How much longer must we tolerate mass culture?

Just a note on Iran

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:06:22 -0800

Those of us claiming that Iran was negotiable are still right. Once again, The Bush machine is lying about a current threat.

Look, this is vitally important. We could have a stable, and democratic Iran, Pakistan, and Iraq within a generation. But, in order to do that, we must be educated on the area, and we must be willing to negotiate with those we find distasteful, and we must be willing to make practical, if not absolutely moral deals. While there are no easy answers, there are answers.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

More random Rants (international Edition)

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:25:47 -0700

So, I'm gonna be Nostradamus, here, for a second. The sanctions against Iran will prove ineffective. Oh, wait, that wasn't vague enough. "The efforts of the Eagle will prove as naught when the Dragon and Bear supplant the Black Forest, even as the eagle plucks its own feathers" There! Is that quasi-mystic enough? Look, spokenly plainly: if Germany obeys the sanctions against Iran, China will step in. If the US tries to unilaterally go in after Iran by some backdoor method, like attacking the Republican Gaurd they have declared "terrorists" (phenomenally stupid move, BTW) along the Iran/Iraq border, Russia will supply Iran with arms. Meanwhile, the oil market means that it would be stupid for China or India to go along with America in sanctioning Iran. Flat out stupid! Because they've got economies that are rising. They lose momentum now? They're back to the third world. Let's also not forget the Natural Gas pipeline between Iran, Pakistan, and India. While Pakistan is a definite stumbling block, right now, India is right there. Do you have any wonder why the Nuclear talks with the US have broken down in both Iran and India, with the US? No, it isn't the Communists, like your newspaper will tell you. It's because our policies are making us irrelevant!

A few years back, I was discussing with a friend (who's much more conservative than myself) about what it means that the US is losing a reputation in the world. He felt that the US power was so dominant that it didn't matter what the world thought of us. Well, here's my rebuttal, in the form of all these events! Now, I know my friend is far too stubborn to even recognize that (there's a reason why he's my friend: I like people with the courage of their convictions, and barring that, I like guys who are at least as stubborn and hard-headed as I am!) but I think it really plays out that way. We stupidly went on the Iraq misadventure, and shot our chance to effect real change in the Middle East, which means the engine of history will now chug along against us. We're increasingly becoming a stupid, lumbering giant. I don't see that changing if we elect Rudy "torture is a-ok, if it'll make me look good to the christian Coalition" Giuliani, Hillary 'I've never been wrong, and I wouldn't know how to be wrong" Clinton, or Barack "Hey, did you hear my flashy Speech?" Obama. In other words, it's not looking good for us. I'm not saying we're doomed, but I am saying we're lost, and going the wrong direction.

Meanwhile, people are finally catching up to the Ruts. It's ok. I am aware that you don't know what I mean. I'll explain: The Ruts were a somewhat Punk band of the late 1970's in England. They incorporated a lot of Reggae and Heavy Metal in their sound, however, so can't rightly just be called a "punk" band. Anyway, they had a song called "Dope for Guns" that was about how we, in the west, buy the dope, and they, in the third world (Middle East, Central Asia, Central Africa, Central America) buy the guns. Usually, it even breaks down exactly as that: Heroin for AK's, Cocaine for Glocks, Colts for Pot. So, why is anyone surprised that Mexican drug cartels are run on guns from the US? If you buy the hype, and believe that Mexican drugs are the fuel for the US criminal underground, then shouldn't it stand to reason that US guns are the tools for the Mexican criminal underground? (Me? I'm not so certain that it isn't the same fuel for both: they want money, and they don't have any moral qualms about how they get it.) As loose as Mexican authorities seem to be with drugs, that's how loose American authorities are with guns. So the only real surprise is that it took us so long (we're talking decades!) for us to officially catch up, and say "Hey? You mean that fine gentleman who by-passed the background check, because he bought 14 semi-automatic assault rifles at a gun show, and took advantage of the "personal collection" loophole is really a Mexican drug runner? Huh! Who'da thunk it? Well, he did have a thick accent, couldn't show any ID, and did pay us in unmarked bills...." It beggars belief, doesn't it? Unless, of course, you're going to be really cynical, and think that maybe we're only hearing about what everybody already knew because now, there's a half a billion dollar gambit being played by the White House, trying to meddle with the Mexican side of the border to make a certain "decider" look a little better than the lame duck that he is, after his incredibly idiotic border fence idea didn't pan out. I mean, it's not like there haven't been English punk rockers singing about it, whole genres of Mexican popular music about it (Narco Norteno) Hollywood Blockbusters about it (Traffic, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) or anything....

So, with Bhutto not getting so much as bullet-proof windows from the Government that supposedly cut a deal with her, and with the former leader of Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party , Aftab Sherpao, categorically rejecting offers of outside help in investigating the attack on her, and Chaudry Hussain, the leader of Musharraf's Pakistan Muslim League blaming Bhutto, herself, for engineering the attack, and the sniper attacks now understood to have happened under cover of the "suicide bomber", can anyone doubt that this was the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (Pakistan's equivalent to the US's CIA, or Russia's KGB)? Keep in mind, the ISI, under Bhutto, pretty much made the Taliban. Yes, that's right, I'm saying that Bhutto created the mess she's in, now. Only, it's not quite what you think. Bhutto knew that Afghanistan was a lawless neighbor. So, she allowed the ISI to create a group that would bring order to Afghanistan. Where she didn't think straight was that whatever order was created would have to be organic to the area. In playing Nation builder, she created a hydra that attacks her, even to this day, from within her "home". I don't think such a thing will happen to Bush, but I think there's a real reason why the US was assisting the talks between Bhutto and Musharraf. I think they recognized Bhutto as power-hungry even that she'd take the bait, which she did. She seems to have honestly thought that she could come in, and wrest control from Musharraf. She seems to have honestly believed that she was a bigger viper than him, and could poison his nest. Her reported popularity (partially true: in the Sindh province, she's a demi-god, remember?) would allow her to turn the tables on a "de-militarized" and still unpopular Musharraf, even if they both were violating Pakistan's constitution, in brokering the deal. (By the way, doesn't it tell you something about the state of affairs in Pakistan that the three most likely, Musharraf, Bhutto, and Sharif are all legally barred from the office they seek?) I'm sure that people like "Ms. Bush", oops, I mean, Condoleeza Rice, would be enamored with that kind of dreamer. It seems somewhat familiar to them, no? (Does no one remember the 2000, or 2004 elections?)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A really good Editorial about Iran

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:32:23 -0700

Can be found Here.

It's nothing i haven't been espousing with friends, but it's good to see I might very well be on the right track.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

cluster ____

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:32:11 -0700

See, this is what kind of mess we're in....

Musharraf has assumed command. Funny, but it's going just like I thought: the deal with Bhutto seems primarily to be a deal with the Taliban. Don't believe me? Read the reports: you've got troops being moved into Waziristan, but then, being ordered not to attack, meanwhile, Musharraf is talking about "negotiations" while the tribal leaders are saying "We'd like to negotiate, where's musharraf?" and key people (all non-Taliban, natch) are dying. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless Musharraf has a deal through Bhutto with the Taliban.

Strangely, you'll note that neither America nor India is complaining.

Meanwhile, you've got Turkey sorting out Sorties against Kurdistan, and the US congress declaring that Turkey's responsible for genocide....fifty years ago. Meanwhile, Iran is defending against Kurd attacks in Iran, and we're declaring the Republican Gaurd a terrorist organization.

Starting to see the deck of cards for what it is?

This might help: if we support the Kurds, we'll lose Iran, and Turkey. If we lose Turkey, we lose our main supply route in Iraq. if we lose Iran, we're set up for them to get into a war with both us, and Iraq. If that war happens, It's very likely it'll become a multi-national battle, stretching from Turkey to India. If we give up the Kurds, they'll be overtaken by the Turks and Persian, most likely to be oppressed and their resources taken. But, the southern part of Iraq will be peaceful, but Afghanistan to Pakistan might just turn on us.

In other words, we're looking at conflict any way we turn. This is why it's called a quagmire, folks.

The ONLY route I could see, from the beginning was to side with Moderate muslims, from the Students in Iran to Sharif in pakistan to the turks. This would still mean turning our heads to some truly obscene violations of human rights (the Kurds are pretty much screwed) but it might just keep us from destroying ourselves over there.

It just baffles me how anyone thinks we're going to get out of this with any less damage than that.....

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Frozen over

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:43:33 -0700

I normally don't agree with any columnist, let alone this one, but, I guess strange things happen. I agree whole heartedly with Maureen Dowd's column ffrom the NY Times, today:

Op-Ed Columnist

‘Fruitbat’ at Bat

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: September 26, 2007

We just can’t stop being nice to Iran.

First, we break Iraq and hand it over to the Shiites, putting in a puppet who leans toward Iran and is aligned with the Shiite militias bankrolled by Iran. Then, as Peter Galbraith writes in The New York Review of Books, President Bush facilitates “the takeover of a large part of the country by an Iranian-backed militia,” with the ironic twist that “there is now substantially more personal freedom in Iran than in Southern Iraq.”

And on top of all that, we help build up the self-serving doofus Iranian president, a frontman with a Ph.D. in traffic management, into the sort of larger-than-life demon that the real powers in Iran — the mullahs — can love.

New York’s hot blast of nastiness, jingoism and xenophobia toward its guest, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, only served to pump him up for his domestic audience. Iranians felt that their president had tied everyone in knots, including the “Zionist Jews,” as Iranian state television said. The Times reports that Mohsen Rezai, a former head of the Revolutionary Guards, was on TV criticizing the rude treatment his president received: “It is shocking that a country that claims to be civilized treats him that way.”

(It also raised his profile on the evening news here. Katie Couric dryly has told people that she remembers how to pronounce his name with the mnemonic “I’m a dinner jacket.”)

After the Bay of Pigs, J.F.K. and his advisers worried that American foreign policy would no longer seem intelligent. W. doesn’t even try for an intelligent foreign policy. He wallows in a willfully ignorant foreign policy. And this week, his irrational ways were contagious.

The Daily News headline, “The Evil Has Landed,” was one of the milder imprecations. Consider this reasoned analysis from Greg Gutfeld of Fox News: “So the foul-smelling fruitbat Ahmadinejad spoke at that crack house known as Columbia University today.”

The heavy-handed, small-minded reaction that played into the hands of the slippery “I’m a dinner jacket” is not excused by Iran wishing the U.S. and Israel gone.

The Soviet Union’s stated policy for 70 years was the total eradication of American capitalism and democracy — backed up during the cold war with actual nuclear weapons. But while challenging the policies and ideology of the Evil Empire, Ronald Reagan understood he had to engage Mikhail Gorbachev, not ignore or insult him.

Reagan was able to help the Soviet Union — and world communism — to fall apart. All W. has managed to do is destroy the country he wanted to turn into a democracy and make Iran more powerful than it was before.

In a sad testimony to how bollixed up things are in Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations Monday that civil war has been averted in Iraq — not! — and that Iranian intervention has “ceased to exist.” Gen. David Petraeus recently said that Iran was providing “lethal” support to Iraqi militias.

The president’s irrelevant U.N. speech was a bad combo with the schoolyard name-calling of Lee Bollinger. Even some in the anti-Ahmadinejad audience gasped a bit as Columbia’s president gave the meanest introduction in the history of introductions — one that only managed to elevate the creep sitting on stage with his thugs. Once you’ve made the decision to invite a tyrannical leader, you can’t undo it by belittling him in public. Universities are supposed to be places where you can debate and hear dissenting voices; it would have been far better just to hand the mike to the students and let it rip.

Given the repressive and confused stance of some of our Middle East allies on women and gays, isn’t it insane to get into a war of ideas on homosexuality in the Muslim world?

President Bush is the one who hardened the Iranian resolve to get a nuclear weapon with his policy of negotiating with countries like North Korea that have nukes and invading countries that don’t, like Iraq.

W. and his advisers always act shocked that Iran is meddling in Iraq. Why wouldn’t Iran inflate itself at the expense of its former foe and current enemy?

Even after the Iranian hostage crisis, America never really tried to comprehend the tribal politics in Iran — or Iraq — or bolster the Arab speakers in the intelligence community.

As Mr. Galbraith wrote, Iran’s nuclear program is about prestige. Iranians want to be seen “as a populous, powerful, and responsible country that is heir to a great empire and home to a 2,500-year-old civilization. In Iranian eyes, the U.S. has behaved in a way that continually diminishes their country” — from U.S. involvement in the 1953 coup that reinstated the Shah to W.’s branding them as part of the “axis of evil.”

Wouldn’t sticks and carrots — cultural fluency, smart psychology and Reaganesque dialogue — be a better way to bring the Iranians around than sticks and stones?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

In Case anybody's wondering

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:54:38 -0700

You take one glance at my photo, and you can tell, I'm not Pakistani. So, if anybody has been reading my posts, they might wonder why I'm so concerned with Pakistan. I could give really good geopolitical reasons, but that wouldn't be the truth. Here's the truth:

I lived for a few years in Bahrain, in the persian gulf. I got to see up close and personal how things are in the middle east. My heart just bled for the Pakistani people. I mean, on the one hand, the Indians looked down upon them because they were muslim. Islamic Arabs used pakistanis as slaves, and looked down upon them because of that. Europeans, when they wanted to insult somebody from the middle east, would call that person a "Paki". I mean, think about it: when your nationality is an insult, you're pretty low on the pecking order.

Then, I learned about about what kind of a political football Pakistan has been, and how corrupt their leadership has been, and how desperately poor they are. You know how Animal Rights type of people feel about wearing fur? Well, that's how I feel about "persian rugs". Some of them are still made in Pakistan by 7 year olds literally chained to looms.

So, even though I know I'd never been seen as an equal in Pakistani society, I have always kept them in my heart. As mawkish as it sounds, that's really why I care about the place.

But, you want a geopolitical reason? How about the 7 billion dollar proposed natural gas pipeline from Iran to India, through Pakistan? Think about it. How would that change the international dynamic? Liquid state natural gas powering northern India, Pakistan, and Southeastern Iran. That's why you'll note that India sides with Iran. It all dovetails together: a stable, and modern Iran, Pakistan and India would be a pretty powerful alliance, don't you think? They want it to happen, more than you know. So, if any piece of that puzzle falls out, the remaining bits are going to be pretty put out.

Given what percentage of our technical jobs are in India, you've got another good reason for the US to support a stable alliance between the three. I believe the only real reason why Bush and company want a war with Iran is because of how much that would disrupt what they've done for energy production in Iraq,. If there was a major pipeline there, economically, they'd out-class Saudi, and it'd become obvious we put our cart behind the wrong horse.

Call me stupid, and soft-headed, but I truly believe that it's our moral, and economic interest to promote and support a stable, and modern Iran, Pakistan and India.

It's either that, or start trusting the Chinese with everything....

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I'm intrigued by your views, and wish to subscribe to your Newsletter

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:22:57 -0700

Mohamed Elbaradei. Interesting guy. I don't know whether I quite understand him or not. But he does seem to have a plan with Iran.

All I know is we should have listened to him back in 2002. Maybe now's a good time to start.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

And while we're on that part o' the world

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:28:58 -0700

You might have heard about the skirmishes in Iran and Iraq, with both sides saying it was the other? Well, what that was concerned the Kurds. The Kurds, as an ethnic group, spill over into Iran, and Syria, and Turkey. They, of course, would like to see a united Kurdistan, but, quite frankly, that's unlikely. Again, this is the wisdom in siding with Iran: it might be possible to negotiate some kind of peaceful settlement for the Kurds. If we don't side with Iran, the rest of Iraq will not care about the Kurds, and they'll probably get annexed by either Iran or Turkey, only to face the same kind of subjugation they faced under Saddam. I don't believe Gul is a strong enough leader in Turkey to go against Iraq, Iran and Syria to take the kurds under his none-too-protective wing. Iran, if left to their own devices, wouldn't be much better. But, Iran, if a deal was offered, might be willing and Able to recognize an Independant Kurdistan. They could keep the Turks and Syrians out of it.

But, again, what would I know? I'm not a general.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Not quite Far East

nobody@vox.com(Maxvan) — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:02:12 -0700

I probably could write four books on the Middle East. Not only did I live there for a few years, I studied the history of it for two years in college. Maybe that's why I've got a different perspective than most Americans on the topic.

For example, I have friends that think that Obama's statements concerning Pakistan were a good thing, because, gosh darn it, Pakistan is harboring Bin Laden, and we should go to the ends of the earth to hunt down that 6'5" monstrosity.

I believe that's not only an incredibly naive position, it also shows some ineptitude. I knew, when Obama made those statements that Musharraf was in talks with Benazir Bhutto. If I knew, then I fail to understand how Obama couldn't know. If you have a short memory, follow the link. I especially want you to notice her role in connection to both the Bush administration, and the Taliban. Now that those talks have held forth some fruit, with the supposition that Bhutto is in some sort of alliance with Musharraf, it's even more clear that tough talk with Musharraf is blowing smoke, at best, and cutting off our nose to spite our face, more likely. I'm not saying he's our friend. I'm saying that, if he goes, we get a much worse enemy, in that Bhutto, radcliffe education or not, clearly is power-mad, and willing to align with our enemies, while re-assuring us that she's not. Furthermore, there's the question of the balance of power between India, and Pakistan. If we were to bomb Pakistan, as Obama indicated that he'd be willing to do, most likely India would attempt to take command of their century-old rival. This would not sit well with virtually anybody, and would practically assure World War 3 by 2010. The simple fact is that, like him or not, we need Musharraf. He's the closest we're going to get to a reliable ally in Pakistan. Certainly, he's not going too strongly after Bin Laden, but if he did, he'd be deposed within a fortnight, with his own officers leading the charge, and we'd have a whole new taliban, or a whole new Saddam in place of him. Either quite literally, a taliban-influenced government would take hold, or Bhutto would turn into a similar creature to Saddam Hussein.

Then, we have Iran. Could we be following a more impractical path? i don't think so.

First let me get two elephants out of the room; First, the religious question: Yes, the Imams have waaay too much power, there. Iran is a theocratic state. However, it's a semi-theocracy, with a strong secular undercurrent, especially amoungst the nascent middle class 20-30 year olds. Shi'ia may include people like Khomeni (who was the 'big bad Muslim" before Bin Laden got the job) but it also includes people like Rumi (Sufism derives from the Shi'ia, not the Sunni). So, with help from the US, Iran could be a moderate religious state.

The second elephant is the nuclear question. Quite frankly, yes, they are enriching uranium. But nowhere near to weapons-grade. The UN just released another set of findings earlier this week that said as much. So, why is Bush beating that drum? The same reason he was pushing "WMDs" about Iraq. He thinks it will invoke enough fear that America will support any action he takes against Iran. So, why are they enriching uranium? Because they're actually decently educated and know, better than we seem to, that the end of Oil is coming, and they have no desire to become Flint, Michegan, after GM left. They don't want to go back to the stone age. So, nuclear power really is a smart move for them.

So, Did they train "insurgents" in Iraq? You bet they did. Well before we got there. Y'see, there was this little matter of a total war they were waging against Saddam. Quick, anybody, do you remember what the Iran-Iraq war was about? Yes, that's right, Jane, it was about trying to overthrow Saddam and his Sunni Ba'athist party due to their oppression of Shi'ia in Iraq.So, of course Iran trained Shi'ia in Iraq in guerilla tactics against the Sunni in Iraq. Evidently, the folks who planned our little fiasco over there never heard the maxim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". If we could get beyond the notion that Islam=Evil, we might notice that Iran would make one heck of a friend.

Yes, a Shi'ite state in Iran and Iraq would means some oppression of the Sunni. But, it would also go a very long way towards a stable middle east. And if the US were on the side of Iran, we'd probably have a lot less troops needed to fight the war on "terror". It'd be in Iran's best interest to get rid of Wahhabists and their armed friends in the Network (yes, that means Bin Laden, too)

Again, with US Support, there's decent evidence to suggest that a stronger Iran would probably end up being a more moderate state. Heck, they'd probably be more moderate than Saudi Arabia.

They probably wouldn't ever be too fond of Israel, and our misguided support of Israel, even in light of all the abuses and atrocities that Israel has created against the Palestinians is probably the biggest reason why something like what i'm outlining hasn't happened.

Now, again, this is just a brief little glimpse into a few of my thoughts concerning the middle east, but you gotta admit, it's a completely different take than what you'll get on the evening news.

I'm not saying that I'm totally right, and they're totally wrong. But my version is backed up by a little bit more than phantom studies, and wishful thinking.

Attacking Pakistan, attacking Iran, and continuing to try to go it alone in Iraq? That's worse than wishful thinking: that's a good way to kill thousands upon thousands of US soldiers for a result that's less stable, and more hostile than anything we have,now.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend