POLL: Condi Rice is ...

[Carrera]

I agree with you, more or less. The stupidest thing Thatcher ever said was that there was no such thing as society e.t.c.
I'm no fan of hers at all, although I do think she had a certain level of respect for being fairly honest about her beliefs (even when she got it wrong). I mean, I've always said quite openly you could get a free education under Mrs T, whereas modern U.K. students under Labour have to pay for everything. Plus, myself I came from a perfectly humble working-class background but when I chose to study I got a state grant and all sorts of perks.
But to get back to the original thread, I think Thatcher did reflect this old imperialistic outlook that the English speaking peoples were destined to bring stability to the world, whereas the Europeans only produced wars and revolutions e.t.c. Thatcher forgot the Greeks invented democracy, the Romans/Italians introduced law and all western countries inherited their culture from Europe (or classical Europe if you prefer). I find that anti-European idea of hers pretty shallow and biased.
This book by Goldsworthy was about the fall of Carthage and somewhere he mentions this situation about imperialism that I thought was interesting.

Goldsworthy wrote that in a completely different era. Mr.T and Reagan's concern was with Communism, and the threat of it. What happened inside the USA I know not, and I can only state that MrsT was hellbent on destroying the unions in this country because she felt, rightly or wrongly that they were a hotbed of communist subversion in the Nationalised Industries. She did destroy the unions, and she also destroyed the basic stability of whole communities at great socio-economic cost to the country. She wrecked the production of coal, steel, docks, all absolute essentials. Then she sold off the Rail system, and smashed that union. She sold off social housing at a knockdown price. When I worked in a very responsible boring job for the country, my pals and I invented a game, and it was based on the premise that who could keep their facilities/infrastructure intact in the case of war. The UK came last every time. Name of the gameplayers HM Customs & Excise ground staff. The game was good. Left the job thru boredom. Shame really.

 

[Ssushi]

Fred, can you post the title and isbn etc...?

 

[Weisse Luft]

Punish the country who liberated you from those damn English and praise the country who you was liberated from... is that it? WOW she's **** hot this bird ain't she!

PS Carrera, great post - great to see more in depth analysis, thinking, contenplation etc...

Weisse - again , you are a *****!

AWESOME language skills, raw fish. Things change...I do rememeber WWI and WWII. How about the Falkland Islands?

 

[limerickman]

I came across a writer by the name of Adrian Goldsworthy who made 2 interesting observations. These particular points he makes led me to conclude that Condoleeza Rice is basically an educated spokeswoman for an old line of thinking that was abandoned by Europeans after the second world war.
This is fairly simple to understand.
Goldsworthy points out that (prior to the European world wars), there were many scholars or doctors such as Miss Rice who advocated imperialism and the spread of Christianity. Of course, Miss Rice also happens to be a bible scholar as well as a linguist. But here is what Goldsworthy says about this particular ideology:
"These scholars were produced by a society which believed that the rule of "civilized peoples" of the world over the "uncivilized" was beneficial .......the great empires were an improving force, spreading education, the rule of law and Christianity."
I put some of these terms in quotations as I question the whole idea that Iraq is basically "uncivilized" and the West "civilized".
Anyhow, this is basically what Condoleeza Rice and the neo-conservatives advocate, together with the idea that Christianity and imperialism go hand in hand.
Now here is what Goldsworthy has to say about post world war 2 European scholars:
"The rapid demise of the European empires following the second world war led to an almost equally rapid condemnation of all that they had stood for, an unquestioning assumption that empires were, by their very nature, wrong. These scholars emphasised the greed and brutality of the imperial powers."
I think most people can follow this argument O.K. It also sums up where the rift between Europe and the U.S. actually lies.
The Bush Administration has basically adopted the old European philosophy of imperialism and has likewise recruited biblical/theological scholars who are capable of making a solid intellectual argument for the specific idea of American Imperialism. With regard to the Middle East it involves invading Iraq, Iran and Syria and attempting to impose the ideas of Christianity and democracy on the native peoples. This is what Miss Rice advocates and why she is currently so popular.
However, Europe is no longer imperialistic so that European scholars reject the whole ideology they themselves advocated in the past (especially France and probably Britain). I think this is essentially where we're at, at this given moment. I didn't really see it that way till I started reading Goldworthy's take on the history of imperialism and his idea that scholars attempted to justify it. The whole idea of recruiting Condoleeza was to try and convince the world that this is the correct approach to the Middle East.

If this is Rices thinking (and I suspect that it is) - it flawed and it's flawed totally.

You cannot impose a set of beliefs on people.
This is back to the old "impose democracy" - self contradictory concept.
Throw in the Christianity alignment to democracy and it definitely will not be
adopted.

If Rice is as intelligent as people seem to think - she'd know that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong move.
Iraq - a fusion of three separate ethnic identities was held together (if that's the correct expression) by a totalitarian dictator.
How else could the a country made up of Sunni, Kurds and Shia operate - certainly not through freely working together.

At the moment, the resistance only comprises of Sunni's.
Imagine if the Shia decide to join in ?
Ayotallah Sistani (head man in the Shia movement) has managed to keep the Shia on side, for now.
If they decide that it is time to resist attempts to "impose democracy" - all
hell will break lose.

Rice ought to know this (if she is as smart as some think she is).

 

[FredC]

Fred, can you post the title and isbn etc...?

Sorry about that, no doubt it has disappointed many readers that I can actually scribble a few words. Who cares, I don't I get paid for some of the tripe, Who cares, I've earnt enough lately to keep me in scripts and prospective propositions. What about my pal? Cliff Richard brings out a perfume named Miss Unites. My pal lives on his royalties, he's dancing around like a dog with two dicks. Back to the saltmines for you lot.

 

[Carrera]

Thanks. However, I guess the analysis was something I more or less lifted from another source (or book) but it does seem to fit in.
All in all, this is how I would summarise this present situation and I also have something to add to this idea of France and Russia e.t.c:
What we are faced with is a Bush Administration made up of a whole bunch of neo-conservatives or neo-conservative sympathisers. They are currently promoting the kind of political agenda that has squeezed the moderates out of the political spectrum and, therefore, Condoleeza has been chosen as the Party Intellectual. Her view revolves around an idea that the British promoted decades ago and still persists to the present day - i.e. that the only way to attain global stability is through the dominance of the so-called English-speaking peoples, military intervention in less advanced countries, colonisation, the enforced promotion of Christianity and Puppet-Democracy and the age-old imperialistic policy.
This policy is clearly dangerous and let's not forget the same ideal inspired Stalin and ******. ****** believed that the only means of attaining global stability was via the domination of the Arian race (he had scholars and scientists who would write dissertations on such a philosophy).
Stalin believed in the domination of the working-class, elimination (liquidation) of the bourgeoisie and enforced imposition of communism throughout Europe.
The Bush Administration isn't really so different. Clearly there are plans to invade Iran, overthrow the mullahs, occupy the oil fields and impose this ideal of puppet-democracy and Christianity. So, I think Europe still underestimates the threat. Moreover, if they (the neos) attempt an invasion of North Korea, the consequences could be fatal.
I think what may happen is that Europe will possibly pull out of NATO and form a different kind of global security alliance. The potential to try and negotiate Russia's entry into the E.U. is also a possibility so I think that would give the European Union a military as well as economic punch. In return, Russia would want billions of Euros to aid their struggling economy and that would hopefully bring them up to par with France and Germany. As I see it, if Russia joined the E.U. then Europe would easily have the same military capacity as the U.S. and would actually be a touch more powerful overall (even more so that the USSR was). Europe could then send troops into areas of instability when required. If Russia never joins, Europe has to invest in its military to be taken more seriously by China and America in the future.
One difficulty is that Russia is torn between Europe and the U.S. and doesn't know which way to go. I have Russian friends who tell me they like Americans more while others say they would like to be in Europe. Russians identify more with the U.S. over terrorism but the fact Putin signed the non-pollution treaty (Kyoto or whatever they call it) shows he's also ready to consider European attitudes more.
One things's for sure, there was a meeting at my old uni conference centre a week ago and many people expressed the idea that the Bush Administration is clearly dangerous. They have an American Studies department based there so some genuine Republicans were invited, as well as Democrats. The question that is being asked is whether it's the U.S. that now poses the main threat to global stability now that Russia seems to have become reasonably stable (even if democracy still needs more of a push). Whichever way you look at it, the Administration (with Condoleeza Rice's blessing) clearly endorses a policy of invasion of sovereign states, the installation of "acceptable governments" and the philosophy of unilateralism and imperialism. The Brits clearly got away with all of this it in the past (when imperialism was more acceptable throughout the world) but whether the rest of the globe will ever endorse such a policy again remains to be seen. Personally I very much doubt it.

Punish the country who liberated you from those damn English and praise the country who you was liberated from... is that it? WOW she's **** hot this bird ain't she!

PS Carrera, great post - great to see more in depth analysis, thinking, contenplation etc...

Weisse - again , you are a *****!

 

[Carrera]

Good point, Limerickman. Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Saddam Hussein was the superpower while the U.S. only had a few skud missiles and kalshnikovs. Despite that, would the Americans stomach an invasion of their territory, the removal of their government and imposition of an American style Islamic ruler (seen photographed with Saddam smiling on national TV). Sure. it sounds kind of comic but the comparison is surely worth making. How would they feel about the evangelical churches in the bible-belt-states being bombed e.t.c. while troops prayed over the koran in the battlefields?
Somehow I think there would be an insurgency in such a case.
You're right. You can't just graft one culture and religion onto a land that developed in a totally different way over hundreds of years. If the U.S. can put a man on the moon, why can't they grasp such an obvious fact?

If this is Rices thinking (and I suspect that it is) - it flawed and it's flawed totally.

You cannot impose a set of beliefs on people.
This is back to the old "impose democracy" - self contradictory concept.
Throw in the Christianity alignment to democracy and it definitely will not be
adopted.

If Rice is as intelligent as people seem to think - she'd know that the invasion of Iraq was the wrong move.
Iraq - a fusion of three separate ethnic identities was held together (if that's the correct expression) by a totalitarian dictator.
How else could the a country made up of Sunni, Kurds and Shia operate - certainly not through freely working together.

At the moment, the resistance only comprises of Sunni's.
Imagine if the Shia decide to join in ?
Ayotallah Sistani (head man in the Shia movement) has managed to keep the Shia on side, for now.
If they decide that it is time to resist attempts to "impose democracy" - all
hell will break lose.

Rice ought to know this (if she is as smart as some think she is).

 

[Weisse Luft]

Good point, Limerickman. Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Saddam Hussein was the superpower while the U.S. only had a few skud missiles and kalshnikovs. ..

False analogy. For you analogy to be correct, the US would have had to been waging war against Mexico for 10 years, using nerve gas and blister agents. After that stalemate, an invasion of Canada for nationalization of thier oil and mineral wealth would have followed. After defeat of this fictious Imperial United States, there would be 10 years of imposed but ill enforced economic sanctions and a push for offensive disarmament.

Add in insurrection by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and by Texas, Louisana and New Mexico where federal forces were called in to squash these dissenters.

 

[FredC]

False analogy. For you analogy to be correct, the US would have had to been waging war against Mexico for 10 years, using nerve gas and blister agents. After that stalemate, an invasion of Canada for nationalization of thier oil and mineral wealth would have followed. After defeat of this fictious Imperial United States, there would be 10 years of imposed but ill enforced economic sanctions and a push for offensive disarmament.

Add in insurrection by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and by Texas, Louisana and New Mexico where federal forces were called in to squash these dissenters.

No wonder the shofah blower never made it as a rider, who the **** wants to room with him?

 

[FredC]

AWESOME language skills, raw fish. Things change...I do rememeber WWI and WWII. How about the Falkland Islands?

Schmuk katan. briss.

 

[Ssushi]

AWESOME language skills, raw fish. Things change...I do rememeber WWI and WWII. How about the Falkland Islands?

So let me get this right Weisse, you associated my Id 'Ssushi' with 'raw fish', swapped my ID for it and then used that to insult me? Is that right? OMG that's soo clever. You must be soo proud to be able to take a word, and change it for it's meaning and then (here's the clever bit folks) use it to insult someone... I stand in awe of your linguitic powers! clearly you must be highly educated! Oh, no - damn it! 'cos here's the flaw - Sushi is not raw fish! It's cooked rice - OMG - I take it all back, you are still the dumn inbred feck i thought from day 1...

Have a nice day

 

[Ssushi]

You sound angry....now let's take a deep breathe through the nose....there relax...maybe fire up the bong....that a girl....you are so tense....Ah, now isn't that better...?

Taqking the **** out of your man there is a hobby - he's so entertaining I generally have to change my pants after I read his posts...

 

[Ssushi]

You sound angry....now let's take a deep breathe through the nose....there relax...maybe fire up the bong....that a girl....you are so tense....Ah, now isn't that better...?

PS, it is true about ye lads not understanding sarcasm then - yep! Tip for you here: understand sarcasm before you move onto irony, 'cos irony is a bit tricky...

;0)

 

[FredC]

False analogy. For you analogy to be correct, the US would have had to been waging war against Mexico for 10 years, using nerve gas and blister agents. After that stalemate, an invasion of Canada for nationalization of thier oil and mineral wealth would have followed. After defeat of this fictious Imperial United States, there would be 10 years of imposed but ill enforced economic sanctions and a push for offensive disarmament.

Add in insurrection by Wyoming, Montana and Idaho and by Texas, Louisana and New Mexico where federal forces were called in to squash these dissenters.

I think he's put this one up before. repeat,repeat, repeat...Yawneeees

 

[Weisse Luft]

.. Sushi is not raw fish! It's cooked rice - OMG - I take it all back, you are still the dumn inbred feck i thought from day 1...

Have a nice day

No, sushi isn't cooked rice. Its cooked, vinegared rice rolled with other food products.

Nigri is the same rice, formed into wedges by the palms.

Sashmi is raw fish.

 

[Ssushi]

No, sushi isn't cooked rice. Its cooked, vinegared rice rolled with other food products.

Nigri is the same rice, formed into wedges by the palms.

Sashmi is raw fish.

Thankyou! Maybe you should have incorporated that into your 'insult'

 

[davidmc]

"Punish France, ignore Germany and forget Russia." My kind of answer but alas, these are the words of Dr. Rice.

Is this the same Dr. Rice who did'nt realize that it was in her job description to be vigilent about the security of America/prior 9-11, When her job description was, much to my & other's chagrin, nat.sec.advisor If thats the case, which all evidence indicates is in the affirmative, she's incompetent, at best. No wonder little george is outsoucing her to the state dept. where her damage will be limited to countries other than the U.S. She should be indicted along w/ bush/ashcroft alas she & her evangelorepublican thug's are above the law.

 

[limerickman]

Good point, Limerickman. Imagine the boot was on the other foot and Saddam Hussein was the superpower while the U.S. only had a few skud missiles and kalshnikovs. Despite that, would the Americans stomach an invasion of their territory, the removal of their government and imposition of an American style Islamic ruler (seen photographed with Saddam smiling on national TV). Sure. it sounds kind of comic but the comparison is surely worth making. How would they feel about the evangelical churches in the bible-belt-states being bombed e.t.c. while troops prayed over the koran in the battlefields?
Somehow I think there would be an insurgency in such a case.
You're right. You can't just graft one culture and religion onto a land that developed in a totally different way over hundreds of years. If the U.S. can put a man on the moon, why can't they grasp such an obvious fact?

In analogous terms, that is what is happening right now in Iraq.
Foreigners ordering the indigenous people about.

The US can't grasp it, because they don't want to grasp it.
This is my whole point.
Rice and Co know this - they won't acknowledge it publicly but they know this.
Rice and Co know that they're not welcome in Iraq.

As bad as Saddam Hussein ever was - the indigenous people will tell you that
there own solution, is 1000 times preferable to any solution which the USA, UK, Germany or Ireland or whereever might try to impose in Iraq.

That's why the cheerleaders for Rice are only partially right - she might well be educated etc but she has subvented this intelligence and has instead endorsed a flawed, totally flawed strategy.

 

[Carrera]

Journalists interviewed an Iraqi businessman who lived in Fallujah but whose home was blown to pieces. Under Saddam he ran a prosperous factory, had a nice car, a girlfriend and a resonable standard of living. He wasn't involved in terrorism whatsoever, although many terrorists and Chechnians had entered Fallujah. However, during the battle in Fallujah he lost everything - even his car that got blown up. The reporter asked his whether he had been better off under Saddam Hussein or the new order of things and he replied that life was repressive under the former regime but far better than the present chaos.
So, it's fine for Tony Blair to strut onstage beside George Bush and talk about democracy and freedom in Iraq but the reality is many decent people have had their lives ruined.

In analogous terms, that is what is happening right now in Iraq.
Foreigners ordering the indigenous people about.

The US can't grasp it, because they don't want to grasp it.
This is my whole point.
Rice and Co know this - they won't acknowledge it publicly but they know this.
Rice and Co know that they're not welcome in Iraq.

As bad as Saddam Hussein ever was - the indigenous people will tell you that
there own solution, is 1000 times preferable to any solution which the USA, UK, Germany or Ireland or whereever might try to impose in Iraq.

That's why the cheerleaders for Rice are only partially right - she might well be educated etc but she has subvented this intelligence and has instead endorsed a flawed, totally flawed strategy.

 

[limerickman]

Journalists interviewed an Iraqi businessman who lived in Fallujah but whose home was blown to pieces. Under Saddam he ran a prosperous factory, had a nice car, a girlfriend and a resonable standard of living. He wasn't involved in terrorism whatsoever, although many terrorists and Chechnians had entered Fallujah. However, during the battle in Fallujah he lost everything - even his car that got blown up. The reporter asked his whether he had been better off under Saddam Hussein or the new order of things and he replied that life was repressive under the former regime but far better than the present chaos.
So, it's fine for Tony Blair to strut onstage beside George Bush and talk about democracy and freedom in Iraq but the reality is many decent people have had their lives ruined.

I work with a colleague, Haidar Hassan.
Haidar is a Shia Muslim.
He is a gifted, well educated man in his mid-30's. (a very high percentage of adults have had University education in Iraq).

Haidar is from south Iraq - from a village close to Um Quasar.
In 1991, following the Gulf War - Haidar's father fought with the local Shia
population who were exhorted by Bush 41 to "rise up against Hussein".
Hussein mercilessly crushed that uprising (and needless to say Bush did not
provide any help to the Shia in their uprising).

Haidar and his entire family were rounded up and imprisoned.
His father was executed for his part in the uprising.

Haidar's family served five years in prison.
His mother and his sisters were jailed, as he was, for being the "son of a disloyal Iraqi".

In 1997, his family were released but their imprisonment effectively continued.
The local Sunni politician - who was seconded from Baghdad to help "administer" the Shia region - had a huge local staff, who used to go out on,
and I'll use Haidar's words, "rape trips".
This involved local Sunni militia driving out to small villages and forcibly taking
girls away to be raped.
Two of Haidar's sisters suffered this crime.

Haidar decided to flee with his family across the border to Iran.
Eventually, they made their way to England and then to here.
Haidar got an job here through our British office, and works with us.
I know his family and met his mother and sisters.
Very devote people - very hospitable people.

They stay in contact with their extended family in Um Qasar and news filters back.
I well remember Haidar crying - yes crying - when the invasion took place in
March 2003.
The executioner of his father, the man who ordered his Sunni minions to rape
and attack the Shia population was removed.
Peace beckoned - finally people might have a chance of getting a life and using the well educated Iraqi knowledge of all those young people.

I talk to Haidar about Iraq - and what he tells me is that the people, his people, Shia people, know realise that what was promised in march 2003, has been a lie.
People in his village are more poor now than pre-March 2003.
The rounding up and shooting of people has stopped but the people in his village don't know what is in store for them.
US forces and British forces fight "insurgents" - but chaos and lawlessness
and anarchy is prevalent.
The invading forces treat all Iraqi's as potential insurgents.
The Shias who stood to gain most of all with the removal of Hussein are
treated with equal disdain and are considered insurgents by the invading force.
Old scores are settled - civil war looms.

Haidar now feels that the invasion has made his country worse.
The local people don't know who the enemy is anymore.
They view the chaos and destruction and uncertainty with fear - real fear.

Haidar tells me that those left in his village are saying that, although life was terrible under Saddam, at least they knew who the enemy was.
Now they don't know who to trust.
And they're finanically poorer.

Hearts and minds indeed.