Article

2003-03-27 International

What history will say about who won and lost

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by kgb 2003-03-27 12:15 pm|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies."

Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan.

Posted by Flaming Sword 3/27/2003 1:40:08 PM|| 3/27/2003 1:40:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 The analysis seems pretty spot-on except for the canard that the Sharon gov't "continues to obstruct progress towards peace."

Outside of national suicide, the Israelies have made every sacrifice in their effort to bring about peace.

The "Palestinians" themselves are the sole obstruction thwarting progress towards peace.

Posted by Scooter McGruder 2003-03-27 12:47:40|| 2003-03-27 12:47:40|| Front Page Top

#3 I was agreeing with this article, but then this: re: stabili[zation] the Middle East .."this priority will override all others, including the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bushâs neo-conservative supporters."

hmmm....maybe I'm reading this wrong...but not only does this seem to be an invalid assumption re: neocons, but it also reeks of vile anti-Semitism. Such an ugly outburst causes me to question the entire piece.

Posted by becky 2003-03-27 12:52:22|| 2003-03-27 12:52:22|| Front Page Top

#4 Israel is the bad guy because it defends itself. The boom belt people get a pass. The article falls apart.

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-03-27 13:04:14|| 2003-03-27 13:04:14|| Front Page Top

#5 I agree with Becky. The Israel portion of the piece is deeply flawed.

"Militantly expansionist"?
Other than some truly minor growth in existing settlements, what expansion? It's just a label that gets thrown at Sharon but is devoid of any basis in current reality.

"Continues to obstruct progres towards peace"?
If I hear this phrase again my brain will explode. What progress? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? The 20,000 Hizbollah in South Lebanon pointing rockets at Israeli farms? The suicide bombers? The Paleo rallies for Saddam?Any "progress" towards a state of decreased violence (certainly not "peace") has been the result of agressive Israeli counter-terror operations in the territories. In fact, American so-called even-handed reactions to Paleo suicide attacks came to an abrupt halt when Bush finally realized that a group of people that continuously sends bomb-belted jihadis into pizza parlors is not really interested in co-existing with its neighbors.

"Once the war is over, the priority for the Bush Administration will be to try to stabilise the Middle East"
To put it briefly, it seems pretty clear by now that Middle East stability - i.e. the status quo - has been deemed an untenable state of affairs that will perpetually give rise to groups like al-Qaida, and will therefore continue to threaten our physical security as well as jeapardize the world's oil supply. Conclusion - time to re-order things, get rid of the oppressive regimes that inevitably cause Islamo-fundos to sprout, otherwise no amount of homeland security will prevent another 9/11. Don't think so? Bashar al-Asad sure does (just announced he thinks he's next). Of course, we will attempt to control type and manner of change in Syria, Iran, Saudi. But the prediction that Israel will come out a loser is based on presumptions that are flatly wrong. It's interesting how an analyst can see some of the writing on the wall but totally miss the rest.

Posted by Brutus 2003-03-27 13:27:15|| 2003-03-27 13:27:15|| Front Page Top

#6 "After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies."

Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan.

Posted by Flaming Sword 2003-03-27 13:40:08|| 2003-03-27 13:40:08|| Front Page Top

#7 There are several severe flaws in this piece other than those mentioned above. First, consider the source. Russia has been playing both sides against the middle here, and will be more than "modestly" punished. Russia is going to find a HUGE hole in its rear. As for "NATO", I think the next time you see this alliance meet, it will be in Prague, with a lot of new members, and some old members excluded. We may even rename it. Other bigtime losers will be Syria and Saudi Arabia, and because of that, the so-called "Palestinians". All three will have their activities in support of "jihad" severely curtailed, and find themselves under increasing scrutiny by Coalition military and economic interests.

One big winner that hasn't been mentioned at all is Jordan. Not only will we continue to support the nation, we will encourage much of the rest of the Arab states move toward establishing similar relationships with Israel and the rest of the world. No country has benefitted more from peace with Israel than Jordan. Nor has any country been a better friend of the United States. We will reward our friends. I'm sure an oil pipeline to Jordan will be a major agenda item for the newly-formed Iraqi government.

The BIG loser will be the United Nations, which will cease to be of any importance in world affairs. I doubt it will recover. France will definitely take a hit, as will Germany. Turkey was mugged, and can be forgiven - later. The rest of the Middle East will find a mixed bag.

The United States and Great Britain will be BIG winners, even HUGE winners. Expect Blair to be Prime Minister for years to come. The Democratic Party in the United States is in total disaray, and is so busy shooting itself in the foot it may never recover. The "anti-war" movement will also suffer a huge defeat, and many of its members will find the future very unpleasant for themselves.

This definitely is a defining moment in world history. Too bad so many people don't realize it, and wilfully throw themselves on the losing side.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-03-27 13:46:32|| 2003-03-27 13:46:32|| Front Page Top

#8 "the broader economic and social effects of the transatlantic cleavage."

Yep. NATO and the UN are going tits-up.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-03-27 14:36:48|| 2003-03-27 14:36:48|| Front Page Top

11:11 Anonymous
09:58 raptor
09:00 raptor
06:56 Hiryu
06:54 raptor
02:22 mojo
02:16 mojo
02:12 mojo
00:49 mojo
00:47 mojo
00:40 mojo
00:36 glen
00:19 Tadderly
00:19 mojo
00:16 Anonymous
00:15 Drew
00:13 Atomic Conspiracy
00:09 Anonymous
00:02 Atomic Conspiracy
23:57 Atomic Conspiracy
22:56 tu3031
22:56 Brew
22:49 tu3031
22:47 RW