Bahu Virupaksha

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS

THE NEOCON LEGACY

A powerful neoconservative voice has risen against the prophet of neoconservatism--George Bush. Francis Fukuyama, known all over the world for his provocative and yes, celebratory thesis about the end of history, has written a withering attack on Bush and the betrayal of the neoconservative agenda. The carapace of ideas such as preventive war,benevolent hegemony, war against terror are analysed and critiqued in great detail in thois booik. When the Iraq Qar was attacked on humanitarian and strategic grounds the neoconmen retaliated with sarcasm and felt that humilisating the messenger was enough to discredit the powerful arguments against the direction USA was tsaking as a consequence of neocon ideas of unilateralism and shock and awe.We may recall that Francis Fukuyama was an ardent supporter of the Iraq war and when he starts lamenting the horrendous cost of the wat even neocons must take note.

Traditionally conservatives trace their intellectual legacy to Edmund Burke and have always opposed overseas expansion and entangling commitments, a phrase we even find in the speech of George Washinton. Preemtive war and war to build democracy argues Francis Fukuyama render American foreign policy hostage to extra political interests. History cannot be accelerated through American agency, he writes. Like the Communists of old, the neoconmen too believed that they were on the right side of history and the chosen instruments of American destiny in the poist USSR world.

The major contribution of Francis Fukuyama lies in his treatment of the decision to wage war in Iraq without the approval of the UN. The main justification for the war the weapons of mass destruction allegedly possessed by Saddam has turned out to be a mere will-o-the whisp. Indeed the standing o9f the only superpower has taken a huge blow due to the false case made out by the neoconmen to justify the war. The foreign policy establisment seems to have been side lined and neocon thik tanks and ideologues like Paul Wolfowitz created the blue print for the war without a broadbased national debate over crucial issues. As Fukuyama maintains the US armay was woefully ill prepared for the war and did not expect the resistance. Those of us who have been following the war from a different perspective knew that the real challenge lay after the fall of Bagdad,

This book must be read by everone interested in Iraq.
19,045 views 67 replies
Reply #51 Top
If you would, please point out which Muslims Bahu has "stuck up for". If I recall the reason we are over there now is because WE are supposedly sticking up for the Muslims. I don't agree with 90% of what Bahu says, but I've seen him go after Clinton, and I've seen him express himself on many different issues in ways that weren't party line or religious dogma.


Leauki hit the nail "directly" on the head! Thanks Leauki I couldn't have said it better

You're correct in the fact that the col does says some "crazy" stuff! But.....he has NEVER stuck up for the muslims and cut America down like Bahu seems to like doing!



I see the col as a resident nutter. He is always wrong, I think; but I don't think he consistently denies Saddam's crimes to make his "point".


This is exactly what I was talking about! I just got in to big of a hurry. And just an fyi....Saddam "is" a muslim.
Reply #52 Top
You guys have just brainwashed yourself into believing that people who oppose you hate America, and frankly it is making me sicker all the time. You don't even know that Bahu doesn't live in America. For all you know he's living a mile from you. Leauki's attack amounted to "I think yer one of them thar Muslims" and couldn't have been more sad and self-defeating.


And "if" you think Bahu does not have an intense dislike if not an outright hatred of America Then I would suggest that you go here Link
and read some of his more recent posts. like: HAS THE USA REACHED IMPERIAL OVERSTRETCH or ABU GHARAIB II or USA ATTACKS PAKISTAN or even this one will do: WILL THE USA REPEAT THE SAME MISTAKE IN IRAN.
Reply #53 Top
Bahu doesn't stick up for hussein, he just overlooks or omits a bit of reality when he makes his points... exactly the same way you guys tend to, and the way I tend to, and the way everyone tends to.

As for Leauki, he can't dance his way out of making such a nasty statement about someone. Iraq has nothing at all to do with 'Arab Nationalism"; most Arab states hated Hussein's regime and saw him for the nut he was. Bahu's never given any indication that he promotes Muslim culture or Arab nationalism, only that he despises the Bush administration, which is his right.

The Col has most certainly, time and again, stated that we've made things worse in Iraq, but no one has accused him of promoting muslim superiority. He does, though, get accused of hating America, yadda yadda. The far-right on this site isn't any better any more; as evidenced by the quality of comments. Frankly, Dr. Guy, it's hard to tell the difference between you and the Col anymore, you're just two sides of the same coin.

Go on and justify your silliness Leauki, whatever makes you feel better. There was no excuse for post #35, though. The fact you aren't blacklisted for it is a credit to Bahu.
Reply #54 Top
What made ME sick was Bahu's repeated denials of Saddam's crimes to back up his claims. That has nothing to do with America as such


In fact I have not even once written an apologist sort of writging for the criminal deeds of Saddam. Iam opposed to the American invasion which has no moral or legal sanction whatsoever and the people of Iraq are just terrified of the US troops and their Shiaa and Sunni militias.
Reply #55 Top
we are doing now is becoming apolicgists for a much wider problem, that is the fact that we still have global terrorism on a scale never seen before, and in countries which have never experienced this before, this is the problem, and tis is the one thing which will keep the war in Iraq going infinitum.


I think you have said things from an extremely knowledgeable and perhaps even an experential perspective. If global terrorism has not been defeated then it is possible that the Iraq war itslf is fueling the angst among Islamic societies and hence the folly of the invasion.
Reply #56 Top
Hello All,

This discussion is very interesting. Bakerstreet, you are an impressive person. It is so true to me that both sides of this "issue" lately have become the same, or at least quite similar. I am a liberal, as I have made clear, and a pacifist or sorts. I do not support armed conflict and aggression by anyone, Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, the United states. I do believe there are "lefties" as someone used the term who are anti-war and anti-Hussein, anti-Taliban, etc. I was one of them. This person asked why we 'lefties' were not out there protesting these terorists. I was.

Pointing out who dies, trying to put corpses on scales, does not cut it, ladies and gentlemen. It adds up to corpses no matter what and human life is precious regardless of faith or nationsality. Have we become so fearful that it seems so OK to kill, invade, attach pre-emptively in order to create a perception of safety? The truth is, and I really think we all know it, we re not one wit safer today than we were a few years ago. In fact, our fear drives us into rationalizing all sorts of things, usurpation of freedoms of travel we took for granted not that long ago, the right to privacy relative to the books we read, the communications we make, etc.

I pray for peace and the good sense we were born with to help us sort this mess out. Faulting is not a solution. Its a hindrance.

Be well.
Reply #57 Top

Iraq has nothing at all to do with 'Arab Nationalism"


That is wrong. Saddam's regime was an Arab nationalist regime. His party is an Arab nationalist party. The Ba'ath party has always tried to unite all Arab countries under one ruler, even after the split between Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists. How can you say that Iraq has nothing to do with 'Arab nationalism'?

What is Arab nationalism to you, Bakerstreet? When I use the term, you seem to believe that I include Iranians and Afghanis among Arabs (I have not) and that whatever Arab nationalism is, it has nothing to do with Iraq. Well, it does. And it is that Arab nationalism I am talking about. And it is that Arab nationalism which is usually meant when the term "Arab nationalism" is used.

It is Nasserites and Ba'athists, secular nationalist parties that attempt to unite all Arabs or most of them under one regime/government. What does "Arab nationalism" mean to you if not that?

Then you say this:


Bahu doesn't stick up for hussein, he just overlooks or omits a bit of reality when he makes his points... exactly the same way you guys tend to, and the way I tend to, and the way everyone tends to.


which I think doesn't fit this:


And yet you [Bahu] salt your arguments with statements that there were no death squads in Iraq and now there are; that people are being killed wholesale now and they weren't under Hussein. Your stance seems to rely on what you claim is unimportant.


How is saying that there were no death squads under Saddam or that people were not being killed wholesale under Saddam "omitting a bit of reality"? And how am I doing exactly the same? When did I ever specifically deny anything evil commited by somebody and why are you now accusing me of having done so after telling me how bad it is to say the same thing about somebody else?

You are inconsistent, Bakerstreet.

If you now believe that Bahu never denied any of Saddam's evils but merely omitted a bit of reality, I propose you take back what you said to him:


That [statement about death squads] can be nothing but a lie, bahu. [...] Again, it doesn't serve your argument to become an opportunistic revisionist.



In fact, your first criticism of my evil reply was about my definition of "Arab", which you for some reason believed obviously included Iranians (why???) and that Christianity also doesn't have much of an impact on today's world (a statement I have never opposed). Then what I said suddenly turned from "not fair at all" to the apparently most evil lie you seem to read it as now.

Could you address the point that I didn't actually say what you criticised first?



Reply #58 Top

This person asked why we 'lefties' were not out there protesting these terorists. I was.


Where?

And what is the practical difference between being anti-war and anti-Saddam and being anti-war and pro-Saddam? What do you or did you do that hurt Saddam or at least did not help him?

And why is "anti-war" the opposite of "anti-Saddam"? Saddam stood for war, more so than any American president. The invasion ended a war, namely Saddam's war against the Iraqi people. Why is that not perceived as something good by those against war?
Reply #59 Top

In fact I have not even once written an apologist sort of writging for the criminal deeds of Saddam.



There were no governement sponsored deathsquads in his day and there was peace and security.


And while we are at it, can you answer my question:

Which newspaper says that the number of violent deaths or deaths otherwise caused by Saddam or the occupation has increased?



It is so true to me that both sides of this "issue" lately have become the same, or at least quite similar.


They are not. I do not deny that the invasion has caused death and insecurity. And if I see anybody making that claim, I would, I hope, set him straight.

How is that the same as saying that under Saddam "there were no governement sponsored deathsquads" and that there was "peace and security"?

What standard are we held to? If denying Saddam's crimes is the same as not denying the deaths caused by the invasion, what does "quite similar" mean? What would be the opposite?
Reply #60 Top
"That is wrong. Saddam's regime was an Arab nationalist regime. His party is an Arab nationalist party. The Ba'ath party has always tried to unite all Arab countries under one ruler, even after the split between Iraqi and Syrian Ba'athists. How can you say that Iraq has nothing to do with 'Arab nationalism'?"


Saddam also considered himself a religious person, what's your point? In the eyes of the rest of Islam he was a kook, just as he was a kook in the eyes of Arabs. IN reality Arabs were the target of his hatefulness just as often as non-Arabs. He didn't invade Israel, he headed south when he wanted to seize land and abuse its occupants.

If you can prove to me that there was ever an effort to work for real Arab nationalism by Hussein, fine, but I think you're silly to take his word for it. Saddaam was as much an "Arab Nationalist" as Hitler was a socialist and Lil' Kim is a "Beloved Leader". That Ba'athists in Iraq had nothing in common with arab nationalist efforts elsewhere. They had more in common with the Mafia that arab nationalism.

...but, if you want to believe what they say about themselves instead of what the reality was, fine. Don't expect me too, though. If I believed Hussein just wanted to unite Kuwait under a pan-Arab banner I would be ignoring every fact I've ever read about the man.

"How is saying that there were no death squads under Saddam or that people were not being killed wholesale under Saddam "omitting a bit of reality"? And how am I doing exactly the same? When did I ever specifically deny anything evil commited by somebody and why are you now accusing me of having done so after telling me how bad it is to say the same thing about somebody else?"



...how is omitting a fact... omitting a fact? Well, when one omits a fact, they are, in fact, ommitting a fact. You never specifically deny anything, you just tell your side of the story as it best serves your argument. I find it difficult to believe you can sit there and claim to always put in every detail an opponent would use against you. If that were so, I doubt we'd be sitting here wasting time.

It's true that Bahu denied the existance of death squads in Iraq, and you can see I took issue with that. You and others would gladly overlook their existance there now if people like Bahu didn't wave them in your face. He obviously sees a difference between Hussein's thugs and "death squads". I was merely pointing out that in reality there isn't much difference.

"In fact, your first criticism of my evil reply was about my definition of "Arab", which you for some reason believed obviously included Iranians (why???) and that Christianity also doesn't have much of an impact on today's world (a statement I have never opposed). Then what I said suddenly turned from "not fair at all" to the apparently most evil lie you seem to read it as now."


No, in fact my criticism was toward your ignorant attitude in basically accusing Bahu of being a muslim lover... as others would use with the 'n' word. You're deftly trying to divert the subject to whether Saddaam was an arab nationalist, etc., but in fact this began when you tried to dismiss Bahu's opinions as just a bunch of pro-Arab, pro-Muslim sentiment.

I can understand why you would be ashamed, but diverting from that doesn't clean it up. You accused Bahu of "supporting" Arab or Muslim causes, when in reality he's just opposing the stance of the current American government. It's that ignorance that annoyed me, because lots of people on this board say the same thing he does, and yet you don't "accuse" them of being Muslim, or supporting arab nationalism.

But you saw the name Bahu writes under and made a little ugly assumption. Like I said, I don't blame you for being defensive. Anyone in your place would be.
Reply #61 Top
"How is that the same as saying that under Saddam "there were no governement sponsored deathsquads" and that there was "peace and security"?"


Bahu is obviously referring to outright war between factions within Iraq, and a constant flow of insugents from outside Iraq. Neither is beneficial to the people of Iraq, but in terms of national stability Bahu is technically right, if not morally. There was little hope of civil war with Hussein in power, and still less hope of terrorists gaining control of large sections of the country. We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.

"What standard are we held to? If denying Saddam's crimes is the same as not denying the deaths caused by the invasion, what does "quite similar" mean? What would be the opposite?"


The standard isn't about Iraq, the standard is how you treat someone you are dealing with here. If Bahu resorted to calling you an American imperialist who promotes Christian supremacy, I could see the situation as equitable. I would have been just as outraged if you had Bahu had accused you of being "Christian"...
Reply #62 Top
We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.


The regime of Saddam was in many ways an unpretty one. However, compared to what is happening now in Iraq, Saddam's regime comes off looking and smelling like roses. In fact the other day the Interior Minister of Iraq admitted on BBC that there are death squads in Iraq today and he was at pains to distance his Governemnt forom their activities. Either the Government contro;s little beyand the Green Mile or the Govevt is turning a blind eye to their activities. Either way the people are suffering.
Reply #63 Top
We see it as a necessary trade-off to remove the greater evil of Hussein, and Bahu doesn't.


The regime of Saddam was in many ways an unpretty one. However, compared to what is happening now in Iraq, Saddam's regime comes off looking and smelling like roses. In fact the other day the Interior Minister of Iraq admitted on BBC that there are death squads in Iraq today and he was at pains to distance his Governemnt forom their activities. Either the Government contro;s little beyand the Green Mile or the Govevt is turning a blind eye to their activities. Either way the people are suffering.
Reply #64 Top

...how is omitting a fact... omitting a fact?


That is ridiculous. He specifically said there had been no death squads in Iraq under Saddam. He was not "omitting a fact", he was LYING. You said so yourself.

His lie only became "omitting a fact" with you when you attacked me. Before that you were just as much accusing him of lying as I.



You're deftly trying to divert the subject to whether Saddam was an arab nationalist,


I am not "trying to divert the subject" at all. The fact that Saddam is an Arab nationalist is quite central to what I said about the culture Bahu is defending.



No, in fact my criticism was toward your ignorant attitude in basically accusing Bahu of being a muslim lover


I don't know what a "Muslim lover" is but I stand by my comment that Bahu is a Muslim or soomebody sympathetic to Muslims.



You accused Bahu of "supporting" Arab or Muslim causes, when in reality he's just opposing the stance of the current American government. It's that ignorance that annoyed me, because lots of people on this board say the same thing he does, and yet you don't "accuse" them of being Muslim, or supporting arab nationalism.


That is because they don't deny Saddam's crimes. Can you not see the difference between denying that there were death squads under Saddam and merely opposing the stance of the current American government?



I would have been just as outraged if you had Bahu had accused you of being "Christian"...


Well, I AM sympathetic to Christians and I wouldn't have felt hurt if somebody had concluded that I was a Christian or sympathetic to them. Perhaps my entire opinion is based on a belief that Christianity must be defended? Perhaps that is what you were referred to when you brought up the subject of Christianity?

I compared Muslim and Arab culture to western culture. You first brought up Christianity.

I can believe that you would have been "outraged". You seem to be outraged by random events.

I still want you to answer my questions though.

Why did you pretend that by "Arab" I meant to include "Iranians"? Why do you suddenly claim that it is diverting the subject if I continue to talk about that?

And how became what you used to call a lie, Bahu's statement that there were no death squads in Saddam's Iraq, "omitting a fact"?


No, Baker, the truth is that I attacked Bahu for the same reason as you did. But suddenly these reasons became a non-issue for you when you decided to attack me.

I stand by my words. I still believe that Bahu is trying to defend the disease that Islam has become and that Arab nationalism always was. And I don't believe that specifically denying one of Saddam's crimes is "omitting a fact".

Would it be "omitting a fact" about this discussion if I told somebody that I _didn't_ say that I think that Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to Muslims? Or would it be a lie?
Reply #65 Top
Here is what I said, again, in case anyone forgot:


I tell you what I think:

Bahu is a Muslim or somebody sympathetic to the Muslim religion.


That is the statement you, Bakerstreet, found most offensive. You compared it to somebody calling me a Christian.

Well, the comparison is all right, I guess. I just don't see why it is offensive.


He wants to see the Muslim culture among the world's greatest and most influential and valuable cultures.


I still believe it is possible that he thinks that, although what he said later does make it less likely.



By admitting that the current most vocal representatives of that culture are evil he would admit that Islam is not such a great valuable culture.


I concluded that because he denies Saddam's crimes. He didn't ommit them, he actually listed specific crimes and said they didn't happen (death squads).



He thus looks for ways to blame Muslim terrorism and Arab nationalism on others.


This is because he argued that the current sad situation in Iraq is something the US are to blame for, even though the situation was not really better under Saddam; and even though the current sad situation is certainly caused by Sunni and Shi'ite Arab extremists, NOT the US.



The only reason Islam is not among the most valuable cultures is, obviously, American neo-conservative policy (and the Jews, but I figure that goes without saying). Fighting such policy, even at the expense of Iraqis and mosques is thus a good thing, because it can save Islam.


That was pure speculation, I'm afraid. But if he continues to blame the American invasion for Sunni attacks on Shi'ite mosques, it does seem like he really believes that the Americans are to blame for the attacks committed by Sunni extremists.


That's what I think he believes.

The truth is that the world without Islam would, currently, look much the same as it does, except less violent. Muslim culture does not, currently, add anything to humanity's achievements. Specifically the Arab nation is, currently, useless in that regard.


And that is the part that made you say something about Christians and conclude that I include Iranians among the Arab nation (which I never did).
Reply #66 Top

The second statement is just ignorant absurdity. In fact Western Civilization as you know it today would not have existed without Islam. It was Arab scholrs, yes, in Bagdad and Alexandria who tranlated Greek texts and these were transmitted to Europe in the 14th century through their retranlation into Latin. Did you know that both Paris and Oxford Universities had chairs for Arabic Language studiers in the 14th century.


What did I say in the second statement that in any way contradicts what you wrote in the quoted text above?

Please tell me.
Reply #67 Top
The fact that six months after the electiobn no government has been formed is prooif.
---Bahu

We declared our independence from Britain in 1776. The US Constitution wasn't completely ratified until 1787. Granted, things moved slower then, but the same types of problems faced in Iraq today were faced by the American Founders, and were overcome. Rome wasn't built in a day.


The classic philosophy of conservatism relied on the principle of small government, minimal engagement in other parts of the world, fiscal prudence and social hammony.
---Bahu

The classic philospohy of liberalism, conversely, was intervention and activity on an international level. Witness the Foreign Policy actions taken by Wilson and Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.
The only truly successful actions were those taken by Roosevelt. Wilson brought us another, bigger and bloodier war. Truman kept the borders of Berlin and S. Korea safe, but we're still paying the price in Korea to this day.
Kennedy and Johnson, well, 'nuff said. Carter smugly thought he'd brought peace to the Mideast, but that fell apart in no time. Clinton,among other fiascos, gave us a N. Korea that pushed us around, a Kosovo that still causes us problems, and an Iraq that needed a Republican president to finally take some decisive action.

As Leauki said, things have changed. The well-meaning, starry-eyed liberals have proven their ineptitude time and again. Democracy and peace in Iraq will come, Bahu, but only if naysayers like you shut up and let it.