Lieberman's Senate Race Shows Why Cut-and-Runners Are Wrong

[Pangloss]

I don't think you'll find a country in the world that doesn't have ethnic minorities, I don't think you could create one. Even if you split Iraq up into Kurdish and Sunni and Shia Arab states, what about other groups, like Armenians?

 

Sure, but the purpose of the Biden plan isn't political separatism, but temporary social distancing for the purpose of long-term unification.

[KLB]

As for the west interfering in middle-eastern affairs, I think the horse is several miles away from the barn on that one.

You are quite right on this one. We have a 80 year plus mess on our hands.

[ecoli]

He's probably referring to inept colonial rule by the Ottomans, arbitrary national borders by the British, and the formation of the state of Israel.

 

The Ottomans? The ottomans were an empire, not colonies, and they werent weastern.

 

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/OTTOMAN/OTTOMAN1.HTM

[Sisyphus]

What do you think empire means?

[ecoli]

Any time an ethnic group gets arbitrarily split like happened with the Kurds and then turned into an artificial minority it is bound to create resentment and conflict.

 

That's not OUR fault, though. There always will be minority groups in a nation, we may be responsible for the mistreatment of Blacks in this country, but how are we responsible for the mistretment of Kurds? We didn't invent 'racism'.

[ecoli]

What do you think empire means?

 

regardless, the Ottomans weren't western.

[Pangloss]

The Ottomans didn't create Iraq, the British did.

 

Incidentally, they were very much aware of the oil resources of the region at the time. They made a trade with the French (nobody else in the LoN was interested), and the British got that region, which they turned into Iraq.

 

The development and protection of French and British oil resources in the first half of the 20th century is one of the reasons there's such a history of conflict there. The Americans are relative latecomers to the game. After all, Eisenhower sided with Nasser, against the British and French, over the Suez Canal fight and that was only a few years after we were all fighting side by side.

 

Ah, the good old days, when EVERYONE hated the French.... ;-)

[KLB]

The Ottomans didn't create Iraq, the British did.

My understanding is that the British and French gained control of vast parts of the Ottoman Empire after WWI and it was the British and French that ended up drawing most of the borders in the Middle East. It was their arbitary drawing of borders and installing of monarchs in their own images that set the stage for the mess we have today.

 

Incidentally' date=' they were very much aware of the oil resources of the region at the time. They made a trade with the French (nobody else in the LoN was interested), and the British got that region, which they turned into Iraq.

 

The development and protection of French and British oil resources in the first half of the 20th century is one of the reasons there's such a history of conflict there. The Americans are relative latecomers to the game. After all, Eisenhower sided with [i']Nasser[/i], against the British and French, over the Suez Canal fight and that was only a few years after we were all fighting side by side.

 

Ah, the good old days, when EVERYONE hated the French.... ;-)

This meshes up with what I understand about Middle East history. Really we should blame the roots to the problem in Iraq on the British. It was all their fault.

[Skye]

Well the mess has been going on for thousands of years. Throughout the Ottoman period there were problems with the region, the same problems as after the Ottoman empire, Kurds and Arabs fighting, Ottomans (who were sunni) and Persians (who were shia) fighting.

[KLB]

There may have been strife all along, however, the British and other empiral powers (e.g. France, etc) really didn't help matters and they really laid the primary foundation for the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East and Africa.

[Skye]

How did they lay the primary foundations for the problems we see today, when we saw those problems prior to the British invading the region?

[Jim]

There may have been strife all along, however, the British and other empiral powers (e.g. France, etc) really didn't help matters and they really laid the primary foundation for the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East and Africa.

 

Yes, but who cares? The deed is done.

[KLB]

Yes, but who cares? The deed is done.

To learn from mistakes of the past and try to avoid them in the future or in the case of Iraq avoid them today. Maybe we can't right old wrongs, but at least we can try to avoid repeating them.

[ecoli]

Yes, but who cares? The deed is done.

 

but it's interesting to try and find out whether we have obligation to fix the problem.

[Jim]

Time to start villifying Joe now that he's bolted the party.

 

Here is the NYT saying that Lieberman is "seizing" on the plot to make a political point. As if these occurrences aren't relevant to the national debate.

 

Lieberman:

 

“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”

 

Here's Lamont hopefully being merely obtuse, not overtly dishonest:

 

In a telephone interview from his vacation home in Maine, Mr. Lamont said he was disappointed with the personal tone Mr. Lieberman’s remarks, and questioned the connection between the Iraq war and the new terrorist plot. He also continued his strategy of trying to link Mr. Lieberman’s views with those of the Bush administration, whose approach the senator has tended to support in the fight against terrorism.

 

“Wow,” Mr. Lamont said, after asking a reporter to read Mr. Lieberman’s remark about him. “That comment sounds an awful lot like Vice President Cheney’s comment on Wednesday. Both of them believe our invasion of Iraq has a lot to do with 9/11. That’s a false premise.”

 

I'm thinking of moving to Connecticut so I can vote for Lieberman:

 

I’m worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don’t appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us — more evil, or as evil, as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long Cold War,” Mr. Lieberman said.

 

“We cannot deceive ourselves that we live in safety today and the war is over, and it’s why we have to stay strong and vigilant,” he added.

 

Now, here is the vapid Lamont:

 

Mr. Lamont hesitated when he was asked if Mr. Lieberman’s criticisms were beyond the bounds of acceptable political combat.

 

“To try to score political points on every international issues...” Mr. Lamont said, before pausing and stopping himself. Then he added, “Why do I have to say anything?”

 

Why, indeed.

[Pangloss]

Shades of Jim Jeffords. Politics is never nastier than when somebody leaves a party.

[Jim]

Did anyone see Lieberman on Face the Nation this morning? He was articulate, unflappable and, IMO, right. I'm wondering if he might one day be a legitimate independent Ross Perot-type Presidential candidate as an independent. I'd sure vote for him over any of the Republicans today.

 

God, we need more statesmen like Lieberman who does what he thinks is fundamentally right on national security issues even if it means getting tossed from a party he has served his entire political life.

[Pangloss]

Missed that one. I'm more of a Stephanopoulos fan.

[Jim]

Missed that one. I'm more of a Stephanopoulos fan.

 

Thank God for TIVO.

[Pangloss]

We have Tivo, but I gave up on FtN and MtP a while ago. I pick up "George" (as my wife and I call him), along with a local political show, and that's about all my stomach can handle on a weekly basis. (grin)

[Jim]

We have Tivo, but I gave up on FtN and MtP a while ago. I pick up "George" (as my wife and I call him), along with a local political show, and that's about all my stomach can handle on a weekly basis. (grin)

 

I like George S. He seems completely fair even if I disagree with him sometimes.

 

I've never forgiven George W for coining the term the "wimp factor" to describe George H.