happy that Obama is moving us in the right direction.

flat tax is another giveaway to the rich. Which is precisely why the rich and the ignorant tend to be the ones advocating it.

Either the tax rate is too low and you don't have enough revenue to pay the bills, or it's too high which yeah, the rich can afford, but completely fucks over the middle/lower class

progressive tax is the only actual fair tax since the wealthy have much more need of gov't services than the poor ever will.

The rich depend on infrastructure and education so that their workers can do the job, they depend on diplomacy and the military to ensure profitable and safe overseas commerce.

The poor do not, thus, the rich should pay more.